[quote="IQS.RLOW"] 17 years of no warming says that CAGW from CO2 is debunked. /quote]
Who said, where said? 17 years of no warming.
Global Warming
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
-
Rorschach
- Posts: 14801
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm
Re: Global Warming
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD
-
DaS Energy
Re: Global Warming
Fair question!DaS Energy wrote:IQS.RLOW wrote: 17 years of no warming says that CAGW from CO2 is debunked. /quote]
Who said, where said? 17 years of no warming.
-
Rorschach
- Posts: 14801
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm
Re: Global Warming
yet only an idiot would be ignorant of it.
or
Dumb as Shit....
or
Dumb as Shit....
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD
-
Super Nova
- Posts: 11793
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: Global Warming
You deniers are just extremists in denial. It is time to make some decisions as I have been arguing for.
If I was to listen to anyone that has the authority to be listened to, it would be the members of the Royal Society.
Climate change: we've put off the difficult decisions for too long
The debate isn't whether global warming exists - it's what we do about it.
By Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society
10:00AM GMT 17 Mar 2014
Climate change is rarely too far from the headlines, whether it is in connection with the ongoing debate about how we meet our energy needs or discussion of the prevailing weather – the latter being one of our defining national pastimes.
But the headlines do not always represent an accurate picture of what we know about climate science, instead focusing more on those who either want to ignore the evidence and carry on as we are, or those who predict extreme catastrophe.
Fortunately, in the UK we generally take science seriously. The latest polling data released by the government shows that a large majority of people in the UK realise that climate scientists have shown that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide – released in the burning of fossil fuels – trap heat in our atmosphere and warm the earth.
People understand that recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are largely caused by human activities and that while we do not have all the answers, the risks associated with some of the changes are substantial. The majority of people also recognise that the benefits of taking action to tackle climate change outweigh the risks. These attitudes are reflected by the leaders of our main political parties and by our businesses – the position of the Confederation of British Industry is a good example.
There are, however, still people who might be confused about the scientific evidence or some aspects of it. They may not fully understand that changes in the global climate could have wide-reaching impacts across the planet that we need either to try to prevent or to prepare for. The importance of these issues means that societies across the world have to develop sensible policy decisions about climate change – and that means starting with the highest quality advice about climate science.
That is why two of the world’s premier science academies, the National Academy of Sciences in the US and the Royal Society in the UK, recently got together to produce a balanced and accessible account of the science of climate change.
Authored by some of the most eminent climate scientists in the world and independently reviewed by other scientists, this authoritative guide explains the evidence for those that have questions about what we know about climate change and what remains uncertain.
There are other, more fringe opinions of course – both among extreme sceptics and catastrophists, often columnists and organisations with a particular political or ideological agenda. However, these have failed to produce the evidence to convince the majority of climate scientists, and are not a reliable guide for the development of sensible public policy.
The evidence is becoming increasingly clear. However, not every question has yet been answered or every detail defined – for example, there are debates concerning the models used to predict the exact extent of global warming.
The guide looks at the recently hotly debated link between climate change and extreme weather and explains that the not so simple truth is that, at present, we cannot say that a specific weather event, including the recent storms and flooding in the UK, is the direct result of climate change – but based on what we do know about climate science, we would expect such extreme events to become more frequent on a global scale. It’s a bit like smoking and lung cancer – we know that smoking increases the risk, but we cannot generally say that a particular person got their cancer through smoking.
So what is to be done now? The debate needs to move on and be more about what we are going to do next. For this there is still an important role for science. We need to keep looking at the scientific evidence about what is happening to the climate now and predictions for the future – but science and engineering also have key roles in the possible solutions. What are the alternatives to fossil fuels, and how viable are wind, tidal, solar and nuclear options? How can we protect ourselves against potential impacts such as rising sea levels and more extreme weather events?
But the debate needs to go beyond science. Economics, politics, and a range of other issues must be considered as well. There are those who say taking any action to decarbonise the economy would cripple our businesses. Yet the Confederation of British Industry disagrees. It estimates that in 2011/12, the green economy represented around 8 per cent of GDP and accounted for over a third of economic growth. The Government has also just announced new funding for carbon capture and storage trials. If UK scientists and engineers were to crack this, the rewards would be substantial. The technology and expertise could be exported to everywhere that is currently generating power from burning fossil fuels. The Chinese market alone (which already buys 7 per cent of UK green exports) would be massive.
