Crosswords2 mins ago
Extinction Rebellion Are Marching Today............
96 Answers
...........here in Manchester. I've got my poster ready and I'm going to greet them. My poster reads:
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED
That should raise a few heckles!
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL
YOU'RE ALL BEING MUGGED
That should raise a few heckles!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 10ClarionSt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Hahaha! Togo accuses me of contacting people off-site, and presto! a bunch of climate-change deniers pop up to support him.
Of course there is natural variation in the average global temperature, but see this:
https:/
I defy anyone to say that the rate of change of temerarure is not linked to human activity after seeing that graph.
For those who want the real deal of scientific evidence, I refer you to the following papers:
https:/
"This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating."
And this one:
https:/
"Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling."
There are plenty more. Just let me know when you have read and understood those two.
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
* Global Temperature Rise
* Warming Oceans
* Shrinking Ice Sheets
* Glacial Retreat
* Decreased Snow Cover
* Sea Level Rise
* Declining Arctic Sea Ice
* Extreme Events
* Ocean Acidification
https:/
I can post more hard evidence if you like. The human-induced factors are proven to better than 95% confidence. That's good enough for most scientists, but the tiny window of doubt permits those with vested interests and an unwillingness to look at the evidence, or a deliberate choice to reject evidence, to say that it is not yet proven.
Just what evidence would you need? 95% confidence data in papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals is enough for everyone who understands evidence-based science.
Of course there is natural variation in the average global temperature, but see this:
https:/
I defy anyone to say that the rate of change of temerarure is not linked to human activity after seeing that graph.
For those who want the real deal of scientific evidence, I refer you to the following papers:
https:/
"This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating."
And this one:
https:/
"Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling."
There are plenty more. Just let me know when you have read and understood those two.
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
* Global Temperature Rise
* Warming Oceans
* Shrinking Ice Sheets
* Glacial Retreat
* Decreased Snow Cover
* Sea Level Rise
* Declining Arctic Sea Ice
* Extreme Events
* Ocean Acidification
https:/
I can post more hard evidence if you like. The human-induced factors are proven to better than 95% confidence. That's good enough for most scientists, but the tiny window of doubt permits those with vested interests and an unwillingness to look at the evidence, or a deliberate choice to reject evidence, to say that it is not yet proven.
Just what evidence would you need? 95% confidence data in papers published in leading peer-reviewed journals is enough for everyone who understands evidence-based science.
I know all about regression analysis and confidence levels, thanks.
Where I take issue is you state categorically as a fact that climate change is anthropogenic. It's not. It's an assumption - probably a fairly sound assumption - but not a fact. Other possibilities remain.
But don't even start me on the complete and utter futility of the UK spending ££billions trying to combat it.
Where I take issue is you state categorically as a fact that climate change is anthropogenic. It's not. It's an assumption - probably a fairly sound assumption - but not a fact. Other possibilities remain.
But don't even start me on the complete and utter futility of the UK spending ££billions trying to combat it.
NewJudge: "Where I take issue is you state categorically as a fact that climate change is anthropogenic. It's not."
Wrong.
At 95% confidence levels, it is a fact
NewJudge: "I know all about regression analysis and confidence levels, thanks. "
It would appear not.
I presented a pile of evidence from internationally-reputed scientific journals.
You present an assertion and no evidence at all.
It appears you have no respect for evidence-based science
Wrong.
At 95% confidence levels, it is a fact
NewJudge: "I know all about regression analysis and confidence levels, thanks. "
It would appear not.
I presented a pile of evidence from internationally-reputed scientific journals.
You present an assertion and no evidence at all.
It appears you have no respect for evidence-based science
As the ice recedes in Greenland (there is a clue there somewhere) they find more and more evidence that the Vikings were farming and raising crops before having to abandon the settlements when the mini ice age occurred. The false prognosis of the doomsayers would like us to believe that this never happened. Doesn't fit their flawed model you see. Where did all those naughty glow bulls come from to make Greenland.....err Green?
