Jump to content


Climate Change thread

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, SnailyBoy said:

Yes I can.

 

You made a claim, you have no evidence to support the claim.

 

I dismissed it.

Fair enough.

 

About DNA?

 

Edited by FinBak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, FinBak said:

Fair enough.

 

About DNA?

 

What's that got to do with the thread topic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Halibut said:

Your thinking error occurs right here in the bold, where you simply pretend that adding to something doesn't change it.

Think about that for a moment. If your boss adds twenty quid a week to your wages, what's happened? He's changed your rate of pay.

You add three stone to your weight by eating loads of pies and cake. What happened? You've changed your weight.

A breaking wave dumps 500 litres of seawater into your already leaking boat. What happened? Your chances of not sinking have just changed.

It depends on your interpretation of what post 109 was saying. I took it as meaning humans won't change the fact that climate change has always happened. You took it as humans won't change the degree to which climate change happens. If the latter then yes, I would agree with you that it's wrong.

16 hours ago, Cyclone said:

Post #109 was nonsense.  Humans quite clearly impact the climate.

You then argued against post #110 with a strawman, nobody had claimed that climate change didn't occur naturally.

See above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like this idea that humans and what we produce and make are somehow apart from nature. There is no such thing as "synthetic materials."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FinBak said:

I can't show My working here.

 

I shouldn't need to.

Why shouldn't you need to?  You make a claim, but you expect people to take it on faith?  Particularly when that claim is extraordinary..

 

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - Carl Sagan, 1979

34 minutes ago, Hots on said:

I don't like this idea that humans and what we produce and make are somehow apart from nature. There is no such thing as "synthetic materials."

I see your point semantically, but there are lots of things we produce in huge quantities that would almost never be produced by any non human process.  Plastics being an obvious one.

16 hours ago, FinBak said:

I wasn't trying to score a point. ! There is NO Strawman argument either.

 

The effect of Climate change CAUSED by HUMANS cannot be evaluated. FACT.

 

It's Anti-Scientific to even try.

 

There are lot's of people who believe all that they read and there's always difference of opinion.

It's certainly not futile to try to evaluate what impact our behaviour is having.  With enough data there's no reason that it can't be calculated.

It's also definitely not unscientific to attempt to calculate it.

 

The fact that the problem is hard doesn't make it impossible, and writing fact doesn't make you correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CaptainSwing said:

The current balance of evidence is in favour of volcanoes having been the cause, along with subsequent feedbacks like the increased solubility of CO2 in cooler oceans.   Decreased solar output (Maunder minimum) might also have been a factor.  Possible human impacts include the American reforestation that you mention and (conversely) a reduction in the magnitude of the LIA due to excess CO2 that was already there due to deforestation and rice growing.  But the LIA still isn't completely understood.  Another thing to remember about it is that it was regional rather than global - the effects were greater in the northern hemisphere than in the southern.

 

You could look at William Ruddiman's book Earth's Climate if you're interested in climate on geological as well as shorter timescales.  Detailed but not too technical, and he's a leading proponent, in fact basically the originator, of the 'early anthropocene' idea ... not that he'd call it that.

I was referring to this report

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/american-colonisation-americas-climate-change-little-ice-age-death-forests-university-college-london-a8756771.html

 

 

Why are the quotes broken these days?

 

Quote

 

According to Professor Maslin and his colleagues, support for a link between this period and the “great dying” of indigenous American peoples comes from Antarctica.

 

Ice core records from the polar region contain air bubbles that reveal a drop in concentration of atmospheric CO2 around this time

 

It's an interesting theory.

Edited by Cyclone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FinBak said:

Where did DNA come from and the Information within it?

if only there was a global network, of inter-connected computers, through which we could share and access knowledge. it would probably need some kind of universal portal, which a snappy name and logo...

 

of course, you'd need some level of curiosity to go and find the answers yourself - you can take a horse to water and all that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, FinBak said:

Correct. I have NO Evidence.

 

You can't dismiss something just because there is NO Evidence.

 

Where did DNA come from and the Information within it?

Yeah, you can dismiss something that is asserted without evidence.  Watch us all dismissing your ramblings...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Green peace founder exposes their lie.

 

 

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/03/07/greenpeace-founder-global-warming-hoax-pushed-corrupt-scientists-hooked-government-grants/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to a site that is well known for fake news and a far right agenda.  About as trustworthy as a flat earther atlas of the globe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/03/2019 at 21:33, FinBak said:

Correct. I have NO Evidence.

 

You can't dismiss something just because there is NO Evidence.

That's  a typical argument used by conspiracy theorists - they don't need to provide evidence for their theory but insist is should have equal credence with something that can only be proven to a level of 99.99%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.