Energy security is another factor that we need to take into account. Not many people would argue that it is better for the UK to be heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels from unstable regions, rather than finding new sustainable energy sources of our own. Fracking for shale gas may help in the short term, but cannot be a long term solution. The ever shifting dynamics of geopolitics make over-reliance on others for our energy a precarious position – just look at Ukraine and its reliance on Russian gas.
We also need to use energy more efficiently so we get more out of what we have. Our scientists and engineers can help present and implement the options, and our economists will need to objectively assess the costs. The public and our policy-makers need sound independent assessments, rather than a shouting match between competing lobby groups. We also need to think about how fragile economies in the developing world can be helped to diversify their energy needs away from carbon-inefficient fossil fuels without damaging their economic growth or their efforts to improve living standards.
Another medical metaphor may be useful. If you went to your doctor and he told you that you had a serious medical condition, for most people the conversation would quickly move on to what could be done about it. The debate on climate needs to move to the “what can we do about it” stage. It is time we ignored the extremist fringe unless they can back up their views with convincing scientific evidence and argument.
Perhaps we have listened too much to the sceptical extremists because it allowed us to put off dealing with the difficult questions and what should be done about them. But most of us, including our political leaders and businesses, know the reality of where we are and that it is now time to move on to doing more about it.
The solutions might lead to changes that require investment in the short term, and we need a well informed debate to be able to make the best decisions. But if we do get them right, they will help humanity around the world and could well pay off handsomely for the UK in the future.
Sir Paul Nurse is president of the Royal Society
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -long.html
If I was to listen to anyone that has the authority to be listened to, it would be the members of the Royal Society.
Climate change: we've put off the difficult decisions for too long
The debate isn't whether global warming exists - it's what we do about it.
By Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society
10:00AM GMT 17 Mar 2014
Climate change is rarely too far from the headlines, whether it is in connection with the ongoing debate about how we meet our energy needs or discussion of the prevailing weather – the latter being one of our defining national pastimes.
But the headlines do not always represent an accurate picture of what we know about climate science, instead focusing more on those who either want to ignore the evidence and carry on as we are, or those who predict extreme catastrophe.
Fortunately, in the UK we generally take science seriously. The latest polling data released by the government shows that a large majority of people in the UK realise that climate scientists have shown that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide – released in the burning of fossil fuels – trap heat in our atmosphere and warm the earth.
People understand that recent increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are largely caused by human activities and that while we do not have all the answers, the risks associated with some of the changes are substantial. The majority of people also recognise that the benefits of taking action to tackle climate change outweigh the risks. These attitudes are reflected by the leaders of our main political parties and by our businesses – the position of the Confederation of British Industry is a good example.
There are, however, still people who might be confused about the scientific evidence or some aspects of it. They may not fully understand that changes in the global climate could have wide-reaching impacts across the planet that we need either to try to prevent or to prepare for. The importance of these issues means that societies across the world have to develop sensible policy decisions about climate change – and that means starting with the highest quality advice about climate science.
That is why two of the world’s premier science academies, the National Academy of Sciences in the US and the Royal Society in the UK, recently got together to produce a balanced and accessible account of the science of climate change.
Authored by some of the most eminent climate scientists in the world and independently reviewed by other scientists, this authoritative guide explains the evidence for those that have questions about what we know about climate change and what remains uncertain.
There are other, more fringe opinions of course – both among extreme sceptics and catastrophists, often columnists and organisations with a particular political or ideological agenda. However, these have failed to produce the evidence to convince the majority of climate scientists, and are not a reliable guide for the development of sensible public policy.
The evidence is becoming increasingly clear. However, not every question has yet been answered or every detail defined – for example, there are debates concerning the models used to predict the exact extent of global warming.
The guide looks at the recently hotly debated link between climate change and extreme weather and explains that the not so simple truth is that, at present, we cannot say that a specific weather event, including the recent storms and flooding in the UK, is the direct result of climate change – but based on what we do know about climate science, we would expect such extreme events to become more frequent on a global scale. It’s a bit like smoking and lung cancer – we know that smoking increases the risk, but we cannot generally say that a particular person got their cancer through smoking.
