Pretty well written to be fair, but you forgot to hit the space bar after comparison. Sort it out bruv, our kids future are relying on this all being accurate Anyway, I think most us dumbnuts have been around this place nigh on 10 years. Isn't it another 10 before all this shhite is supposed to kick-in. I reckon we need an The End is Nigh thread, so we can all debate who was right and who was wrong in a decade time?.......No, oh ok
A climate scientist has challenged a Tufton Street think tank to a $10,000 bet. Do you reckon they'll put their money where their mouth is?
This is entirely wrong. I've already quoted the evidence from one climate scientist saying the proof is definitive and I could quote several of the most respected climate scientists all saying the same every day. Eg Definitive proof is that there remains no plausible alternative. Not only do you need to prove an alternative theory, you also have to come up with verifiable evidence to show our current understanding is wrong. We can and have said why the earth went through prior changes. We have also been able to verify and test or theories on other planets based on their energy balance.
The bit in bold you've made that up to try to win an unwinnable argument and competely destroyed any argument you may or may not have had. Not that you had one in the first place, as I can probably find a guy on twitter with graphs and evidence that probably proves the complete opposite.
You could definitely find a guy on Twitter, with graphs. That’s the ****ing problem here - any random loon on Twitter with access to graph producing software gets a hearing from the international idiot community.
To be fair though Ern is coming out with a counter argument which is what I would like to see but he's just getting all angry about it and not saying where his info is coming from. Loads of credible people saying that is real and Man made.
It's evident the debate over climate change is a heated one. Are skeptics clouding the public judgment for money? Are climate-change believers merely alarmists who risk the present for the future? It's wise to remember that for each argument one side makes, the other has a counterargument and can dismiss the other every step of the way. I posted that from an article I was reading but the counterarguments are not really convincing me and come across as angry and with an agenda.
The way I see it is that there is overwhelming evidence that global warming is real and caused by humans, what we can't be certain about it's how this affects the planet in the future. Making changes is sensible as it may have an affect whereas doing nothing may well turn into catastrophe.
People are mostly gullible mugs mate. Listen to the peer group verified research and conclusions of the international scientific community, or believe whatever load of old bollocks the Fossil fuel industry's apologists are peddling? Tough one...
Incorrect again,. The guys i'm quoting from Twitter are highly respected climate scientists with multiple peer reviewed papers. They are not some random Joe, they are verified accounts. Look them up https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Schmidt https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Hawkins_(climatologist) So my challenge to you is to find a climate scientist that confirms your claim. As for the bit in bold. Scientists like Lovelock spent much of the 1960s designing instruments that measure the atmosphere of other planets. By comparing this chemical composition and density with the energy a planet reflected we have been able to confirm the effects of these gases on the energy balance. It's how we use the kepler telescope to inform us about extraterrestrial planets and this information has now been verified hundreds of times. Put simply, we know CO2, methane and water vapour cause warming, we know sulphur and fine particulate cools. We know the recent changes in our atmosphere are driven by human activity and the warming of the planet matches what is expected. How about you do a course to fully understand it rather than continue trying to outguess me https://www.edx.org/course/climate-change-the-science-and-global-impact It's designed by this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann
The argument from the scientific community is virtually unanimous. The tiny percentage who peddle the opposite view can virtually all be connected to the fossil fuel industry. Sisu used to post reams of stuff from these people and I’d enjoy researching them and providing their usually not hard to find, fossil fuel links. What’s the worst that can happen? We move to a low carbon position and vastly reduce our reliance on the planets finite fossil fuel resources by replacing them with renewables. Where’s the downside, even if the science is somehow shown to be wrong in the future? As at worst, we’ll have vastly improved air quality in our cities which is responsible for shortening life on its own. The arguments against, make little sense on any level.
The way I see it is...you don’t need evidence. I’ve seen enough in my life to decide for myself that something fishy going on with the environment.