I have never questioned that climate has changed over historical time.
You can see the chart of average global temperature since 1880 or so here:
http://
There were no reliable data prior to that (thermometers being thin on the round before the industrial revolution).
A better proxy for global temperature over millenia is the carbon dioxide concentration
("global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been closely coupled across glacial cycles. " from https:/
I presented the chart of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations above.
The temperature was higher a millennium ago. We knew that. It does not have any relevance to the current rate of change, nor to the near-inevitable consequences of the rapid rise on man-made carbon dioxide emissions of the last few decades.
You can see the chart of average global temperature since 1880 or so here:
http://
There were no reliable data prior to that (thermometers being thin on the round before the industrial revolution).
A better proxy for global temperature over millenia is the carbon dioxide concentration
("global temperature and atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have been closely coupled across glacial cycles. " from https:/
I presented the chart of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations above.
The temperature was higher a millennium ago. We knew that. It does not have any relevance to the current rate of change, nor to the near-inevitable consequences of the rapid rise on man-made carbon dioxide emissions of the last few decades.
//Wrong.
At 95% confidence levels, it is a fact//
That's not what you said. I quote:
//The difference is that there is testable, peer-reviewed science to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It's really true.//
"It's a fact; it's really true." Nothing to do with confidence levels.
With 95% confidence (the usual level of acceptability) there is a 5% chance that some other explanation prevails. All I'm asking you to accept is that it is not the indisputable fact that you suggest.
At 95% confidence levels, it is a fact//
That's not what you said. I quote:
//The difference is that there is testable, peer-reviewed science to demonstrate that anthropogenic climate change is a fact. It's really true.//
"It's a fact; it's really true." Nothing to do with confidence levels.
With 95% confidence (the usual level of acceptability) there is a 5% chance that some other explanation prevails. All I'm asking you to accept is that it is not the indisputable fact that you suggest.
Ah, New Judge, I see what you are saying. You are demonstrating that you really don't understand statistical analysis or how science works.
Let me spell it out.
Very few things in science can be demonstrated with absolute certainty. The vast majority of scientific knowledge comes through statistical analysis of data. There is an accepted value (the 95% confidence test) which is the accepted standard for saying something is 'true'
The 95% confidence test does not mean that 95% of the data agree with the proposition and 5% lie outside. It's a more subtle and refined measure. It means that given the available data, we have been able to show results which demonstrate with 95% certainty that a certain proposition is true. More results will almost certainly increase the confidence in the proposition.
As such, this is true and accepted fact among scientists, if not among the vested interests of the energy companies. Like everything in science, it is subject to revision, should more data become available
Your username suggests you were or are associated with the legal profession. In that business, the test is often 'on the balance of probability'. The 95% confidence test used in science is far stricter and more comprehensive, and subject to much higher level of scrutiny than any of the rulings in law.
All findings in science are permanently open to challenge by anyone with the right data.
Incidentally, I did address this in my post at 08.44
" That's good enough for most scientists, but the tiny window of doubt permits those with vested interests and an unwillingness to look at the evidence, or a deliberate choice to reject evidence, to say that it is not yet proven"
I doubt you are someone who deliberately chooses to reject the evidence in front of you. So what is it?
You want more evidence to study? Try the Royal Society:
https:/
And in case Togo is still looking in - you discussed the name of Greenland - it was, apparently, an early example of fake news.
"Erik [The red] deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than “Iceland” in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, “People would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name”.
https:/
Let me spell it out.
Very few things in science can be demonstrated with absolute certainty. The vast majority of scientific knowledge comes through statistical analysis of data. There is an accepted value (the 95% confidence test) which is the accepted standard for saying something is 'true'
The 95% confidence test does not mean that 95% of the data agree with the proposition and 5% lie outside. It's a more subtle and refined measure. It means that given the available data, we have been able to show results which demonstrate with 95% certainty that a certain proposition is true. More results will almost certainly increase the confidence in the proposition.