So what is to be done now? The debate needs to move on and be more about what we are going to do next. For this there is still an important role for science. We need to keep looking at the scientific evidence about what is happening to the climate now and predictions for the future – but science and engineering also have key roles in the possible solutions. What are the alternatives to fossil fuels, and how viable are wind, tidal, solar and nuclear options? How can we protect ourselves against potential impacts such as rising sea levels and more extreme weather events?
But the debate needs to go beyond science. Economics, politics, and a range of other issues must be considered as well. There are those who say taking any action to decarbonise the economy would cripple our businesses. Yet the Confederation of British Industry disagrees. It estimates that in 2011/12, the green economy represented around 8 per cent of GDP and accounted for over a third of economic growth. The Government has also just announced new funding for carbon capture and storage trials. If UK scientists and engineers were to crack this, the rewards would be substantial. The technology and expertise could be exported to everywhere that is currently generating power from burning fossil fuels. The Chinese market alone (which already buys 7 per cent of UK green exports) would be massive.
Energy security is another factor that we need to take into account. Not many people would argue that it is better for the UK to be heavily reliant on imported fossil fuels from unstable regions, rather than finding new sustainable energy sources of our own. Fracking for shale gas may help in the short term, but cannot be a long term solution. The ever shifting dynamics of geopolitics make over-reliance on others for our energy a precarious position – just look at Ukraine and its reliance on Russian gas.
We also need to use energy more efficiently so we get more out of what we have. Our scientists and engineers can help present and implement the options, and our economists will need to objectively assess the costs. The public and our policy-makers need sound independent assessments, rather than a shouting match between competing lobby groups. We also need to think about how fragile economies in the developing world can be helped to diversify their energy needs away from carbon-inefficient fossil fuels without damaging their economic growth or their efforts to improve living standards.
Another medical metaphor may be useful. If you went to your doctor and he told you that you had a serious medical condition, for most people the conversation would quickly move on to what could be done about it. The debate on climate needs to move to the “what can we do about it” stage. It is time we ignored the extremist fringe unless they can back up their views with convincing scientific evidence and argument.
Perhaps we have listened too much to the sceptical extremists because it allowed us to put off dealing with the difficult questions and what should be done about them. But most of us, including our political leaders and businesses, know the reality of where we are and that it is now time to move on to doing more about it.
The solutions might lead to changes that require investment in the short term, and we need a well informed debate to be able to make the best decisions. But if we do get them right, they will help humanity around the world and could well pay off handsomely for the UK in the future.
Sir Paul Nurse is president of the Royal Society
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/enviro ... -long.html
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
-
IQS.RLOW
- Posts: 19345
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
- Location: Quote Aussie: nigger
Re: Global Warming
I see you still haven't done anything about your own lifestyle choices and need the government to hold your hand?
Your spam posts of confirmation bias only prove you are becoming unhinged. Maybe it is the the bedwetting or handwringing. Fear has the way of making people act and think irrationally, like you are doing.
It's like going to a doctor and him saying I think you might have a deadly disease but I'm not sure. It might not be really deadly, it may even be good for you. I think I have a cure for the disease that I'm not sure you have and may not kill you, but the cure will definitely leave you a quadriplegic. Take two of these and call me when you lose the use of your limbs and control of your bowels...oh I see you already suffer from that problem.
Your spam posts of confirmation bias only prove you are becoming unhinged. Maybe it is the the bedwetting or handwringing. Fear has the way of making people act and think irrationally, like you are doing.
It's like going to a doctor and him saying I think you might have a deadly disease but I'm not sure. It might not be really deadly, it may even be good for you. I think I have a cure for the disease that I'm not sure you have and may not kill you, but the cure will definitely leave you a quadriplegic. Take two of these and call me when you lose the use of your limbs and control of your bowels...oh I see you already suffer from that problem.
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia
-
Super Nova
- Posts: 11793
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: Global Warming
Not true.IQS.RLOW wrote:I see you still haven't done anything about your own lifestyle choices and need the government to hold your hand?
