Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Here is your favourite YouTube person Tony Heller to explain.
https://youtu.be/Z5GfWY0xZSE
It should be easy to disprove the things that are being discussed if your science is not junk.
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Here is your favourite YouTube person Tony Heller to explain.
https://youtu.be/Z5GfWY0xZSE
It should be easy to disprove the things that are being discussed if your science is not junk.
I’ve never said anything about the science , merely suggested that maybe there are alternative ways to approaching the problems of climate change, ways that may engage people rather than alienate them.
That’s all I’ve said but you’re objecting because I’m not toeing the line.
Cliffe60 said:
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Here is your favourite YouTube person Tony Heller to explain.
https://youtu.be/Z5GfWY0xZSE
It should be easy to disprove the things that are being discussed if your science is not junk.
I’ve never said anything about the science , merely suggested that maybe there are alternative ways to approaching the problems of climate change, ways that may engage people rather than alienate them.
That’s all I’ve said but you’re objecting because I’m not toeing the line.
ìf you look at the posts above it was Gadgetmac who said he wasn't interested, I support a different way of looking at the perceived problem.PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
Cliffe60 said:
Gadgetmac said:
A 2-3 degree increase is but one scenario but even that brings with it all of the downsides mentioned. Lets not also forget that the 2-3 degree increase is a global average increase, there will be larger regional swings within that. The temperature in the Arctic is rising twice as fast as anywhere else and sea levels are rising.
If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Sadly things get done in this world, often in orders of magnitude greater than before, when 1. Theres money to be made, or 2. There’s a war.If it were as easy to solve as a little bit of gene editing here and a touch of better water storage there I'm sure it would have been done and hey-presto, problem solved.
Of course it's orders of magnitude short of being that simple which is why we are where we are.
Money can be made through wind factories and EVs due to massive government subsidies at the moment , so that’s where the scientific and industrial muscle is applied.
Here is your favourite YouTube person Tony Heller to explain.
https://youtu.be/Z5GfWY0xZSE
It should be easy to disprove the things that are being discussed if your science is not junk.
Somebody who's constantly being booted off YouTube for spreading disinformation and outright lies...hope you've signed up to his rumble channel because even he thinks it's just a matter of time before he's kicked into the naughty zone by YouTube
He's made more retractions than some climate scientists have published papers.
Anyway, here's where you can follow this fool when he is eventually booted off MSM
https://rumble.com/user/tonyheller or NewTube channel https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller
Crack on.
Gadgetmac said:
You say 'Junk Science' and then post a link to an Electrical Engineer's YouTube video.
Somebody who's constantly being booted off YouTube for spreading disinformation and outright lies...hope you've signed up to his rumble channel because even he thinks it's just a matter of time before he's kicked into the naughty zone by YouTube
He's made more retractions than some climate scientists have published papers.
Anyway, here's where you can follow this fool when he is eventually booted off MSM
https://rumble.com/user/tonyheller? or NewTube channel https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller?
Crack on.
So the historical claims of climate scientists are irrelevant ? The fact that they keep repeating the same old scare stories without any result is acceptable to you ?Somebody who's constantly being booted off YouTube for spreading disinformation and outright lies...hope you've signed up to his rumble channel because even he thinks it's just a matter of time before he's kicked into the naughty zone by YouTube
He's made more retractions than some climate scientists have published papers.
Anyway, here's where you can follow this fool when he is eventually booted off MSM
https://rumble.com/user/tonyheller? or NewTube channel https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller?
Crack on.
You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
.....Trope.....
If your understanding of the English language is a bit dodgy, how are we supposed to have confidence in your understanding of the science, old bean? 
Miriam Webster....
Definition of trope (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : FIGURE OF SPEECH
b : a common or overused theme or device : CLICHÉ
the usual horror movie tropes
If your comprehension skills aren’t up to scratch there’s always night school.
PS....might be an idea to avoid American dictionaries, they can be a touch delinquent in their understanding of our fine language.
Oh, and, if you must use one, take care, they might be offended if you spell their name incorrectly.
Just wondering, is there a bunker in which can I hide before he takes a swipe at me again?
PRTVR said:
Gadgetmac said:
You say 'Junk Science' and then post a link to an Electrical Engineer's YouTube video.
Somebody who's constantly being booted off YouTube for spreading disinformation and outright lies...hope you've signed up to his rumble channel because even he thinks it's just a matter of time before he's kicked into the naughty zone by YouTube
He's made more retractions than some climate scientists have published papers.
Anyway, here's where you can follow this fool when he is eventually booted off MSM
https://rumble.com/user/tonyheller? or NewTube channel https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller?
Crack on.
So the historical claims of climate scientists are irrelevant ? The fact that they keep repeating the same old scare stories without any result is acceptable to you ?Somebody who's constantly being booted off YouTube for spreading disinformation and outright lies...hope you've signed up to his rumble channel because even he thinks it's just a matter of time before he's kicked into the naughty zone by YouTube
He's made more retractions than some climate scientists have published papers.
Anyway, here's where you can follow this fool when he is eventually booted off MSM
https://rumble.com/user/tonyheller? or NewTube channel https://newtube.app/user/TonyHeller?
Crack on.
You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
.....Trope.....
If your understanding of the English language is a bit dodgy, how are we supposed to have confidence in your understanding of the science, old bean? Miriam Webster....
