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
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
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).
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.
On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 1:51:14 PM UTC, Bill Wright wrote:
I think there is an element of the following with climate change (using an
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
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).
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.