As such, this is true and accepted fact among scientists, if not among the vested interests of the energy companies. Like everything in science, it is subject to revision, should more data become available
Your username suggests you were or are associated with the legal profession. In that business, the test is often 'on the balance of probability'. The 95% confidence test used in science is far stricter and more comprehensive, and subject to much higher level of scrutiny than any of the rulings in law.
All findings in science are permanently open to challenge by anyone with the right data.
Incidentally, I did address this in my post at 08.44
" That's good enough for most scientists, but the tiny window of doubt permits those with vested interests and an unwillingness to look at the evidence, or a deliberate choice to reject evidence, to say that it is not yet proven"
I doubt you are someone who deliberately chooses to reject the evidence in front of you. So what is it?
You want more evidence to study? Try the Royal Society:
https:/
And in case Togo is still looking in - you discussed the name of Greenland - it was, apparently, an early example of fake news.
"Erik [The red] deliberately gave the land a more appealing name than “Iceland” in order to lure potential settlers. He explained, “People would be attracted to go there if it had a favorable name”.
https:/
Thanks 10ClarionSt.
I did not expect you to change your mind. I entered this thread with a slightly tongue-in-cheek post about older men who have far-right tendencies being much more likely to be climate-change deniers than the rest of the population.
Those people won't change their minds, no matter how much evidence is put in front of them.
I wanted to do a couple of things.
1. have a debate that did not focus on personal insults
2. Help to remove some of the confusion that has been deliberately spread around this subject by political interests.
My target audience is the waverers and those who are prepared to listen to reason.
The most vocal on this site do not fall into that category, but there are many more who listen, read and want to think for themselves.
It is those people who might, just, move their opinion a little. If I have helped even one of those to see more clearly, I will have succeded in both goals.
I thank you for the opportunty to contribute.
I did not expect you to change your mind. I entered this thread with a slightly tongue-in-cheek post about older men who have far-right tendencies being much more likely to be climate-change deniers than the rest of the population.
Those people won't change their minds, no matter how much evidence is put in front of them.
I wanted to do a couple of things.
1. have a debate that did not focus on personal insults
2. Help to remove some of the confusion that has been deliberately spread around this subject by political interests.
My target audience is the waverers and those who are prepared to listen to reason.
The most vocal on this site do not fall into that category, but there are many more who listen, read and want to think for themselves.
It is those people who might, just, move their opinion a little. If I have helped even one of those to see more clearly, I will have succeded in both goals.
I thank you for the opportunty to contribute.
//Ah, New Judge, I see what you are saying. You are demonstrating that you really don't understand statistical analysis or how science works.
The 95% confidence test does not mean that 95% of the data agree with the proposition and 5% lie outside. It's a more subtle and refined measure. It means that given the available data, we have been able to show results which demonstrate with 95% certainty that a certain proposition is true. More results will almost certainly increase the confidence in the proposition.//
Please don't be so condescending. I understand perfectly how statistical analysis works; I understand about the principle of confidence limits; I understand its advantages and most importantly I understand its potential shortcomings. I spent a number of years earning my living by dealing with such matters.
You are quite correct when you say "we have been able to show results which demonstrate with 95% certainty that a certain proposition is true." (although I don't know who the "we" are that you refer to). You did not add that, conversely, we have results which demonstrate with 5% certainty that a certain proposition is not true. Further, you are incorrect when you say that "There is an accepted value (the 95% confidence test) which is the accepted standard for saying something is 'true'". It isn't accepted as "true". It's accepted at the most likely explanation, subject to the limitations and constrictions of the analysis.
This has nothing to do with the "burden of proof" in legal matters. There are two: "the balance of probabilities" (or "more likely to be true than not") has nothing to do with confidence limits and is not relevant to this discussion.
