• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Is this a 12 or 15 round match? Not wishing to be offensive but I need to know how much popcorn to get in.
 
Visage said:
Good. Progress.

So, we have a concensus that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made.

Now, onto the rest of the argument. As I have mentioned before, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation readily, and it is infrared radiation that the earth radiates most strongly. SO mankind has doubled the concentration of a substance that absorbs the predominant for of heat radiating from the earths surface.

At the same time, we have seen global temperatures increasing.

To clarify, I have a simple question: is it your position that this is coincidence?
Click to expand...

I've just re-read that and I cannot see any physical basis for what you assert. If anyone has a simplified view it is you.
I'm still game.
It is naive in the extreme to suggest that a small increment in a useful trace gas is dangerous.
Please argue with some decent quantifiable physics why humans are destroying the planet. Please also deal with the
atmosphere and the oceans with the respect they deserve. Nobody on this thread has demonstrated much understanding including your good self.
 
Last edited:
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I've just re-read that and I cannot see any physical basis for what you assert. If anyone has a simplified view it is you.
I'm still game.
It is naive in the extreme to suggest that a small increment in a useful trace gas is dangerous.
Please argue with some decent quantifiable physics why humans are destroying the planet. Please also deal with the
atmosphere and the oceans with the respect they deserve. Nobody on this thread has demonstrated much understanding including your good self.
Click to expand...

Hippy.
 
There comes a point where I wonder 'Why bother'?

When I go to the trouble of detailing the science, the evidence, the logic, and its either ignored, or responded to by introducing a flurry of irrelevences, then it becomes clear that my time could be better used talking to people who are actually interested in learning.
 
So Hazel has won then?

Good, can we burn this thread now (or will that release dangerous fumes into our atmosphere?)
 
Christ chaps i admire you willpower,
I've rebuilt my kitchen , redug and re planted my garden , drunk amazing amounts of cypro, had a brillaint affair with a serbian violinist, got a brill suntan, eaten like a pig and followed the whole of Euro 2012 live and in tavernas, and bugger me you're still here and still at it, fair play lads i guess i must be doing something wrong.

P.S, Hazel, can written words be deemed in any way as hot air? if they can, to quote corproral fraser, "we're doomed, we're aaaaaaalllllllll dooooooooooomed".
 
Serbian violinist? Pics please.
 
Old-woman_01.jpg
 
Visage said:
There comes a point where I wonder 'Why bother'?

When I go to the trouble of detailing the science, the evidence, the logic, and its either ignored, or responded to by introducing a flurry of irrelevences, then it becomes clear that my time could be better used talking to people who are actually interested in learning.
Click to expand...

You have presented no evidence or logic just a mantra that countless scientists more eloquent and informed than I can challenge. Challenging one's own belief is important, my hypotheses are often wrong or need modification. Recognise that and you might have a product.
On this thread I've leveraged the thoughts of like minded people, if you are uncomfortable with that sobeit. Exclaiming certainties about atmospheric physics is just dim.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
You have presented no evidence or logic just a mantra that countless scientists more eloquent and informed than I can challenge. Challenging one's own belief is important, my hypotheses are often wrong or need modification. Recognise that and you might have a product.
On this thread I've leveraged the thoughts of like minded people, if you are uncomfortable with that sobeit. Exclaiming certainties about atmospheric physics is just dim.
Click to expand...

I knew you were a genius really, that confirms it.
 
Deutsch Wolf said:
Roughly translated: I freely admit I talk a load of bollocks.
Click to expand...

No, it means that I am likely right and have product that demonstrates that.
You clearly have no idea what is involved in electronic product design and certification for example. Cocking up is part of the process. Experience is everything.
If you don't understand something important to you find out the required understanding, my motto.
 
Last edited:
lemonjelly said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19047501
Click to expand...

So an egotistical scientist who doubted everybody else and only made a simplistic conclusion following his own study is converted. The man strikes me as a complete bellend. He may as well have said I don't believe the world is round as you all say it is until I have been on my own journey.

The best conclusion was from the author who didn't want to be credited and thought the whole thing provided little understanding of the problem with global warming. She stopped short of saying it was a sham and we have to question why wealthy industrialists have a vested interest in this conclusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top