Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 138373	2014-11-20 19:37:00	Global Warming.........	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1388402	2014-11-20 19:37:00	Better up the emissions tax! :lol: Story HERE (www.nzherald.co.nz)	B.M. (505)
1388403	2014-11-20 20:39:00	Ah, but 'they' will respond by claiming you should be prepared for greater temperature extremes. They always have an answer! Better up the emissions tax! :lol: Story HERE (www.nzherald.co.nz)	bonzo29 (2348)
1388404	2014-11-20 21:29:00	Isolated examples of extreme weather are not evidence for or against climate change, you have to look at overall world temperatures over time. The statistics show pretty tiny changes to my eyes and I'm not sure our instruments are really accurate enough but apparently even a single degree change over a decade is potentially significant. I'm not sure I buy into the whole thing or believe in our ability to have more than a minor impact overall. I don't think anyone truly believes taxes of any kind help the environment but politicians feel the need to be seen doing something and gathering more money seems to be their default answer. A gradual change to cleaner more sustainable practices seems to be happening and it's a good thing whether it affects the climate or not, but if humanity as a whole really cared about much outside ourselves we would stop gearing our whole society around growth and start dropping the population down to a sustainable level. I don't think every square inch of the planet being dedicated to human use is a goal that we should strive for but if the population continues to grow that's where we are headed.	dugimodo (138)
1388405	2014-11-20 23:44:00	Better up the emissions tax! :lol: Story HERE (www.nzherald.co.nz) yourlogicalfallacyis.com Besides, I think if you actually looked at what scientists are saying, you'll find that 'climate change', rather than 'global warming', is correct. It doesn't mean every location will get warmer; some will get warmer, some will get colder - although the overall trend does appear to be an increase in the average global temperature. B.M. - Please stop trying to use individual examples to disprove scientific theory. High school students could tell you it isn't a valid way of disproving a theory like this.	Nick G (16709)
1388406	2014-11-21 00:00:00	. . . . Please stop trying to use individual examples to disprove scientific theory . High school students could tell you it isn't a valid way of disproving a theory like this . OSH cling strongly, even desperately, to this practice . Parliament's law making monkeys have very little else . Super City administrators have nothing else . (High school students tell us many things . The chaff outweighs the wheat a myriad-fold, as always . )	R2x1 (4628)
1388407	2014-11-21 03:28:00	yourlogicalfallacyis.com Besides, I think if you actually looked at what scientists are saying, you'll find that 'climate change', rather than 'global warming', is correct. It doesn't mean every location will get warmer; some will get warmer, some will get colder - although the overall trend does appear to be an increase in the average global temperature. B.M. - Please stop trying to use individual examples to disprove scientific theory. High school students could tell you it isn't a valid way of disproving a theory like this. Well, for a start, there are any number of scientists who don’t believe the planet is doing anything noteworthy at all climate wise. And given quite recently there have been many examples of extreme cold, rather than heat, including icebreakers stuck in Antarctica, the subject Snow Storm can hardly be called an isolated incidence. I acknowledge that Global Warming has been renamed Climate Change, but that was only because some scientists got caught fudging the figures which was a pretty clear indication of a complete con job. :lol:	B.M. (505)
1388408	2014-11-21 03:33:00	Isolated examples of extreme weather are not evidence for or against climate change, you have to look at overall world temperatures over time . . Absolutely . The earth goes through periods of warming and cooling . One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago . Another “warm age” is a period geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred about 56 million years ago . Between 600 and 800 million years ago—a period of time geologists call the Neoproterozoic—evidence suggests the Earth underwent an ice age so cold that ice sheets not only capped the polar latitudes, but may have extended all the way to sea level near the equator . Another stretch of Earth history that scientists count among the planet’s warmest occurred about 55-56 million years ago . The episode is known as the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) . Stretching from about 66-34 million years ago, the Paleocene and Eocene were the first geologic epochs following the end of the Mesozoic Era . (The Mesozoic—the age of dinosaurs—was itself an era punctuated by "hothouse" conditions . ) Geologists and paleontologists think that during much of the Paleocene and early Eocene, the poles were free of ice caps, and palm trees and crocodiles lived above the Arctic Circle . The transition between the two epochs around 56 million years ago was marked by a rapid spike in global temperature .	pctek (84)
1388409	2014-11-21 03:50:00	Well, for a start, there are any number of scientists who don’t believe the planet is doing anything noteworthy at all climate wise. And given quite recently there have been many examples of extreme cold, rather than heat, including icebreakers stuck in Antarctica, the subject Snow Storm can hardly be called an isolated incidence. I acknowledge that Global Warming has been renamed Climate Change, but that was only because some scientists got caught fudging the figures which was a pretty clear indication of a complete con job. :lol: Well, of course some scientists will disagree - very, very few subjects ever get 100% consensus. (Are you able to provide some examples of climate change denying scientists? I'd be curious to read their thoughts on it). en.wikipedia.org But, the scientific bodies appear to be in consensus, along with most scientists. If Global Warming has been renamed, that's not due to scientists fudging the figures on a con job, but rather people who appear unable to understand what a general trend is - like you - using isolated examples to 'disprove' the theory. The con job is from the deniers who spout their drivel without understanding the topic they're talking about! :lol: (The argument of how much of climate change is due to natural cycles, and how much is due to humans affecting it, possibly making the cycle more extreme, is different one :))	Nick G (16709)
1388410	2014-11-21 07:00:00	Are you able to provide some examples of climate change denying scientists? I'd be curious to read their thoughts on it . . wikipedia . org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change" target="_blank">en . wikipedia . org But, the scientific bodies appear to be in consensus, along with most scientists . If Global Warming has been renamed, that's not due to scientists fudging the figures on a con job, but rather people who appear unable to understand what a general trend is - like you - using isolated examples to 'disprove' the theory . Dealing with a greenie who has been indoctrinated by this nonsense is problematical at best, but you may find THIS ( . cfact . org/issues/climate-change/climate-change-truth-file/" target="_blank">www . cfact . org) site interesting . However, let’s address some of the points you make . 1: Scientific Bodies and the Scientists do not appear to have a consensus, anything but . However, the “Green Religion” has thrown its weight behind the proposition that there is Global Warming and with the help of the Media has screwed the whole argument so that the ignorant are happy to go along . 2: Global Warming was changed to Climate Change after THIS ( . youtube . com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc" target="_blank">www . youtube . com), enjoy . :lol:	B.M. (505)
1388411	2014-11-21 09:47:00	Dealing with a greenie who has been indoctrinated by this nonsense is problematical at best, but you may find THIS (www.cfact.org) site interesting. However, let’s address some of the points you make. 1: Scientific Bodies and the Scientists do not appear to have a consensus, anything but. However, the “Green Religion” has thrown its weight behind the proposition that there is Global Warming and with the help of the Media has screwed the whole argument so that the ignorant are happy to go along. 2: Global Warming was changed to Climate Change after THIS (www.youtube.com), enjoy. :lol: Dear me, resorting to personal insults? I can play along. You're an idiot who believes faithfully in science when it tells you what you want to hear, yet believes he is smarter than scientists when they say something he doesn't like. Still, I checked out that website. You might want to check out this - yourlogicalfallacyis.com Remember, we're dealing with long term trends here - comparing individual years as the site you linked to did isn't especially useful. Also, it fails the provide quality references for the claims it makes. As to that video, I'd like to think we can have a sensible debate without resorting to rubbish like that, but apparently not. As to what climategate actually involved, check this out -en.wikipedia.org You'll notice it contains references to back up its statements, it's something credible sources usually do ;)	Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7