• 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

Just to clarify. I justify my views from a classical understanding of physics and engineering nouse to know when I'm being sold a pup.
I get stuff wrong but I accept the challenge to fix it, that is what I get paid for.
By chance I encountered a LibDem prospective councillor yesterday that happened to be an engineer. I explained my reasons why I would not vote for them, notably on energy policy and the concept of the EU. Funnily enough he wound up in agreement, I'm not sure it was just for show either.
I'll add this which includes a quote from an atmospheric physicist amongst others:
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/climate-change-data-presents-alternatives/article_c9ed750a-a739-54d5-842e-48101fa0d718.html
 
Just seen this on Facebook. Scary stuff.

 
That's from that Chasing Ice documentary I mentioned earlier. Highly recommended. On Netflix Streaming, too.
 
Visage said:

Batshit...
Click to expand...

Are the likes of Ed Milliband, Caroline Lucas, Natalie Bennett or Bryony Worthington better qualified? I agree with you though that that statement of the benefits of carbon dioxide was beyond dumb.
 
No, but they have the good sense to listen to experts.

Btw, James Dellingpole isn't an expert.
 
Visage said:
No, but they have the good sense to listen to experts.

Btw, James Dellingpole isn't an expert.
Click to expand...

It is however determining the difference between 'expertise' and political convenience that is important. Care to comment on my two links?
I reserve the right to use links to press articles where they provide links to supporting evidence, it is a journalist's job function, n'est pas?
 
Why do you ignore the overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change then?
 
Visage said:
Why do you ignore the overwhelming evidence of man-made climate change then?
Click to expand...

There is no 'overwhelming' evidence of significant anthropogenic climate change, you clearly didn't bother reading my links. By observable geology it is clear that living organisms contribute and necessarily so.
 
You dont think that a concensus of 97% of climatologists constitutes overwhelming evidence?

But of course, when one guy in the daily mail offers a dissenting voice then its very important that we take him seriously.....
 
Vis, is there really much point?

The vast majority of this forum and the world think Hazelgrove's viewpoint is bonkers.
 
Visage said:
You dont think that a concensus of 97% of climatologists constitutes overwhelming evidence?

But of course, when one guy in the daily mail offers a dissenting voice then its very important that we take him seriously.....
Click to expand...

The 97% nonsense has been shown for what it is many times. The GWPF paper I linked to is backed by some serious academics. It is interesting that you chose to ignore honest, valid criticism of the Royal Society.
 
Visage said:
Indeed. You've got 3% of scientists, for a start. And UKIP.
Click to expand...


Who gives a shit? That doesn't matter. You don't need people's opinions on a fact. You may as well have poll asking, "which number is bigger: 15 or 5"?
 
What if I had a position paper from the 'Five is Bigger than Fifteen Policy Foundation'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top