Its not scientists raising alarms though, its politicians and bureaucrats and the fake media.Do you accept the possibility that the scientists raising alarms are right?
Its not scientists raising alarms though, its politicians and bureaucrats and the fake media.Do you accept the possibility that the scientists raising alarms are right?
That's not the argument though. The argument is whether the CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere is the primary driver of catastrophic climate change.Anyone who thinks scientists haven't settled that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere doesn't lead to climate change is a fool.
But you did not answer the question.Its not scientists raising alarms though, its politicians and bureaucrats and the fake media.
Anything is possible. I think it is how probable what the scientists are warningDo you accept the possibility that the scientists raising alarms are right?
I don’t trust the politicians. Way too much misinformation out there. Hard to tell what is fact or not.Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, on the genocidal consequences of Net Zero:
“Now they’re going into agriculture and threatening to cut off the supply of food, because food is causing global warming… Only the billionaires will be able to afford to buy food, and now all the other people will die because there’s not enough food.
That’s what we’re heading for if we continue to listen to these people.” “They will cause a ruination the likes of which the Earth has never seen, because there are over eight billion of us, and four billion of us depend on nitrogen fertiliser, which they now say is bad, because it’s a greenhouse gas or whatever… It’s all completely phoney. And so is the campaign against CO2.”
full interview
Sensible Environmentalism—Patrick Moore | UKColumn
This is the great Patrick Moore,Greenpeace co-founder, Dr. Patrick Moore, on the genocidal consequences of Net Zero:
“Now they’re going into agriculture and threatening to cut off the supply of food, because food is causing global warming… Only the billionaires will be able to afford to buy food, and now all the other people will die because there’s not enough food.
That’s what we’re heading for if we continue to listen to these people.” “They will cause a ruination the likes of which the Earth has never seen, because there are over eight billion of us, and four billion of us depend on nitrogen fertiliser, which they now say is bad, because it’s a greenhouse gas or whatever… It’s all completely phoney. And so is the campaign against CO2.”
full interview
Sensible Environmentalism—Patrick Moore | UKColumn
This means you accept atmospheric CO2 is playing a role? Do you also accept that rapid change will have significant negative impacts on society?That's not the argument though. The argument is whether the CO2 that we are pumping into the atmosphere is the primary driver of catastrophic climate change.
Thanks genius.Southern Cone of South America, The Falkland Islands, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand and the rest of the Southern hempisphere are currently in Winter
The only thing unsettled is the specifics. It is absolutely settled that increasing CO2 is causing local climactic changes and an overall increase in global temperature. It is absolutely settled that human activity is a significant part of that CO2 increase. Scientists might still debate the exact mechanisms and still debate whether human impact is responsible for 50% , 75% , or 95% of the change but using that as an excuse to refute climate change is like saying our inability to mesh quantum physics with relativity refutes physics.The science is far from settled. Anyone who says this doesn't understand science or is an outright liar.
Thanks genius.
Now do you care to explain why think the Antarctic being colder than normal is significant but the large chunk of the world far above normal should be ignored?
The Stonecutters in league with Major League Baseball and the Egg Marketing Board all work for Justin Beiber, one does not question why the First Evil does what he does.Why would every scientist in the world fake temperature readings and the science, kirk?
Scientists weren't allowed to advocate, they were told to do science only.Its not scientists raising alarms though, its politicians and bureaucrats and the fake media.
Now you're admitting that CO2 levels are rising and have a new stupid pet theory that you think they haven't thought of before?control the climate ?
fossil fuel consumption was reduced in the 2008 recession & the 2020 lockdowns, yet no change in slope of the graph
1. have yet to hear a science based explanation for this.
2. why would reducing fossil fuel consumption in the future impact this trend, if it did not impact the trend in 2008 or 2020?
3. how much is nature? , a lot ,
4. how much is mankind? not very much if the slope does not change in 2008 or 2020
simple dy/ dx calculus
View attachment 249154
We are talking global events, not local heat waves.it's summer there were similar heat waves in the 1930s when C02 levels where lower
![]()
1936 North American heat wave - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The HISTORY Channel Nederland | HISTORY TV Nederland
Kom meer te weten over de tv-series van HISTORY. Hier kan je nog veel meer over jouw favoriete onderwerpen lezen en bekijken. HISTORY is alive.www.history.com
OK the if a anything is possible how do you rate the likelihood.Anything is possible. I think it is how probable what the scientists are warning
about is right that is more significant.
Scientists raising alarm about the detrimental impact of perpetual growth of fossil fuel
demand on earth's ecology is probably right and should not be dismissed. With or without
climate change economic activities driven by rising consumption of energy is polluting to the
environment and could eventually trigger some ecological crisis. Scientists raising alarms
about pending climate catastrophe may be right but no government in its right mind would
consider possibility of such catastrophe to transpire to be high enough to implement climate
policy of immediate cutback of fossil fuel usage like 50% within a few short years. Climate
scientists in my observation are happy people. I trust that they are not in anticipation of some
deadly climate crisis in the near future.
My assessment is the likelihood of the world facing theOK the if a anything is possible how do you rate the likelihood.
I won't answer a question that is factually incorrectBut you did not answer the question.