The Politics of 'Climate-change'

[Teddy Eagle]

What he said was that there was no evidence of humans being the cause. Which is factually untrue. There is so much evidence that it is now beyond dispute. All of what is of concern lies at the feet on man. Natural climate change is so slow as to be ignored. It’s just a distraction being emphasised by those who have commercial or political reasons not to face up to reality. The only number you need to know is that man made climate change is 100% responsible for the problems we now face.

I don’t know so much about it, but there are so many who do know so much that to suggest they are all involved in a giant conspiracy is clearly nonsensical.

100% is obviously nonsense or previous ice ages wouldn't have happened.

 

[Spindle]

Funny you should say that because one of the 3 things that affect the severity of a glacial period is atmospheric gasses, though what is though to be the prime cause is oscillation of the tilt of the planet.

Climate deniers tend to lean on these kind of things which is ironic because suddenly now they don't believe in the link between temperature and CO2, but they did then. Strange.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Climate deniers tend to lean on these kind of things

'Climate deniers'...........thats a very Orwellian language. A bit like 'anti vaxxers'...... or formerly 'heretics'

it kinda sets people up for their burning at the Stake ?

why not thrown in 'Trans sceptic' also ? Cos i have never fancied a bloke in a dress - and expect to get thrown into jail for admitting such a truth.

 

[cryrst]

Funny you should say that because one of the 3 things that affect the severity of a glacial period is atmospheric gasses, though what is though to be the prime cause is oscillation of the tilt of the planet.

Climate deniers tend to lean on these kind of things which is ironic because suddenly now they don't believe in the link between temperature and CO2, but they did then. Strange.

Go on then.
What is the CO2 ppm now compared to the last ice age. I know the now do you ?

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

100% is obviously nonsense or previous ice ages wouldn't have happened.

Not when it applies to the problems we face now. Which is what I said. Natural change has no impact at all on the current situation. Over the next 10,000 years it will but even then the expected slow cooling is likely to be more than mitigated by mankind’s contribution. That though is not our responsibility. Now is.

 

[Spindle]

'Climate deniers'...........thats a very Orwellian language. A bit like 'anti vaxxers'...... or formerly 'heretics'

it kinda sets people up for their burning at the Stake ?

why not thrown in 'Trans sceptic' also ? Cos i have never fancied a bloke in a dress - and expect to get thrown into jail for admitting such a truth.

Melodrama

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Not when it applies to the problems we face now. Which is what I said. Natural change has no impact at all on the current situation. Over the next 10,000 years it will but even then the expected slow cooling is likely to be more than mitigated by mankind’s contribution. That though is not our responsibility. Now is.

There have been at least five ice ages which had no human involvement but now it's 100 % different.
How do we know that the causes of those incidences haven't contributed now?

 

[Spindle]

Go on then.
What is the CO2 ppm now compared to the last ice age. I know the now do you ?

Should be easy to look up since the Vostok cores contain the last 270,000 years therefore more than one period. Regardless I did point out that there is more than one reason for these periods and cited planetary tilt.

Nonetheless you appear to be indicating that you don't believe that there is a link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Is this just an opinion or have you based this on science?

 

[Spindle]

There have been at least five ice ages which had no human involvement but now it's 100 % different.
How do we know that the causes of those incidences haven't contributed now?

Because we know the causes of them. But you're missing something really obvious.

You are referring to previous ice ages, therefore we have EXITED the cool period over 10,000 years ago and we're in the warm, interglacial period. And this has been cyclic. So how do you explain why it's getting warmer, suddenly? We are still on 33 degrees of tilt, that has not lessened, so it can't be that can it.

You're either going to follow the academic people or not, and if not, don't ever call an ambulance when sick, what would they know 🤷

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Because we know the causes of them. But you're missing something really obvious.

