Unless everybody buys into this "crisis" it won't matter a jot.....and it ain't going to happen globally on a big enough scale, no matter what thunderpants and her disciples preach to many people like their gadgets etc now and they won't want to go back to the "dinosaur" age of my childhood
Exactly it's about doing what is practicable and possible but, in my opinion, it requires us all to do what we can.
To add a bit of reason and common sense to this debate with actual real world examples of the nonsense spouted. Energy prices in Europe are going up because the wholesale price of gas is up. Why is it up? Because of a shortage of supply accentuated by an exceptionally cold winter. Team Greta have still said that it is one of the warmest years on record. It's also because we're not allowed to use coal without paying a punitive carbon tax but the models will still spew the same crap as always. I implore those who have been brainwashed into the doom brigate just to clear their head of all the **** they've been fed and think logically about it. They've been telling you for decades that sea levels will rise and our cities will flood but there is absolutely no evidence of it. Just as a real world example the Thames Barrier is raised no more now than when it opened in 1982. They told us in 1990 that the temperature would rise 1 degree by 2025, it's 2022 and we've only seen just over 1 degree since 1850. They predicted drought and floods, to cover all the bases, but neither have increased anywhere. And to put the icing on the cake, the temperature on Mars has increased at least 1 degree with no CO2 or man made intervention. A scientist justified this by sands blowing - because that doesn't happen on earth. It's now a doctrine like a religion because people just believe blindly what they're told.
This part probably confused the brainwashed, I implore those who have been brainwashed into the doom brigate just to clear their head of all the **** they've been fed and think logically about it. I'm sure they will be happy when we can't heat our homes and pay even more tax, due to the myth of CO2 and the end is nigh.
Now, now Este remind me who is being brainwashed? https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/ Before you say "but mine is NASA!" The actual claim has been refuted but if you had done any of your own research you wouldn't even have brought it up. The studies that gave birth to it have been rubbished. How many times do I have to ask you to do your own research. That doesn't mean grabbing a headline, it means finding where they actually got that 97% from. You're a lost cause though, you're too brainwashed to take your fingers out of your ears.
Eric, I have never denied the earth is warming, these things go in cycles, last ice age etc. Are humans contribuing, of course. Is it all caused by CO2, No Is it all caused by fossil fuels, No I am sick to death of tree hugging westerners telling the world what to do. Don't cut down your trees, yup the west already did. Go to work on a bicycle, fine if you don't have to drop the kids off at school, fill your car with tools for your job etc. Remember the days when a family would 'go for a drive out on a sunday'? **** that stay at home put on 7 jumpers because you can't afford to pay the heating bill, because the bastards keep on taxing it. And feel guilty for putting on the heating in the kids room. One ****ed up world.
Blono, you personalise this far too much. If you have information fine provide a link as you have done. One PhD in East Anglia rubbishing the assertion that most scientists agree that climate change is happening. He could be right but I don't think so.
I'm going to save you researching it. This is the Abstract from the actual Cook et al report: Abstract We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research. 66.4% expressed no position on AGW. 32.6% agreed that the planet was warming and man was a contributing factor. That is as far as the analysis went. There were no degrees of warming, they didn't ask if it was catastrophic. They just asked simply, does this paper support the consensus. That is not even close to 97%. It is a load of bollux but you should really already know that. I'm not giving you denier ****. This is the actual report.
It is very frustrating though. You post that my post is inaccurate. I ask you which parts and you don't answer, you just post something else. Tell me what you disagree with in my original post and then tell me how they got the 97%. Please. I apologize
You quote the 2013 paper a subsequent 2016 paper indicated Abstract The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N=2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non- experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non- endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Most of what you originally posted, sea level, temperature change etc we have discussed ad nauseam. Gas prices have gone up, yes due to demand, the UK doesn't burn much coal as you only have two stations and these are due to be decommissioned this year. Those appeared to be the only new bits of info I think.
Sorry but what difference does that make? Is the planet warming? Is man a factor? It's not about whether, it's about how much. Over 60% of the papers in the report expressed no opinion so Where do they get the 97% from? Not from those papers that were specially selected as noted in the abstract because more than half expressed no position. Lies, damn lies and statistics
And you say it's wrong even though I've asked you to post a picture of measurable sea level rise but you haven't. I've disputed the temperature claims because they're all adjusted and a worldwide temperature is a ridiculous notion. I would say think about it but you won't. I've said many times, which is why I get so frustrated, that your mind is made up so it's pointless going over the same ground over and over again. You've been brainwashed, you just don't believe it. If you think it's easier to be a "denier" just type climate change into Google. You won't get any dissenting views
I managed to find the paper you referenced and because I question everything I clicked a link within it to another paper https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001 This is why you have to dig
