• 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

Alan USA said:
This article doesn't really say anyu8thing, though. It simply states "water vapor makes up 95% of greenhouse gases" but then makes absolutely no argument as to whether this changes the degree to which humans influence climate change.
Click to expand...

The point was that human CO2 input is inconsequential. The radiative forcing delta due to human input is of no regard.
The whole carbon dioxide catastophe is predicated on a water vapour positive feedback, no proof of which exists.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
The whole carbon dioxide catastophe is predicated on a water vapour positive feedback, no proof of which exists.
Click to expand...

No it isnt. Its predicated on a CO2/Methane positive feedback, which very much does exist.
 
Seriously, randomly googling for any old article that appears to back up your pre-ordained conclusion is doing you no favours at all. It makes you look like a dogmatist who is desperate to be right, rather than the objective empiricist you claim to be.

When you cite articles with mistakes that a GCSE student could spot then you bring ridicule on yourself, since the impression you give is that you either missed them yourself, or you saw them but elected to ignore them. Either way, it aint good.
 
Visage said:
Is that Tim Ball the creationist?

Scraping the barrel a bit, arent we?

And anyone that can say 'This claim is false because CO2 levels have risen for 18+ years while temperature hasn’t increased, in contradiction to their major assumption that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase.' clearly is an idiot. Global temperatures *have* increased.

Reference: http://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=65

Why make such a basic error, unless your aim is to mislead?
Click to expand...

If you are going to the misnamed skeptical science I feel free to use the sites you knee jerk despise. I do not seek to mislead but demonstrate that there is still so much to debate. I agree that creationists ought to butt out. I'm not aware that Tim Ball is one.
 
Visage said:
Seriously, randomly googling for any old article that appears to back up your pre-ordained conclusion is doing you no favours at all. It makes you look like a dogmatist who is desperate to be right, rather than the objective empiricist you claim to be.

When you cite articles with mistakes that a GCSE student could spot then you bring ridicule on yourself, since the impression you give is that you either missed them yourself, or you saw them but elected to ignore them. Either way, it aint good.
Click to expand...

I would be confident that I left school with A levels at least as good as yours. I chose engineering, you chose physics.
I mentor people including my eldest son who is studying geography at university, if I was talking bollocks he would tell me.
It is you that has the entrenched view, green idealism. I removed myself from political affiliation many years ago, gives me the liberty to make informed input to projects that matter.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
If you are going to the miss named skeptical science I feel free to use the sites you knee jerk despise. I do not seek to mislead but demonstrate that there is still so much to debate. I agree that creationists ought to butt out. I'm not aware that Tim Ball is one.
Click to expand...

The difference here is that the linked site is reporting from an academic, peer-reviewed article.
 
Alan USA said:
The difference here is that the linked site is reporting from an academic, peer-reviewed article.
Click to expand...

It is the usual Dana unsubstantiated rubbish. Measuring or realising ocean heat content delta is nigh on impossible.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
It is the usual Dana unsubstantiated rubbish. Measuring or realising ocean heat content delta is nigh on impossible.
Click to expand...

So essentially even academic sources that support climate change are "unsubstantiated rubbish"?
 
Alan USA said:
So essentially even academic sources that support climate change are "unsubstantiated rubbish"?
Click to expand...

Climate changes but not in the fanciful way that Dana suggests, there is no shortage of material to demostrate such, academic or otherwise.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Climate changes but not in the fanciful way that Dana suggests, there is no shortage of material to demostrate such.
Click to expand...

You haven't presented any such material, though.
 
The person who made the comment at the bottom of the article must not be very familiar with US geography... or they'd know that the Southwest US is a desert!
 
It's a difficult situation. On the one hand, such investment in fossil fuels only serves to prolong their stay as a necessity. On the other, you can't rightly invest more in green energy just yet as that would leave developing countries in an even deeper hole than they already are.

Part of me wonders if the best solution wouldn't be to continue the relative goose chase of investing in "cleaner" fossil burning practices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top