Jump to content

Climate Change


KB1
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

So, he has a track record of being wrong

Well according to the website stated, yes. 

They fail to mention that nearly every single pro global warming scientist from the early 2000s was also wrong about the rate of warming too, but that just bias for you. 

Go back to the early Al gore days and look at the predicted sea level rises and temperature increases, then come back and tell me how climate change is such a precise science.

An inconvenient truth? 

Edited by Rewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if nothing else, he is right about it being a pseudoscience. There is not one single piece of proper verifiable, repeatable, peer reviewed science that can show categorically that CO2 is responsible for climate change. I'd bet my socks that 95% of the "climate scientists" don't even know how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere or by how much it's changed over the last 70 years.

It's all guesswork and subjective assumptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to worry, the sun will run out of hydrogen in about 5 billion years but before that it will fry all life and boil the oceans dry in around 1 to 1.5 billion years.

Time to get a move on finding a new home. :yes: To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old'un said:

Not to worry, the sun will run out of hydrogen in about 5 billion years but before that it will fry all life and boil the oceans dry in around 1 to 1.5 billion years.

Time to get a move on finding a new home.  To Boldly Go Where No Man Has Gone Before.

 

I thought the Milkyway collision with Andromeda was predicted to beat the sun to it.

For me the focus on climate change should not be about establishing / apportioning blame it should be about whether or not there is anything we can do about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

I thought the Milkyway collision with Andromeda was predicted to beat the sun to it.

For me the focus on climate change should not be about establishing / apportioning blame it should be about whether or not there is anything we can do about it.

No, that’s about 4.5 billion years away so it will not upset my shooting plans before the Earth fry's in 1 to 1.5 billion years from now. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Well according to the website stated, yes. 

They fail to mention that nearly every single pro global warming scientist from the early 2000s was also wrong about the rate of warming too, but that just bias for you. 

Go back to the early Al gore days and look at the predicted sea level rises and temperature increases, then come back and tell me how climate change is such a precise science.

An inconvenient truth? 

Here you go. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming

Or can you link to different ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, old'un said:

So, do you think we will find another Earth like planet before then?

We wont need to. At the rate of change and with the development of AI we are more likely to advance to a cloud based rather than physical existence, way before then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Westward said:

Well, if nothing else, he is right about it being a pseudoscience. There is not one single piece of proper verifiable, repeatable, peer reviewed science that can show categorically that CO2 is responsible for climate change. I'd bet my socks that 95% of the "climate scientists" don't even know how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere or by how much it's changed over the last 70 years.

It's all guesswork and subjective assumptions.

Atmosphere containes about 400 parts per million ( 0.04%) it has gone up from 300 parts per million, in the ice age it's recond to have been 200 parts per million, the poisonous level is about 50,000 parts per million 5% also there is evidence that a rise in co2 follows global warming not causing it as taken from ice samples.

This is what I have gleaned from Google so take it as you please 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...