Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 142516	2016-07-15 06:32:00	Breaking News	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1423146	2016-07-17 22:08:00	Pollution is quite another and should be addressed sensibly. Far more people have died of disease caused by pollution than rising sea levels, given that no one has died of rising sea levels unless they somehow succumb to the normal rising tide. ;) carefull now :) the no of deaths caused by air pollution is another one of these areas where 'researchers ' just pull numbers out of thin air. University study(NZ) a few years back gave xx amount of deaths caused by air pollution (I cant remember the no, but it was significant) - the actual number was zero, and the 'researcher' even admitted that when challenged. So, its all to easy to find 'studies' and research to backup whatever you believe. Much of the funding is biased towards the warming alarmists Im all for a bit of warming. It makes the winters warmer, and will make alot of land in colder countries more productive .	1101 (13337)
1423147	2016-07-17 22:14:00	"Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D." "2000 years of global temps" excuse me. Im pretty sure no one was measuring & recording global temps 2000 years ago. or 4000 years ago Just how long have we had accurate thermometers anyway (accurate within .5C) just more nonsense	1101 (13337)
1423148	2016-07-18 03:16:00	I'm neither convinced nor implored to believe that there WAS a 2500 BC either as I was neither there nor were any of my sentient relatives. That their sentience is in question is since they are all hatched on a hot rock like my doting mom told me anyway.	SurferJoe46 (51)
1423149	2016-07-18 03:40:00	Yes, and the Bubonic Plague, caused by pollution and squalor, with rats helping out, tidied up more than any rising sea levels or CO2 levels are ever likely to. HERE (www.historytoday.com) Yet again the statistics are open to interpretation, but can you imagine today’s media reporting on such an event. So, I say again, by all means address wanton pollution, but don’t confuse it with the tripe from the Global Warming Alarmists. However, whilst on the subject we all know that the Greens want to plant more forests and reduce CO2 levels. Well, the forests and all plant life relies on CO2 to live and the more they have the better they grow, hence greenhouses throughout the world having CO2 generators. Interesting read HERE (www.naturalnews.com _growth.html) So here we have the “Green Loopy’s” thinking that they will plant lots of trees and then starve them to death. :rolleyes: I can think of places where humans have lots of children but are unable to feed them either.	B.M. (505)
1423150	2016-07-18 05:02:00	Reductio ad absurdum is no argument. But then what else can we expect from the likes of bm.	KarameaDave (15222)
1423151	2016-07-18 09:01:00	Like most people, those who deny man-made climate change sometimes travel by air. They have faith in the science behind air travel. Then why don't they believe scientists when they say man is implicated in climate change? Surely it's a bit ignorant to cherry-pick the science you want to hear?	BBCmicro (15761)
1423152	2016-07-18 11:40:00	Like most people, those who deny man-made climate change sometimes travel by air. They have faith in the science behind air travel. Then why don't they believe scientists when they say man is implicated in climate change? Surely it's a bit ignorant to cherry-pick the science you want to hear? A massive, massive, massive +1. It's also important to note that on any subject, there are usually hundreds, if not thousands, of studies done. They don't all return the same result. On almost all scientific positions, some studies have reached differing results to the eventual scientific consensus. That's primarily because you're using sampling to make inferences about a population, and there is always an element of statistical error associated with such a procedure. However, that doesn't make the eventual scientific consensus any less valid. Nor, as B.M. is so keen on doing, should it be used to discredit the overall scientific consensus - especially not when it's from an unreliable source.	Nick G (16709)
1423153	2016-07-18 20:29:00	Surely it's a bit ignorant to cherry-pick the science you want to hear? :lol: Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle Black. Nobody has Cherry Picked science more than the Climate Scientists. Remember Climategate? Remember THIS (www.telegraph.co.uk)? Also, remember that the IPCC was formed in 1988 and in the ensuing 28 years have managed to prove nothing. And now of course some of them are predicting an Ice Age. I don’t know how they’ve got the cheek to call it a science when it relies on fudging your findings. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1 2