Definition of trope (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a word or expression used in a figurative sense : FIGURE OF SPEECH
b : a common or overused theme or device : CLICHÉ
the usual horror movie tropes
If your comprehension skills aren’t up to scratch there’s always night school.
PS....might be an idea to avoid American dictionaries, they can be a touch delinquent in their understanding of our fine language.
Oh, and, if you must use one, take care, they might be offended if you spell their name incorrectly.
Just wondering, is there a bunker in which can I hide before he takes a swipe at me again?
The cliche was that it was all due to the cash on offer.
Don’t you ever get embarrassed by all of this?
PRTVR said:
So the historical claims of climate scientists are irrelevant ? The fact that they keep repeating the same old scare stories without any result is acceptable to you ?
You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
The “result” is all around you. Temps are rising, sea levels are rising, arctic ice is retreating, Glaciers are retreating etc etc etc.You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
Talking of which, here’s a peer reviewed paper published in Nature just yesterday...
Satellites show world's glaciers melting faster than ever
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-satellites-world-gla...
I dare say Tony Heller hasn’t got round to it yet due to it being actual science.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
So the historical claims of climate scientists are irrelevant ? The fact that they keep repeating the same old scare stories without any result is acceptable to you ?
You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
The “result” is all around you. Temps are rising, sea levels are rising, arctic ice is retreating, Glaciers are retreating etc etc etc.You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
Talking of which, here’s a peer reviewed paper published in Nature just yesterday...
Satellites show world's glaciers melting faster than ever
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-satellites-world-gla...
I dare say Tony Heller hasn’t got round to it yet due to it being actual science.
Satellites show world's glaciers melting faster than ever
That‘s pretty funny.
Gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
So the historical claims of climate scientists are irrelevant ? The fact that they keep repeating the same old scare stories without any result is acceptable to you ?
You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
The “result” is all around you. Temps are rising, sea levels are rising, arctic ice is retreating, Glaciers are retreating etc etc etc.You approve of the cancel culture that is active in the MSM ?
Talking of which, here’s a peer reviewed paper published in Nature just yesterday...
Satellites show world's glaciers melting faster than ever
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-satellites-world-gla...
I dare say Tony Heller hasn’t got round to it yet due to it being actual science.
interestingly they are going for a global picture, probably because individual glaciers aren't playing ball.
I really am impressed how you keep the faith when the science you believe in keeps failing.
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Get a grip. 
From that report:
The annual melt rate from 2015 to 2019 is 78 billion more tons (71 billion metric tons) a year than it was from 2000 to 2004. Global thinning rates, different than volume of water lost, doubled in the last 20 years and "that's enormous," said Romain Hugonnet, a glaciologist at ETH Zurich and the University of Toulouse in France who led the study.
Half the world's glacial loss is coming from the United States and Canada.
Alaska's melt rates are "among the highest on the planet," with the Columbia glacier retreating about 115 feet (35 meters) a year, Hugonnet said.
Almost all the world's glaciers are melting, even ones in Tibet that used to be stable, the study found. Except for a few in Iceland and Scandinavia that are fed by increased precipitation, the melt rates are accelerating around the world.
I think you also need to read the rest of that link you’ve posted
Please post up a peer reviewed paper to support your post but be quick, I have a limited lifespan.
From that report:
The annual melt rate from 2015 to 2019 is 78 billion more tons (71 billion metric tons) a year than it was from 2000 to 2004. Global thinning rates, different than volume of water lost, doubled in the last 20 years and "that's enormous," said Romain Hugonnet, a glaciologist at ETH Zurich and the University of Toulouse in France who led the study.
Half the world's glacial loss is coming from the United States and Canada.
Alaska's melt rates are "among the highest on the planet," with the Columbia glacier retreating about 115 feet (35 meters) a year, Hugonnet said.
Almost all the world's glaciers are melting, even ones in Tibet that used to be stable, the study found. Except for a few in Iceland and Scandinavia that are fed by increased precipitation, the melt rates are accelerating around the world.
I think you also need to read the rest of that link you’ve posted
Please post up a peer reviewed paper to support your post but be quick, I have a limited lifespan.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 29th April 18:58
PRTVR said:
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Because of course they haven't retreated ?https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Gary C said:
PRTVR said:
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Because of course they haven't retreated ?https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
mybrainhurts said:
Gary C said:
PRTVR said:
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Because of course they haven't retreated ?https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
The accepted process for glaciers coming out of an ice age is to retreat, this process will accelerate with the reduction in ice exposing more ground to heating, its normal, what the scientists predicted did not materialise.
mybrainhurts said:
Gary C said:
PRTVR said:
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Because of course they haven't retreated ?https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Here, I’ll help you...
"The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle." The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.
Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 29th April 20:35
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gary C said:
PRTVR said:
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Because of course they haven't retreated ?https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Here, I’ll help you...
"The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle." The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.
mybrainhurts said:
Gadgetmac said:
mybrainhurts said:
Gary C said:
PRTVR said:
The scientists predicted glaciers in a American national park would disappear by 2020, even had a sign made,
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Because of course they haven't retreated ?https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-nat...
As I said junk science.
Here, I’ll help you...
"The glaciers have been here for 7,000 years and will be gone in decades. This is not part of the natural cycle." The melting of these structures is "all atmospherically driven," he added.
No need to thank me, you’re welcome.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff