Winr turbines and solar panels, for all those cold, still winter's nights.
Wild fires in BC Canada.
- Thread starter Lefley
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Tris
What am I doing here?
We can always import som nice green biomass from Canada for those times, if they haven't burned it all yet
Time to put some of those small Rolls Royce nuclears reactors in all those out of the way places....Cornwall perhaps?
Bring it on.
Of course you are absolutely right Jacob, now you have been persistent in telling me you are right and have shown me a Guardian article I am convinced....
Now, if we were to unpick the article you have posted we identify the following:
The Guardian state as fact that 'The heat is the result of the continuing high levels of carbon dioxide emissions' . We presume that they mean man made emissions of course, but offer no evidence to back up such a claim, as of course it is not possible to prove that mans CO2 emissions did result in the higher temperatures in July, August and September.
The article then mentions El Nino 'the planet’s biggest natural climate phenomenon' but fails to mention that 'The intensity of El Niño events varies from weak temperature increases (about 4–5° F) with only moderate local effects on weather and climate to very strong increases (14–18° F) associated with worldwide climatic changes.'. So El Nino ('the planet’s biggest natural climate phenomenon' by itself has the potential to increase temperatures by 10 degrees Celsius. Another naturally occurring environmental factor mentioned in the article is the volcanic eruption in Tonga and the impact of large amounts of water vapour being injected into the planets stratosphere which reflects heat back toward earth increasing surface temperatures. Additionally we are approaching the peak of the solar cycle.
It's important in my opinion to note that the Guardian states 'While human-caused global heating and El Niño are the biggest factors causing the record-breaking temperatures, other factors may be contributing small increases as well,' again stating as fact that humans arethe biggest causative factor to increased temperatures while offering no definitive evidence to support such a statement. At the same time as making this claim the article positions to gloss over El Nino and to minimise the role of naturally occurring factors.
As for their 45 climate scientists, I would like to know:
Where do these scientists receive their funding from, and should they voice a differing opinion would that funding be at risk?
How many of the 45 approached the the Guardian have ever put forward an opinion that steps out of line from the agreed 'humans are the main cause of climate change' narrative?
Can any of those 45 offer categorical certainty that should the human race produce zero carbon emissions that the temperatures recorded in July, August or September would never be repeated?
I do not believe that anyone of this thread who disagrees with your opinions, thinks that there are not temperature fluctuations on the surface of the earth, nor that the last few months have not been warmer than historic records. It is however, my opinion and possibly the opinion of several others on this thread, that there appears to be utter hysteria from one side of this debate whenever anyone voices a differing point of view.
I am perfectly aware that I will not effect your opinions on this subject, and can assure you that neither yourself or the Guardian will effect mine without balanced and unemotional consideration of every side of the debate.
Last edited:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
I agree and it seems to be entirely from your side! You need to be a little more self aware and try to drop that stupidly sarcastic tone of voice.
How do you deal with the evidence all now pointing to just one side of "the argument"?
Are saying that these things are not happening?
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/Are you going to drop a line to NASA and explain how wrong they are? Could be Nobel prize in it for you!
Last edited:
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
There are quite a few nutters about.
But it's not all the evidence is it Jacob. Go and look for a different opinion from a scientist that can provide you different evidence or interpret the information differently, you will find it if you cared to look.
What 'things'? Weather events? No, they're happening.
Whilst I have no idea what the link you have posted this reply to is, you're extraordinarily quick to label any dissenting voices as nutters, idiots, clowns and lairs, seemingly without pause for consideration of an differing opinion.
Are you a closeted fascist Jacob?
Nick, everyone whose opinions differ from Jacob's is a nutter. You must have noticed that by now.
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
It is no longer about opinion it is about evidence. How would you account for the current rapidly changing climate?
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
What attracts you to these nutters? They are in a tiny minority and haven't anything interesting to say.
Do you really think there is a worldwide conspiracy amongst 99% of worlds scientists to fabricate the whole thing?
How come what they forecast is now happening? Have they faked it somehow with massive fans blowing hot air all around the globe (no pun intended!)
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
Not my opinion, it's the view of virtually the whole of science and the intelligent world as a whole.
How come what they forecast is now happening?
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-y...ic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50https://www.realclearenergy.org/vid..._climate_predictions_proven_false_899219.html
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/50-y...ic-predictions-the-so-called-experts-are-0-50https://www.realclearenergy.org/vid..._climate_predictions_proven_false_899219.html
Jacob
New Luddism. Awake and resist!
If you keep looking for nutters there are plenty of them about!Why not have a look at the science instead? It is explained very carefully all over the place. Start here: Causes of climate change
Climate is not weather. The climate is measured over decades (about 3 of them), not months or years.
You, and those who share your point of view appear to insist on referring to weather events as evidence of a 'rapidly changing climate'. You're perfectly entitled to believe that hot months are due solely to mans use of fossil fuels, I do not.
Precisely - it's the view. Many of these people have well paid jobs that depend upon those views.
- Status
