Robbing Isolated Farms Doesn't Seem To...
News1 min ago
Today Thousands Of School Children Across The World Go On A One Days Climate Change Strike.
229 Answers
https:/
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// If everyone followed the 'consensus', we'd believe the Sun went around a flat Earth. //
It's worth noting that the whole "flat Earth" theory is essentially a modern invention, and apart from a few fringe types it was never the consensus that the Earth was flat. That the Earth went around the Sun, yes -- but even then, the alternative hypothesis was around for a while before that. And the reason that for a while the geocentric model of the Solar System was more popular wasn't actually dogma, but evidence. Ptolemy did a great deal of work to show how to fit the data to that theory, and was largely successful, albeit with the need to introduce epicycles and ...
But anyway. That's not really the point you were trying to make. I recognise the risks inherent in being dogmatic, but in practice the scientific consensus is the scientific consensus for a very good evidence-based reason. Anthropogenic Climate Change models fit the data far better than you are giving it credit for, and have survived the scrutiny of far more rigorous challenges than anything this thread has been capable of offering. As long as that's the case, I will defend it -- with a certain amount of healthy scepticism as appropriate -- from the challenges of pseudoscientific non-experts who only give the appearance of knowing what they are talking about.
One experiment can prove me wrong. But only if that experiment is robust enough to survive the attack. No such experiment, and no other plausible theory, exists to explain the present observations.
It's worth noting that the whole "flat Earth" theory is essentially a modern invention, and apart from a few fringe types it was never the consensus that the Earth was flat. That the Earth went around the Sun, yes -- but even then, the alternative hypothesis was around for a while before that. And the reason that for a while the geocentric model of the Solar System was more popular wasn't actually dogma, but evidence. Ptolemy did a great deal of work to show how to fit the data to that theory, and was largely successful, albeit with the need to introduce epicycles and ...
But anyway. That's not really the point you were trying to make. I recognise the risks inherent in being dogmatic, but in practice the scientific consensus is the scientific consensus for a very good evidence-based reason. Anthropogenic Climate Change models fit the data far better than you are giving it credit for, and have survived the scrutiny of far more rigorous challenges than anything this thread has been capable of offering. As long as that's the case, I will defend it -- with a certain amount of healthy scepticism as appropriate -- from the challenges of pseudoscientific non-experts who only give the appearance of knowing what they are talking about.
One experiment can prove me wrong. But only if that experiment is robust enough to survive the attack. No such experiment, and no other plausible theory, exists to explain the present observations.
//But, to be blunt, they aren't nearly competent enough to pull such a conspiracy off.//
And that Jim, is the reason why it is failing. Now your homework for tonight is to prepare and give a comparison of the findings of the collected by CRUTEM and ICOADS SST studies. To save you a little time I will point out that the CRUTEM data is proven to be flawed by the well documented urban heat island effect and that the ICOADS data is from sensors mounted on ships and transmitted to satellite so much less liable to corrupt readings and falsification. I would also like you to consider why the sky int ifik car moo nity prefer to ignore and even hide data from one source and amplify the data from the other. Marks will be awarded for fervour and bad grammar and deducted for rational thought or a modicum of humour and humility.
You look like a star stew dent. (^_*)
And that Jim, is the reason why it is failing. Now your homework for tonight is to prepare and give a comparison of the findings of the collected by CRUTEM and ICOADS SST studies. To save you a little time I will point out that the CRUTEM data is proven to be flawed by the well documented urban heat island effect and that the ICOADS data is from sensors mounted on ships and transmitted to satellite so much less liable to corrupt readings and falsification. I would also like you to consider why the sky int ifik car moo nity prefer to ignore and even hide data from one source and amplify the data from the other. Marks will be awarded for fervour and bad grammar and deducted for rational thought or a modicum of humour and humility.
You look like a star stew dent. (^_*)
//What happened to the hole in the ozone layer. Ah, I know the answer to that one: it got smaller. //
Because climate scientists noticed the damage to the environment, found the cause (CFCs in the upper atmosphere) and politicians agreed to act by banning CFCs from aerosol sprays, air conditioning and other applications.
