cassity Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 The IPCC are. Reddit's science forum has banned "deniers". The Los Angeles times no longer publishers letters from skeptics. This is just the beginning. There is often discussion of banning climate change denial in the EU. How does this effect your ability to question climate change? Will this thread be pulled? Now's your chance to get stuck in before it does.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Odd that the religion's name has switched from 'Global Warning'- could that be because of lack of evidence? No it's because technically the global temperature hasn't risen in the last decade (or more) and they were looking pretty stupid talking about something that clearly was not happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Whilst we argue about climate change The climate is changing Sheffield is now tropical....monsoon rains, electrical storms 15 years ago, it was just a constant drizzle We had none of this Thailand-like weather! I've been to Thailand recently, our weather is not remotely similar. I do however remember thunder storms happening throughout my lifetime, and indeed the odd hot summer, and snow in winter. ---------- Post added 07-07-2015 at 11:20 ---------- How can anyone question "climate change"? Is anyone who doubts its existence seriously arguing the ice age(s) never happened? Presumably the OP means Anthropogenic CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hots on Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Undoubtedly the climate changes, the question is, is humanity having a detrimental effect? I don't think so to the extent that is being claimed. I'm not saying pollution is a good thing but "global warming/climate change" is a communist trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 How does this effect your ability to question climate change? Will this thread be pulled? Now's your chance to get stuck in before it does.. How does the stifling of debate and questions affect the ability to question climate change? It makes it socially unacceptable to question, removes the forums to do so and guarantees that no serious investigation of alternative hypotheses take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DnAuK Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 How can anyone question "climate change"? Is anyone who doubts its existence seriously arguing the ice age(s) never happened? Now that brings up the real question - of course climate change is a real thing - but did man create it? Clearly not for the ice ages... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Odd that the religion's name has switched from 'Global Warning'- could that be because of lack of evidence? Its switched to prevent confusion of the masses. Yes the earth is getting warmer (whether you believe man caused it or not). However this may mean it gets colder and more rain here. The way the weather systems will circulate etc. If you simply said global warming then the average joe would say "Well why is it still flipping freezing here" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Its switched to prevent confusion of the masses. Yes the earth is getting warmer (whether you believe man caused it or not). However this may mean it gets colder and more rain here. The way the weather systems will circulate etc. If you simply said global warming then the average joe would say "Well why is it still flipping freezing here" The earth is not getting warmer. It got warmer through the 80's and early 90's. It's since settled down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Nigel Lawson always used to get trotted out by the BBC to deny man made climate change because they felt they had a duty to be evenhanded. Thankfully he's no longer as prolific as he was because the BBC were advised that being "even handed" doesn't require them to wheel out some crank who ignores all current scientific guidance. They don't feel the need to interview someone from the Flat Earth society everytime there is news about The Earth. I see The Pope has now come out and said he believes climate change to be man made. Funny how certain people who previously thought of him as infalible on subjects such as abortion and contraception suddenly decided he was falible on this subject. The right wing in the US got in a right huff about his comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Nigel Lawson always used to get trotted out by the BBC to deny man made climate change because they felt they had a duty to be evenhanded. Thankfully he's no longer as prolific as he was because the BBC were advised that being "even handed" doesn't require them to wheel out some crank who ignores all current scientific guidance. They don't feel the need to interview someone from the Flat Earth society everytime there is news about The Earth. I see The Pope has now come out and said he believes climate change to be man made. Funny how certain people who previously thought of him as infalible on subjects such as abortion and contraception suddenly decided he was falible on this subject. The right wing in the US got in a right huff about his comments. The evidence for a spherical earth is overwhelming. Where is the comparable physical evidence for CAGW? Nowhere. Yes the CO2 global warming effect is real, but it's tiny. Modern climate change dogma is the result of vast, ill founded computer modelling. The forecasts from which are completely inconsistent with direct observations and measurements. If Nigel Lawson was allowed on the BBC to put this point across, you wouldn't be under the delusion that the evidence for CAGW is far stronger than it actually is. I really hate it when people conflate basic global warming physics with the CAGW. One is obviously true. The other could easily be a virtual fantasy. If all we have to deal with is the proven CO2 warming effect, we really don't have a problem. There's no need to over-charge people for electricity by a factor of 10. We can use any kind of light bulb we like. Our elderly don't have to freeze to death in winter trying a save a bit on their heating bills. We don't have to have the rain-forests burned down for bio-fuel farming. We can stop burning food that starving people could otherwise have eaten. And we can stop wasting vast amounts of money on wind farms and solar panels which could otherwise be spent on education and health care etc. Almost every independent scientist in the world believes in man made global warming. Including me. So does Nigel Lawson. That's not the point. And if you hadn't been brainwashed by the Al Gore crowd you'd know that. The question is over the massive positive feedbacks which turn a tiny interesting warming effect into a global catastrophe. These only exist in computer models which completely fail to make accurate predictions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now