You have a either have a fundamental misunderstanding of "certainty" or are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by suggesting that something is certain when it isn't. I'm not arguing over whether man-made climate change is evident or not. I'm suggesting that your conclusion that it definitely is is flawed. I don't believe there is any point in taking this argument further because you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the techniques involved. But please don't suggest I lack the intellect to conduct the argument. There's far too much of that around at the moment in more ways than one.
The 95% confidence test does not mean that 95% of the data agree with the proposition and 5% lie outside. It's a more subtle and refined measure. It means that given the available data, we have been able to show results which demonstrate with 95% certainty that a certain proposition is true. More results will almost certainly increase the confidence in the proposition.//
Please don't be so condescending. I understand perfectly how statistical analysis works; I understand about the principle of confidence limits; I understand its advantages and most importantly I understand its potential shortcomings. I spent a number of years earning my living by dealing with such matters.
You are quite correct when you say "we have been able to show results which demonstrate with 95% certainty that a certain proposition is true." (although I don't know who the "we" are that you refer to). You did not add that, conversely, we have results which demonstrate with 5% certainty that a certain proposition is not true. Further, you are incorrect when you say that "There is an accepted value (the 95% confidence test) which is the accepted standard for saying something is 'true'". It isn't accepted as "true". It's accepted at the most likely explanation, subject to the limitations and constrictions of the analysis.
This has nothing to do with the "burden of proof" in legal matters. There are two: "the balance of probabilities" (or "more likely to be true than not") has nothing to do with confidence limits and is not relevant to this discussion.
You have a either have a fundamental misunderstanding of "certainty" or are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by suggesting that something is certain when it isn't. I'm not arguing over whether man-made climate change is evident or not. I'm suggesting that your conclusion that it definitely is is flawed. I don't believe there is any point in taking this argument further because you and I have fundamentally different understandings of the techniques involved. But please don't suggest I lack the intellect to conduct the argument. There's far too much of that around at the moment in more ways than one.
Hi New Judge, I’m willing to end the discussion, but it you end with an attack, then of course you must expect me to respond.
First, the issue of burden of proof. //This has nothing to do with the "burden of proof" in legal matters. There are two: "the balance of probabilities" (or "more likely to be true than not") has nothing to do with confidence limits and is not relevant to this discussion. //
In this we also disagree. It is about how we determine “truth” You take issue with my assertion that the anthropogenic nature of climate change is “true”
The difference is, I suspect that we are using different criteria to determine “true”.
My take on this is that the 95% confidence test is the right test. In this the whole scientific community agrees with me, and that test is far more rigorous and robust than the tests used in the legal profession
You appear to think that if there is a mathematical possibility that the proposition is slightly flawed, then it cannot be claimed as true. To me, this looks like a legal stunt.
There is a mathematical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow. There is a mathematical possibility that Brighton and Hove Albion will win the FA Cup this year.
Yet no-one would argue – if I claimed that the sun will rise tomorrow– that my claim is untrue.
The question is more about the size of probability that these propositions are false than any absolutist criteria. In all fields of human endeavour, we have to find a technique to deal with conflicting and confusing information.
In the world of lawyers (you will know more about this than me) that path is found through precedent, courtroom theatricals; speed of thought and huge intellect.
I have no doubt that your intellect is far greater than mine, and I would never seek to suggest that you are incapable of destroying people like me in the courtroom.
And in all honesty, I think that is what is going on here. You appear to be adopting a policy of requiring that ‘truth’ is defined by absolute certainty with no room for even mathematical uncertainty.
As we both know, the world does not work like that. No-one in the professional world could make any progress if that were the criterion for truth.
My argument is that the whole scientific community accepts the statistical nature of scientific truth and have mathematical techniques to evaluate the uncertainties. Those techniques are far more robust than in any other field of human endeavour.
