Climate Change

[Sheaf Saint]

He used to write for Breitbart.

Nuff said.

[scally]

35 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

He used to write for Breitbart.

Nuff said.

Lets see the whole video and the full context of what he was saying

 

[badgerx16]

13 minutes ago, scally said:

Lets see the whole video and the full context of what he was saying

 

It is estimated that if the sea level rises by 10 feet, it will take out the homes of over 12million people in the US alone. That's a lot of real estate to shift to suckers. This includes the bulk of NYC, New Orleans, and Miami. Now obviously sea defences, sea walls, and levees would help, but consider the increased impacts of Atlantic storm surges, or hurricanes along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Edited 26 April, 2021 by badgerx16

[aintforever]

15 minutes ago, scally said:

Lets see the whole video and the full context of what he was saying

 

If you think that’s educating anyone on climate change you have problems.

[scally]

Just now, aintforever said:

If you think that’s educating anyone on climate change you have problems.

Did I say it was?

[scally]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

It is estimated that if the sea level rises by 10 feet, it will take out the homes of over 12million people in the US alone. That's a lot of real estate to shift to suckers. This includes the bulk of NYC, New Orleans, and Miami. Now obviously sea defences, sea walls, and levees would help, but consider the increased impacts of Atlantic storm surges, or hurricanes along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Show me anything they've actually predicted and got it right

https://extinctionclock.org/

 

[aintforever]

1 minute ago, scally said:

Did I say it was?

What was your point in posting some idiot talking bollocks then?

[scally]

2 minutes ago, aintforever said:

What was your point in posting some idiot talking bollocks then?

Maybe you need to go read the thread

[aintforever]

6 minutes ago, scally said:

Maybe you need to go read the thread

“Climate change is not a problem because you can just sell your seaside home”.

Highly intelligent

[scally]

1 minute ago, aintforever said:

“Climate change is not a problem because you can just sell your seaside home”.

Highly intelligent

🥱

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, scally said:

Show me anything they've actually predicted and got it right

https://extinctionclock.org/

 

That's a selective list maintained by a known Climate Change denier. However, sea levels are rising and glaciers are receding, along with the Antarctic ice shelf, which are all proven facts. ( And clear evidence of the racism of US Police forces ).

Edited 26 April, 2021 by badgerx16

[Turkish]

4 hours ago, scally said:

You lost it right from the start, Ben Shapiro is highly intelligent, because you don't agree with what he says doesn't make him wrong or thick

You don’t know how it works on here mate. This is how it is. 
 

Agree with your opinion, great guy, really intelligent, knows what he’s talking about. Different opinion to yours. Thick, idiot probably a bigot and a trump supporter, shouldn’t be allowed any air time. 

[scally]

1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

That's a selective list maintained by a known Climate Change denier. However, sea levels are rising and glaciers are receding, along with the Antarctic ice shelf, which are all proven facts. ( And clear evidence of the racism of US Police forces ).

What the f*ck is a climate change denier, it's supposed to be science, do you understand how science works?  Can you please tell me what the ideal average temperature of the world is and what the optimum amount of c02 in the atmosphere is. Thanks in advance

[scally]

28 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You don’t know how it works on here mate. This is how it is. 
 

Agree with your opinion, great guy, really intelligent, knows what he’s talking about. Different opinion to yours. Thick, idiot probably a bigot and a trump supporter, shouldn’t be allowed any air time. 

It's a superiority thing, the left never used to be such arrogant tw*ts.  Labour were my preferred party until the middle class took it over

Edited 26 April, 2021 by scally

[badgerx16]

5 minutes ago, scally said:

What the f*ck is a climate change denier, it's supposed to be science, do you understand how science works?  Can you please tell me what the ideal average temperature of the world is and what the optimum amount of c02 in the atmosphere is. Thanks in advance

Yes, thankyou for asking.

[Sheaf Saint]

11 hours ago, scally said:

What the f*ck is a climate change denier, it's supposed to be science, do you understand how science works?  Can you please tell me what the ideal average temperature of the world is and what the optimum amount of c02 in the atmosphere is. Thanks in advance

With all due respect Scally, given your previous posts about climate change, you quite obviously don't understand how science works.

A climate change denier is somebody who deliberately sets out to spread false information about climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of the multinational corporations who stand to lose a lot of money and power if we go carbon-free. It's a well-funded, global network of pseudo-scientists and 'journalists' (like Shapiro) working together to muddy the waters and delay the required action to protect corporate profits.

I've tried to explain this to you before on a previous thread, and presented plenty of evidence to prove it to you, but you're not the slightest bit interested in listening. You've read some baseless bullshit somewhere that fits with your world view, and made your mind up that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And yet, you dare to accuse other people of being deluded and unscientific.

