This is an unofficial Bulletin Board - owned and run by its users. We welcome all fans of the Mighty Collingwood Football Club.
Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
stui magpie wrote:People doing the modelling for how the climate might change due to increased CO2 come up with varying outcomes which is not surprising as many seem to only be looking at the past 100 years when they should be looking at the past few million, look at the patterns and try to plug their data into that
Whoops! If only they’d thought of that.
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
stui magpie wrote:People doing the modelling for how the climate might change due to increased CO2 come up with varying outcomes which is not surprising as many seem to only be looking at the past 100 years when they should be looking at the past few million, look at the patterns and try to plug their data into that
Whoops! If only they’d thought of that.
Carbon dating is flawed, the science that is pushed on the public is nothing more than a guess.
It's a ridiculous push with an agenda that only those that push it will benefit from.
As per the title of the thread... it's not a matter of if, but when, it will be exposed as the snake oil of the 21st century.
stui magpie wrote:People doing the modelling for how the climate might change due to increased CO2 come up with varying outcomes which is not surprising as many seem to only be looking at the past 100 years when they should be looking at the past few million, look at the patterns and try to plug their data into that
Whoops! If only they’d thought of that.
You'd reckon one of them might have.
My shot earlier about research grants was simply that people doing research into stuff are usually academics with a grant, which is paid for by someone, or someone being paid by an employer.
No one is doing this stuff for free, and most of them operate on a limited scope which means they aren't looking at the whole picture, just the stuff within their individual area of expertise or research.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
In context, consider the reality of trying to get sufficient support for pursuing an hypothesis that may require years of work by teams of people and/or millions of dollars in funding. Or, simply trying to get published in a serious journal while competing against other hypotheses. In such cases any reasoned expectations need the full heft of current knowledge and findings behind them.
To be fair the ozone hole was caused by a single type of chemical so all we had to do was give up CFCs and find alternatives. I see that as what a genuine global emergency looks like and how Governments really act in that scenario. Problem found, solution found and implemented.
When the 'solution' is to tax people or destroy economies or redistribute wealth then I know what I'm being fed is a load of shit.
The article does prove that the environment is a complex system. CFC's had an impact and ceasing their use has helped, but the hole in the ozone layer is impacted by other things as well and fluctuates accordingly.
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down.
On the practical means by which the fossil fuel industry has been specifically propagating a strategy of misinformation about the likelihood for and potential effects of climate change for more than half a century, see the following:
It deals in a reasonably simple way with virtually everything that has been said in this thread in support of the assertion that there is a "climate change furphy".