Furthermore, as I noted earlier, anyone is free to challenge the data and the statistical analyses. I know of no reseach in any credible scientific journal that has successfully challenged the established reality that anthropogenic climate change is true.
I am sure you can find articles by Nigel Lawson, Vaclav Klaus and other ill-informed, biased commentators that are designed to confuse the issue and pull in the gullible and foolish, but those are not on the same level as the science.
Oh, and while you claim to understand statistical analysis, I think it is clear that you do not. I’m not going to get into that detail here, but perhaps you would like to remind yourself by reading the text:
https:/
In the end, I have presented research supported by well over 99% of climate scientists and published in leading journals such as “Science” and “Nature”
You have presented some assertions and courtroom antics, and no evidence whatsoever.
I fear that in this case your deep-held prejudices have got in the way of your impartiality.
Like you, I am happy to leave it here, but I suspect that will not be the outcome.
First, the issue of burden of proof. //This has nothing to do with the "burden of proof" in legal matters. There are two: "the balance of probabilities" (or "more likely to be true than not") has nothing to do with confidence limits and is not relevant to this discussion. //
In this we also disagree. It is about how we determine “truth” You take issue with my assertion that the anthropogenic nature of climate change is “true”
The difference is, I suspect that we are using different criteria to determine “true”.
My take on this is that the 95% confidence test is the right test. In this the whole scientific community agrees with me, and that test is far more rigorous and robust than the tests used in the legal profession
You appear to think that if there is a mathematical possibility that the proposition is slightly flawed, then it cannot be claimed as true. To me, this looks like a legal stunt.
There is a mathematical possibility that the sun will not rise tomorrow. There is a mathematical possibility that Brighton and Hove Albion will win the FA Cup this year.
Yet no-one would argue – if I claimed that the sun will rise tomorrow– that my claim is untrue.
The question is more about the size of probability that these propositions are false than any absolutist criteria. In all fields of human endeavour, we have to find a technique to deal with conflicting and confusing information.
In the world of lawyers (you will know more about this than me) that path is found through precedent, courtroom theatricals; speed of thought and huge intellect.
I have no doubt that your intellect is far greater than mine, and I would never seek to suggest that you are incapable of destroying people like me in the courtroom.
And in all honesty, I think that is what is going on here. You appear to be adopting a policy of requiring that ‘truth’ is defined by absolute certainty with no room for even mathematical uncertainty.
As we both know, the world does not work like that. No-one in the professional world could make any progress if that were the criterion for truth.
My argument is that the whole scientific community accepts the statistical nature of scientific truth and have mathematical techniques to evaluate the uncertainties. Those techniques are far more robust than in any other field of human endeavour.
Furthermore, as I noted earlier, anyone is free to challenge the data and the statistical analyses. I know of no reseach in any credible scientific journal that has successfully challenged the established reality that anthropogenic climate change is true.
I am sure you can find articles by Nigel Lawson, Vaclav Klaus and other ill-informed, biased commentators that are designed to confuse the issue and pull in the gullible and foolish, but those are not on the same level as the science.
Oh, and while you claim to understand statistical analysis, I think it is clear that you do not. I’m not going to get into that detail here, but perhaps you would like to remind yourself by reading the text:
https:/
In the end, I have presented research supported by well over 99% of climate scientists and published in leading journals such as “Science” and “Nature”
You have presented some assertions and courtroom antics, and no evidence whatsoever.
I fear that in this case your deep-held prejudices have got in the way of your impartiality.
Like you, I am happy to leave it here, but I suspect that will not be the outcome.
I can't help but feel that you're splitting hairs here, NJ. Clearly, the adjective "definitely", if it means anything, must mean 100% certainty. When it comes to the issue of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), that is neither true nor will it ever be true. But then again, the same is just as much the case with gravity, age of the Earth, age of the Universe, etc., all of which are established scientific facts. If someone uses "definite" as a shorthand for "established beyond the limits of reasonable scientific doubt, having established rigorous testing by matching the current data and future predictions as shown by independent scientific groups", then perhaps they're being a little lazy, but one can be forgiven for using the first when you mean the second.