Your lack of awareness in this regard is truly staggering.

[scally]

7 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

With all due respect Scally, given your previous posts about climate change, you quite obviously don't understand how science works.

A climate change denier is somebody who deliberately sets out to spread false information about climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of the multinational corporations who stand to lose a lot of money and power if we go carbon-free. It's a well-funded, global network of pseudo-scientists and 'journalists' (like Shapiro) working together to muddy the waters and delay the required action to protect corporate profits.

I've tried to explain this to you before on a previous thread, and presented plenty of evidence to prove it to you, but you're not the slightest bit interested in listening. You've read some baseless bullshit somewhere that fits with your world view, and made your mind up that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And yet, you dare to accuse other people of being deluded and unscientific.

Your lack of awareness in this regard is truly staggering.

If climate change was as straightforward as you seem to think why are we throwing billions of pounds at renewable energy that blatantly doesn't solve the problem. Read Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger and watch Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore, both long term environmentalists who understand we need a total rethink on renewable energy. Show me one prediction that's been made by so called climate scientists that's come true, I can show you many that have not. Go back to the 70's when they were predicting a new ice age. If you have to alter data to prove your case then you have a problem.

[Turkish]

22 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

With all due respect Scally, given your previous posts about climate change, you quite obviously don't understand how science works.

A climate change denier is somebody who deliberately sets out to spread false information about climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of the multinational corporations who stand to lose a lot of money and power if we go carbon-free. It's a well-funded, global network of pseudo-scientists and 'journalists' (like Shapiro) working together to muddy the waters and delay the required action to protect corporate profits.

I've tried to explain this to you before on a previous thread, and presented plenty of evidence to prove it to you, but you're not the slightest bit interested in listening. You've read some baseless bullshit somewhere that fits with your world view, and made your mind up that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And yet, you dare to accuse other people of being deluded and unscientific.

Your lack of awareness in this regard is truly staggering.

Starting a post "with all due respect" then in the same sentence telling someone with a different view to you that they dont know what they're talking about, then further down saying how you've tried to put them right before, how their views are based on bullshit and they didn't accept your explanation like you are the all seeing all knowing one, because they are right and everyone else is wrong.  is not speaking to them "with all due respect". It's arrogant, hypocritical, self righteous and disrespectful. You're as equally entrenched in your view as Scally is, but he's not the one saying your view is based on bullshit, whilst trying to dress it up like he's a really nice guy.

[Sheaf Saint]

5 minutes ago, scally said:

Read Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger and watch Planet of the Humans by Michael Moore.

Neither of those people are qualified scientists, let alone climate scientists. You are literally just doubling down and proving my point that you have no idea how science works and are only interested in listening to voices saying what you want to hear.

5 minutes ago, scally said:

Go back to the 70's when they were predicting a new ice age.

Who was? If you're referring to that documentary that you linked to once, presented by Leonard Nimoy, then see my point above.

Actual climatologists weren't predicting a new ice age in the 70s. The models being used even back then, that predicted warming in response to increased CO2 concentrations, have actually turned out to be scarily accurate...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

"The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations"

 

[Sheaf Saint]

9 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Starting a post "with all due respect" then in the same sentence telling someone with a different view to you that they dont know what they're talking about, then further down saying how you've tried to put them right before, how their views are based on bullshit and they didn't accept your explanation like you are the all seeing all knowing one, because they are right and everyone else is wrong.  is not speaking to them "with all due respect". It's arrogant, hypocritical, self righteous and disrespectful. You're as equally entrenched in your view as Scally is, but he's not the one saying your view is based on bullshit, whilst trying to dress it up like he's a really nice guy.

My 'view' is based on the fact that I've got an honours degree in environmental science, and the politics of climate change denialism formed a large chunk of one of the modules I studied.

[scally]

29 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

Neither of those people are qualified scientists, let alone climate scientists. You are literally just doubling down and proving my point that you have no idea how science works and are only interested in listening to voices saying what you want to hear.

Who was? If you're referring to that documentary that you linked to once, presented by Leonard Nimoy, then see my point above.

Actual climatologists weren't predicting a new ice age in the 70s. The models being used even back then, that predicted warming in response to increased CO2 concentrations, have actually turned out to be scarily accurate...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

"The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations"

 

I lived through the 70's so can remember what was said. trying to say they were saying it was warming back then is just moving the goalposts again, like you people do all the time. The climate cooled between 1940 and 1975 as c02 in the atmosphere increased, care to explain. Don't give me the increased volcanic activity because there was none

[Lighthouse]

Split from the Chauvin thread, although I do find it interesting how often it's the same teams on opposing sides of a debate even when it's a completely different subject. There must be a certain psychology behind why topics as diverse as COVID, racism, abortion and climate change all get separated into the left vs. the right.