Proof that human-created damage to the environment can be reversed by concerted political action based on good scientific evidence.
Good point for confirming the value of scientific research and evidence-based political action.
Because climate scientists noticed the damage to the environment, found the cause (CFCs in the upper atmosphere) and politicians agreed to act by banning CFCs from aerosol sprays, air conditioning and other applications.
Proof that human-created damage to the environment can be reversed by concerted political action based on good scientific evidence.
Good point for confirming the value of scientific research and evidence-based political action.
Yep and Children Won’t Know what Snow Is....so they will imitate snowflakes.
Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 but they are still building luxury hidey holes for the wealthy, doom monger, billionaire tax sucklers.
Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy...
Haha what can you say. Eat up your green stones it will make your toes curl....................up.
Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide...
That is coming true , but they didn't forecast that the EUSSR would be causing it.
Off to bed
Maldive Islands will Be Underwater by 2018 but they are still building luxury hidey holes for the wealthy, doom monger, billionaire tax sucklers.
Famine In 10 Years If We Don’t Give Up Eating Fish, Meat, and Dairy...
Haha what can you say. Eat up your green stones it will make your toes curl....................up.
Overpopulation Will Spread Worldwide...
That is coming true , but they didn't forecast that the EUSSR would be causing it.
Off to bed
I suppose, along with the hole in the ozone layer, we should also add leaded petrol to the picture. Another example of scientists noticing -- entirely by accident, I might add -- that atmospheric lead levels were spiking, that this spike entirely coincided with the introduction of lead to petrol, and eventually overcoming pressure from the petrol lobby to remove it from petrol, leading to a subsequent massive decline in poisonous lead in the air.
Contrary to the impression Togo and Spicey among others might give, paying attention to what scientists have to say is more often than not beneficial. Like all humans, they get it wrong sometimes, but people whose literal day job is trying to understand the world are more likely to be worth taking seriously than people who seem determined instead to drag us back to the 1900s.
Contrary to the impression Togo and Spicey among others might give, paying attention to what scientists have to say is more often than not beneficial. Like all humans, they get it wrong sometimes, but people whose literal day job is trying to understand the world are more likely to be worth taking seriously than people who seem determined instead to drag us back to the 1900s.
Little bit of "Togo" data for you. Most non grant funded scientists are in general consensus that we are in fact heading for a long cooling cycle due to the Solar minimum period. We are going to need all the greenhouse gas that we can produce. Now who "funds" the glow bull scientists? Why the very people who are closing the fossil fuel plants and secretly buying up the assets and shares on the cheap. The mug punter is even financing it for them and getting school kids onto the streets and dressing it up as a bit of practice for being grown up, therby corrupting the children of the World.
What awards? Midgley got none for inventing leaded petrol. And, again, there was *no* consensus that it was safe. It was an industry scam, largely ignored because it also undeniably solved the problem of engine knock or whatever. But scientists worldwide didn't somehow think that lead ethyl was the elixir of life before a rude awakening.
I know the point you are trying to make. But it's based on historical revisionism, and belongs in the same dustbin as v-e's failed attempt to suggest that the ozone layer was somehow another myth.
I know the point you are trying to make. But it's based on historical revisionism, and belongs in the same dustbin as v-e's failed attempt to suggest that the ozone layer was somehow another myth.
Midgley did receive a few medals, I hasten to add, but it's still completely false to suggest that somehow the consensus was that leaded petrol was safe. There was no evidence to support that, none at all -- and indeed it was already known that lead was poisonous. CFCs are different, and presumably rank alongside thalidomide as an embarrassing failure; but in both cases that's because there was too little evidence coupled with bad industry practice.
If you are going to use CFCs against science then you are drawing the wrong lessons entirely. The fossil fuel industry is now perpetuating the same attempt to cover up the truth about man-made climate change -- and, thankfully, has largely failed.
If you are going to use CFCs against science then you are drawing the wrong lessons entirely. The fossil fuel industry is now perpetuating the same attempt to cover up the truth about man-made climate change -- and, thankfully, has largely failed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.