On the other hand, describing ACC as an "assumption" completely misrepresents the picture. Something is an assumption if it has yet to pass the various necessary scientific checks, as outlined above. The theory of ACC has -- or, if it has not, then rather than merely engage in linguistic pedantry, then wouldn't it be worth pointing to the necessary counter-research? For example, what other possibilities remain to explain the present period? How successful are they?
In the meantime, various people on this thread also seem desperate to spread the myth that "natural" Climate Change is somehow a completely alien concept to Climate Scientists. It beggars belief that anyone could take such a prospect seriously -- it's not unlike claiming that "big plane companies" are embarrassed at the existence of birds. Rhetorical question: how do you think we learned about natural climate change anyway? (Answer: because of the research efforts of the same climate scientists whose work you dismiss as soon as it's inconvenient to face up to humanity's own contribution).
It's also worth noting that in 2007 the IPCC report estimated a 90% probability that human activity was responsible for Climate Change. But this estimate has grown since, and is anyway likely to be somewhat of a hedge. From a purely scientific viewpoint you should probably never commit to any position wholeheartedly. But politically, if the world doesn't take the threat seriously, and the extreme likelihood that humans are primarily responsible, then before too long it will be too late to do anything anyway.
On the other hand, describing ACC as an "assumption" completely misrepresents the picture. Something is an assumption if it has yet to pass the various necessary scientific checks, as outlined above. The theory of ACC has -- or, if it has not, then rather than merely engage in linguistic pedantry, then wouldn't it be worth pointing to the necessary counter-research? For example, what other possibilities remain to explain the present period? How successful are they?
In the meantime, various people on this thread also seem desperate to spread the myth that "natural" Climate Change is somehow a completely alien concept to Climate Scientists. It beggars belief that anyone could take such a prospect seriously -- it's not unlike claiming that "big plane companies" are embarrassed at the existence of birds. Rhetorical question: how do you think we learned about natural climate change anyway? (Answer: because of the research efforts of the same climate scientists whose work you dismiss as soon as it's inconvenient to face up to humanity's own contribution).
It's also worth noting that in 2007 the IPCC report estimated a 90% probability that human activity was responsible for Climate Change. But this estimate has grown since, and is anyway likely to be somewhat of a hedge. From a purely scientific viewpoint you should probably never commit to any position wholeheartedly. But politically, if the world doesn't take the threat seriously, and the extreme likelihood that humans are primarily responsible, then before too long it will be too late to do anything anyway.
//Greenland - it was, apparently, an early example of fake news.//
Haha. The crops grown were not fake. I note that the doom sayers contend that the middle ages warming spell "didn't reach Greenland" according to our new and exciting fake fact practitioners. How convenient. It it screws up their whole case if it did mind.
Haha. The crops grown were not fake. I note that the doom sayers contend that the middle ages warming spell "didn't reach Greenland" according to our new and exciting fake fact practitioners. How convenient. It it screws up their whole case if it did mind.
"I believe climate change is natural. There are only two things that influence the climate on this planet. One is extra terrestrial, the other is terrestrial, i.e. the sun and volcanoes. Those two things determine our climate. Nothing else."
So 10clarionST you don't think the entire human population and all it's pollution can have a simialr affect to one volcano?
So 10clarionST you don't think the entire human population and all it's pollution can have a simialr affect to one volcano?
Step away for a couple of hours to earn a crust, and the madness comes back.
Thank you, Jim360, for responding to Togo. I would have put it more politely, but less firmly.
Indeed, according to the article I linked, there was a small settlement on Greenland for 400 years or so, surviving mainly on seal-hunting and the meat of walrus and dead whales, until the little Ice Age in the 15th century made the place uninhabitable once more.