 

Shapiro does make some good points (IMO) but mostly it's low hanging fruit, debating against the regressive left - students and others who are professionally offended. Whenever I've seen him debate someone informed and balanced, he's always come up short.

[Turkish]

42 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

My 'view' is based on the fact that I've got an honours degree in environmental science, and the politics of climate change denialism formed a large chunk of one of the modules I studied.

Shame they didn't teach you the difference between treating people with respect and being patronising in your honours degree. 

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Turkish

[Sheaf Saint]

12 minutes ago, scally said:

The climate cooled between 1940 and 1975 as c02 in the atmosphere increased, care to explain. 

I already did, on a previous thread...

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/topic/57530-extinction-rebellion/?do=findComment&comment=2773938

You ignored it then, just as you will ignore it now.

[scally]

5 minutes ago, Sheaf Saint said:

I already did, on a previous thread...

https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/topic/57530-extinction-rebellion/?do=findComment&comment=2773938

You ignored it then, just as you will ignore it now.

If you answered it I can't find it and as I said a new ice age was the big thing in the 70's I know what they were saying back then. Unless they start predicting things and getting them right why would I believe it. I love the way some ones not a climate scientist when it suits, I can't remember anyone saying that about Al Gore. The money is in man-made c02 climate change. You lot always play the man not whats being said, Moore and Shellenberg were the darlings of the left until they changed their view on green energy. If you think solar and wind are the answers to all our problems and environmentally friendly your the deluded one. Watch moores documentary and read Shellenbergers book and then explain how they're wrong. Both of them have spent all of their lives as environmentalists.

[igsey]

I like to pop on this thread occasionally, it's genuinely unbelievable that there are (presumably) intelligent, otherwise rational people STILL arguing that climate change is all a big hoax in 2021. The only people that benefit from it are people involved in the fossil fuel industry - that's why they started climate change denialism in the 70s in the first place.

[Fan The Flames]

If climate change isn't a thing, isn't it still a good idea to find sustainable sources for transport, heating, construction etc. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Shame they didn't teach you the difference between treating people with respect and being patronising in your honours degree. 

Says the biggest sarcastic twat on the forum.

[Sheaf Saint]

45 minutes ago, scally said:

If you think solar and wind are the answers to all our problems and environmentally friendly your the deluded one. 

I don't. I understand that they are an important part of the energy mix, but I have never claimed they are the answer to all our problems because they are quite obviously not.

Why are you arguing against things I haven't said?

[Sheaf Saint]

54 minutes ago, scally said:

Unless they start predicting things and getting them right why would I believe it.

Absolutely mental. I posted a link to a study showing that even the earliest climate models from the 70s have turned out to be eerily accurate, and yet you just won't accept it will you.

And even if some people got something wrong 50 years ago, what does that prove? Our understanding of science is evolving and improving all the time. The people you were listening to in the 70s, who said we were due another ice age, are the ones who have been proven wrong.

You're literally defeating your own argument.

[Sheaf Saint]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

Split from the Chauvin thread, although I do find it interesting how often it's the same teams on opposing sides of a debate even when it's a completely different subject. There must be a certain psychology behind why topics as diverse as COVID, racism, abortion and climate change all get separated into the left vs. the right.

 

Shapiro does make some good points (IMO) but mostly it's low hanging fruit, debating against the regressive left - students and others who are professionally offended. Whenever I've seen him debate someone informed and balanced, he's always come up short.

Like the time he did a video interview on a BBC news program about abortion, and spat his dummy out and ended the interview after accusing Andrew Neil of being left wing.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

Says the biggest sarcastic twat on the forum.

I'll think you'll find in your case i dont need to call you out as not knowing what you're on about as you very quickly manage to do that for yourself   

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Turkish

[Weston Super Saint]

21 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

It is estimated that if the sea level rises by 10 feet, it will take out the homes of over 12million people in the US alone. That's a lot of real estate to shift to suckers. This includes the bulk of NYC, New Orleans, and Miami. Now obviously sea defences, sea walls, and levees would help, but consider the increased impacts of Atlantic storm surges, or hurricanes along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico.

Current estimates have the oceans rising by 1 whole foot by 2100.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of those living a foot above current sea levels to sort themselves out with a few sandbags in the next 79 years....

[badgerx16]

 

40 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Current estimates have the oceans rising by 1 whole foot by 2100.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of those living a foot above current sea levels to sort themselves out with a few sandbags in the next 79 years....

( Why does there always have to be a sarcastic note ? "A few sandbags", I assume you don't live close to sea level, and have never had to deal with flooding ).