I now take public transport and drive very infrequently.
I recycle these days. Never used to.
I fly only because I have to.
In the last 4 years I have not flown to go on holidays.
I do not use gas in the flat.
Your irrational denial of pure logic is telling.IQS.RLOW wrote:Your spam posts of confirmation bias only prove you are becoming unhinged. Maybe it is the the bedwetting or handwringing. Fear has the way of making people act and think irrationally, like you are doing.
Poor analogy.... Mr I'm in DenialIQS.RLOW wrote:It's like going to a doctor and him saying I think you might have a deadly disease but I'm not sure. It might not be really deadly, it may even be good for you. I think I have a cure for the disease that I'm not sure you have and may not kill you, but the cure will definitely leave you a quadriplegic. Take two of these and call me when you lose the use of your limbs and control of your bowels...oh I see you already suffer from that problem.
It's like going to a doctor and him saying I know I don't have a deadly disease because in the last 15 years I have not seen any of the forecasted major symptoms even though I have been consuming a deadly poison the whole time. it may even be good for me. I do not plan to change my consumption of the poison and will rely on hope as my mitigation strategy. If I do have the disease that I'm not sure I have and may not kill me, I will just ignore it. I see that you offer a solution that requires me to take some simple action like, stop taking the poison and a course of drugs to remove the poison from my body. Due to the natural healing power of the earthly body, over time I will regain full health and have a body that will sustain my brain to follow a full and national life span. I refuse to take your advise because i refuse to accept the poison is having any effect because my determination and ill effects have not progressed to your short term projections. I deny there is a problem.
10 years later.
Doctor: The effects of the poison on your body have now manifested themselves. I don't know why there was a delay, I expect your body had a place to store the poison and when they filled up, it started to move fully through your body. It is now too late to take the approach I suggested all those years ago. Now we will have to remove your legs and hope they grow back over time. We can build some artificial limbs for you however your quality of life is now diminished forever.
Patient: Fuck, I wish I wasn't in denial all those years ago and had listened and taken action earlier.
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
-
IQS.RLOW
- Posts: 19345
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
- Location: Quote Aussie: nigger
Re: Global Warming
The net cost of waiting instead of panicking as you wish to do is less than 0.6% of world GNP.
So I suggest you will have to wait until you can prove your case.
Too bad, so sad. No more expensive warm fuzziness at everyone else's expense for you. You'll have to find something else to satisfy your need for panic.
So I suggest you will have to wait until you can prove your case.
Too bad, so sad. No more expensive warm fuzziness at everyone else's expense for you. You'll have to find something else to satisfy your need for panic.
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia
-
IQS.RLOW
- Posts: 19345
- Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:15 pm
- Location: Quote Aussie: nigger
Re: Global Warming
In the mean time, you can send me 10% of your annual income and I will off set your carbon intensive lifestyle considering you aren't prepared to go further than your pathetic token effort. You'll still be spineless, but you'll be ethically spineless.
Quote by Aussie: I was a long term dead beat, wife abusing, drunk, black Muslim, on the dole for decades prison escapee having been convicted of paedophilia
-
Rorschach
- Posts: 14801
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 5:25 pm
Re: Global Warming
Well I'm no denier SN but you my friend seem now to be a lost cause... so I shall cease trying to inform you otherwise.
My opinion has always been the science isn't settled... and it is not.
That there is a political agenda... and there is.
That man and CO2 as much as they do influence the environment are not the main driver of warming and climate change... and so far it hasn't been proven that they are.
That the current events are not outside the natural range... and they are not.
But... that if man is to survive natural climate change as has occurred in the past the last Ice Age for example, man must prepare and adapt.
My opinion has always been the science isn't settled... and it is not.
That there is a political agenda... and there is.
That man and CO2 as much as they do influence the environment are not the main driver of warming and climate change... and so far it hasn't been proven that they are.
That the current events are not outside the natural range... and they are not.
But... that if man is to survive natural climate change as has occurred in the past the last Ice Age for example, man must prepare and adapt.
DOLT - A person who is stupid and entirely tedious at the same time, like bwian. Oblivious to their own mental incapacity. On IGNORE - Warrior, mellie, Nom De Plume, FLEKTARD
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests