OT: climate propaganda

[Bill Wright]

The BBC tells lies.

1. No mention of the fact that the temp hasn't risen for 18 years.
2. The CO2 graph shows atmospheric CO2 rising consistently, in the period 1997 to 2015. If CO2 is the cause of global warming how come the temperatures haven't also risen in that period?
3. Much is made of the retreat of Arctic ice, but no mention that Antarctic ice is increasing, and that the increase is greater than the Arctic decrease.
4. Where 'projected temperature change' is shown, no mention of the fact that the greatest projected rises are in the Arctic, where they will be beneficial.

Bill

[NY]

Even if in places the temperature is gradually rising, has anyone actually proved a *causal* link with anything that humans have done? There may be well be correlation, but that doesn't necessarily imply cause (*). No one disputes that if we reduce the amount of carbon-based fuel and the number of methane-producing cattle we will make *some* reduction in the greenhouse effect, but will it be a measurable effect compared with natural cycles which are outside the control of humans?

"Every little helps" is OK, providing it's not causing more hardship to us in terms of changes to lifestyle than the benefit that it brings.

(*) Correlation may be by chance, or else changes in both factors may be caused by a third, as yet unknown factor. Or it may be a back-to-front cause - eg higher temperatures that occur naturally may change the behaviour of people (eg burning more fuel for air con, or travelling more on holiday) rather than the opposite way round (more fuel use causes global warming).

[johnjessop46]

Of course they're telling lies. Apart from the loss of face in admitting their skewed point of view was/is wrong they have high exposure to loss of revenues to their pension fund if the greentard scam collapses.

[Broadback]

It is not as though there wee not temperature increases before man started mucking an=bout. the temperatures were significantly higher in Roman times. I blame the gladiators!

[harry]

I see you're still in cloud cuckoo land eh Bill?

[Sid.]

It is never a reason, not to go to war

[Fredxxx]

Beats being with the fairies.

[Norman Rowing]

Another one who thinks that what comes out of a bomb stays where the bomb hits.

[The Natural Philosopher]

it is the underlying *assumption* of all 'climater science' that it is.

The reverse has been proveed, There is no causal link.

even the correlation has gone t*ts up in the last 15 years

Its all totally 'Bandar Log'* these days.

*'we all say it, so it must be true'.

[sm_jamieson]

I think there is an element of the following with climate change (using an analogy):

If there was 10% chance of the earth being destroyed by an incoming asteroi d, and it was totally preventable by spending x trillion pounds (enough to affect everyones standard of living an appreciable amount), would the money be spent ?

What if there was 30% chance of the earth being destroyed ?

Well, if there was 99% chance of the earth being destroyed, we might spend it !

If the probability of destruction was not due to events outside our control , but rather the uncertaintly of some models about how asteroids move, we'd probably argue about the models rather than doing anything !

Personally, I don't think the argument is proved either way on anthroplogic al global warming, but it is worrying that some of the "scientists" do not seem to possess an open mind which is required by the scientific process. A nd they should always show the "error bars" on the graphs.

Perhaps they get "religious" because they really think the apocalypse is co ming (you know, like propaganda to your own population in war time).

Simon.

[dennis]

1. No mention of the fact that the temp hasn't risen for 18 years.

You means useless analogies?

If it were over a short time period then yes, if it were over a million years then why bother.

We know the planet will be destroyed when the sun goes red giant. That is 100% certain so what do you propose?

We don't know much about asteroids but we continue to waste effort on climate change rather than spend effort on asteroids that are probably more dangerous and could destroy life on Earth which climate change is unlikely to do.

The whole thing is decided and they just need to inform the plebs. The plebs don't need to be shown any proof they don't matter.

[Bill Wright]

Can you provide an answer to the points raised? If not, shut it.

Bill

[whisky-dave]

because CO2 isn;t the cause it's many things methan being one of the main ones and polution which isn't mentioned.

No mention of how the poles flippering polarity will change things either.

why will they be benifical and to who ?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The earth won't be destroyed by climate change. But many many humans will.

But even if half the population of the entire world was destroyed by climate change there will still be plenty left denying it had happened.

[Richard]

If half the population were destroyed that would be a good thing.

[Bill Wright]

To agriculture. More CO2 itself is a good thing (hence the greening in many areas) and a higher temp in the colder regions will help plant growth.

Bill

[The Natural Philosopher]

As long as it was the half that believed in AGW

[Tim Streater]

I might agree that your sentence there is made up of English words in some sort of order but it has no meaning whatever. How about you try again.

[Ranger]

Even you should be able to do better than that pathetic effort.

Obviously not.

[Huge]

Well, at least that's a sentence. But it doesn't mean the same as the previous one, so we'll mark that up as another "Fail", shall we?