The rise in sea level would not be consistent around the World, some areas will see only a few inches, others well over 2 feet, if that average is maintained. I wouldn't want to be living in Micronesia, or much of coastal Bangladesh. A bigger direct threat to coastal communities around the globe will be increased energy in storms, leading to stronger and more sustained wind speeds, and higher storm surges.

Edited 27 April, 2021 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

41 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Current estimates have the oceans rising by 1 whole foot by 2100.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of those living a foot above current sea levels to sort themselves out with a few sandbags in the next 79 years....

Sea levels have been going up and down by enormous amounts for a very long time. In the last ice age they were 130m lower than now. 10,000 year ago you could have walked from Jersey to France. Thinking that we have any chance of keeping them down is worthy of King Canute.

None of this should be taken as meaning that we shouldn't be reducing our emissions though.

[buctootim]

7 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

An

The rise in sea level would not be consistent around the World, some areas will see only a few inches, others well over 2 feet, if that average is maintained. I wouldn't want to be living in Micronesia, or much of coastal Bangladesh. A bigger direct threat to coastal communities around the globe will be increased energy in storms, leading to stronger and more sustained wind speeds, and higher storm surges.

Anyhow an average of 1 foot is only under a low emissions scenario, which we are currently exceeding. Under a worst case scenario it could be as much as 8 feet.    

Edited 27 April, 2021 by buctootim

[whelk]

5 hours ago, Turkish said:

Shame they didn't teach you the difference between treating people with respect and being patronising in your honours degree. 

Becoming a right little snowflake these days

[Turkish]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

Becoming a right little snowflake these days

No pal, i'm currently enjoying my spell of outing the forum nice guys as being spiteful, arrogant, self righteous, boastful little saps. It seems to be working rather well. 

[buctootim]

[spyinthesky]

I cant remember seeing any posts linking climate change to nuclear explosions since WW2.

The two H bombs dropped on Japan released significant amounts of pollutants and since then there have been numerous atomic bomb tests across the world.

Surely this, relatively recent, detrimental impact on the ozone layer must have had some profound effect on the climate.

Apparently there are over 40,000 nuclear warheads ready to go around the world.

We have been relatively lucky so far but, to me, this is the world's biggest threat.

 

[Hamilton Saint]

2 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Current estimates have the oceans rising by 1 whole foot by 2100.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of those living a foot above current sea levels to sort themselves out with a few sandbags in the next 79 years....

 

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Hamilton Saint

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Turkish said:

No pal, i'm currently enjoying my spell of outing the forum nice guys as being spiteful, arrogant, self righteous, boastful little saps. It seems to be working rather well. 

Sounds like getting easily triggered. 

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

 

( Why does there always have to be a sarcastic note ? "A few sandbags", I assume you don't live close to sea level, and have never had to deal with flooding ).

The rise in sea level would not be consistent around the World, some areas will see only a few inches, others well over 2 feet, if that average is maintained. I wouldn't want to be living in Micronesia, or much of coastal Bangladesh. A bigger direct threat to coastal communities around the globe will be increased energy in storms, leading to stronger and more sustained wind speeds, and higher storm surges.

You assume wrongly.  I live 3 miles from the second largest tidal range in the world - we know a little bit about rising waters

[Turkish]

32 minutes ago, whelk said:

Sounds like getting easily triggered. 

Tell us more about your incredible job and salary pal. I’m intrigued.

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

No pal, i'm currently enjoying my spell of outing the forum nice guys as being spiteful, arrogant, self righteous, boastful little saps. It seems to be working rather well. 

Gather round psychology students, what we are witnessing here is a text book case of transference.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Gather round psychology students, what we are witnessing here is a text book case of transference.

What a strange comment. Weren’t you temporarily banned from here a while back for making a “joke” about shagging my dead mum? I wonder what psychology students  would make of that 

Edited 27 April, 2021 by Turkish

[egg]

I've got no idea what this thread is about, but the flirting between you boys/girls is fucking brilliant. 

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, egg said:

I've got no idea what this thread is about, but the flirting between you boys/girls is fucking brilliant. 

Is Turkish flirting with someone other than me? I'd better join this thread then!

[Turkish]

Just now, egg said:

I've got no idea what this thread is about, but the flirting between you boys/girls is fucking brilliant. 

Not really flirting mate. Tim thought it was funny to make an abusive rant towards me making a dig out my friend nearly dying of Covid and you can see above the sort of things fan the flames finds funny. Just telling it how it is about Two of the forum good guys. 

[egg]

Just now, Turkish said:

Not really flirting mate. Tim thought it was funny to make an abusive rant towards me making a dig out my friend nearly dying of Covid and you can see above the sort of things fan the flames finds funny. Just telling it how it is about Two of the forum good guys. 

I read the exchange Del. It was unnecessary, but time to move on.