You are referring to previous ice ages, therefore we have EXITED the cool period over 10,000 years ago and we're in the warm, interglacial period. And this has been cyclic. So how do you explain why it's getting warmer, suddenly? We are still on 33 degrees of tilt, that has not lessened, so it can't be that can it.

You're either going to follow the academic people or not, and if not, don't ever call an ambulance when sick, what would they know 🤷

Why does the fact it's happening more quickly mean it's 100 % man made?

 

[cryrst]

Should be easy to look up since the Vostok cores contain the last 270,000 years therefore more than one period. Regardless I did point out that there is more than one reason for these periods and cited planetary tilt.

Nonetheless you appear to be indicating that you don't believe that there is a link between atmospheric CO2 and temperature. Is this just an opinion or have you based this on science?

Not at all but I know there is very little difference.
ATM it’s 0. 0039% CO2 or 3900 ppm.
Why can’t planetary tilt be the reason now and have you sourced the values from our last 4 melting ages. We are still in a glacial period as the poles are still Ice. When they are not it’s melted again as it did naturally at least 4 times in 250,000 years.
Long time you think !

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

There have been at least five ice ages which had no human involvement but now it's 100 % different.
How do we know that the causes of those incidences haven't contributed now?

Omg!

It’s all been explained several times. Please read the thread.

 

[Spindle]

Why does the fact it's happening more quickly mean it's 100 % man made?

What evidence do you have otherwise. You're argument is a "Russell's Teapot" one

 

[cryrst]

Omg!

It’s all been explained several times. Please read the thread.

Planetary tilt as spindle posted. It does have an effect as the sun warms a different plane on the planet over years.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Why does the fact it's happening more quickly mean it's 100 % man made?

Because natural change spans thousands of years. The historical record proves that. The changes we are witnessing could only be caused by man’s activity and the impact of them has been measured to confirm this.

Trying to find reasons not to blame the burning of fossil fuels for this is just a smokescreen put up by commercial interests. They plant doubts in those minds who want to distrust everything that authorities tell them. Please don’t be fooled.

 

[Spindle]

Not at all but I know there is very little difference.
ATM it’s 0. 0039% CO2 or 3900 ppm.
Why can’t planetary tilt be the reason now and have you sourced the values from our last 4 melting ages. We are still in a glacial period as the poles are still Ice. When they are not it’s melted again as it did naturally at least 4 times in 250,000 years.
Long time you think !

Sorry you just have that wrong. For a start Antarctica has been frozen entirely for at least 3 million years.

Also, we're well past 390ppm, up to 430 ppm now. Just keep on turning that oven knob clockwise, what could go wrong?

 

[Spindle]

Because natural change spans thousands of years. The historical record proves that. The changes we are witnessing could only be caused by man’s activity and the impact of them has been measured to confirm this.

Trying to find reasons not to blame the burning of fossil fuels for this is just a smokescreen put up by commercial interests. They plant doubts in those minds who want to distrust everything that authorities tell them. Please don’t be fooled.

Indeed. I can't imagine fellating oil executive desires like so many seem to.🤦

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Because natural change spans thousands of years. The historical record proves that. The changes we are witnessing could only be caused by man’s activity and the impact of them has been measured to confirm this.

Trying to find reasons not to blame the burning of fossil fuels for this is just a smokescreen put up by commercial interests. They plant doubts in those minds who want to distrust everything that authorities tell them. Please don’t be fooled.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm disputing the claim that it's 100 % man made as has been claimed as indisputable fact.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Planetary tilt as spindle posted. It does have an effect as the sun warms a different plane on the planet over years.

Do you think the tilt changes every year? Every 10, 100 or 1000?

Actually it’s on a 41,000 year cycle. So it isn’t noticeable to us and has no impact at all on the changing climate we are seeing. It’s all man made.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm disputing the claim that it's 100 % man made as has been claimed as indisputable fact.

You can dispute from now until the next ice age but you will still be wrong. The effect we are witnessing has nothing to do with natural change. It’s a sideshow. An irrelevant diversion.