There were, according to that report, just two places on the whole island that were suitable for crops
https:/
I fail to understand why a marginal community that died out in the 15th century, proves or disproves anything about human-induced climate change.
My reference to fake news referred to Togo's comment about the name of Greenland being a clue to how verdant the island was. It wasn't - even in 982 when Erik the Red was banished there. Erik chose the name to confuse Icelanders into believing that his exiled home was a better place to live than Iceland.
Thank you, Jim360, for responding to Togo. I would have put it more politely, but less firmly.
Indeed, according to the article I linked, there was a small settlement on Greenland for 400 years or so, surviving mainly on seal-hunting and the meat of walrus and dead whales, until the little Ice Age in the 15th century made the place uninhabitable once more.
There were, according to that report, just two places on the whole island that were suitable for crops
https:/
I fail to understand why a marginal community that died out in the 15th century, proves or disproves anything about human-induced climate change.
My reference to fake news referred to Togo's comment about the name of Greenland being a clue to how verdant the island was. It wasn't - even in 982 when Erik the Red was banished there. Erik chose the name to confuse Icelanders into believing that his exiled home was a better place to live than Iceland.
//I can't help but feel that you're splitting hairs here, NJ.//
I'm not splitting hairs. It's a matter of definition. We were told:
[ACC] is a fact. It's really true.
It's not a fact. It is an assumption. A reasonably held one, I agree, but none the less not a fact. Whilst a possible alternative explanation exists, the evidence is circumstantial. The question of how remote that possible alternative might be is purely a matter of judgement.
That judgement has been made by others and is largely history (at least in the UK and most of Europe) and whether I agree with it is neither here nor there. Where I part company is that this country is spending enormous amounts of taxpayers' dosh on measures that will not have the slightest influence on the perceived problem. More than that, some of those measures (such as burning wood - harvested on an industrial scale four thousand miles away - instead of coal in some of the largest power plants in the country) will actually exacerbate the problem. And even more than that, some of the simplest measures (such as preventing shops consuming >20Kw per hour heating the street) are not even considered.
The entire business is an absolute farce That would be OK if all we had to do was to laugh. But consumers and taxpayers are being fleeced because governments feel the need to be seen to be "doing something".
I'm not splitting hairs. It's a matter of definition. We were told:
[ACC] is a fact. It's really true.
It's not a fact. It is an assumption. A reasonably held one, I agree, but none the less not a fact. Whilst a possible alternative explanation exists, the evidence is circumstantial. The question of how remote that possible alternative might be is purely a matter of judgement.
That judgement has been made by others and is largely history (at least in the UK and most of Europe) and whether I agree with it is neither here nor there. Where I part company is that this country is spending enormous amounts of taxpayers' dosh on measures that will not have the slightest influence on the perceived problem. More than that, some of those measures (such as burning wood - harvested on an industrial scale four thousand miles away - instead of coal in some of the largest power plants in the country) will actually exacerbate the problem. And even more than that, some of the simplest measures (such as preventing shops consuming >20Kw per hour heating the street) are not even considered.
The entire business is an absolute farce That would be OK if all we had to do was to laugh. But consumers and taxpayers are being fleeced because governments feel the need to be seen to be "doing something".
Ohh dear. I see that Jim lad has reverted to peevish dummy spitting once again. Nothing more informative, to the grown up mind, than a libby being aggressive and rude when it cannot get it's own way is there. Poor Jim must be experiencing quite a lot of that of late. I will never trust a scientific theory that is based on inventing the science to support a theory that was dreamt up by the would be micro managers, and therefor controllers, of our lives. It is nought but a series of carefully constructed myths designed to keep the "owners" of the untruths in the well paid style, and giving them the control that they crave. They are not the friend of science that they try to project themselves as, more like the abusers of science. (they are good at projection, they do it all the time by accusing their opponents of their own shortcomings)
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Music12 mins ago
News14 mins ago
Can You Be Fined For Emptying A Swimming...
Civil16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.