Hey, alarmists...

[Bricktop]

Truer words, never spake.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

Don't worry, the biggest crisis your kids will face is how will they pay for all this sky is falling extortion.

Like I said, I am not worried about it.

[Anonymous]

Don't worry, the biggest crisis your kids will face is how will they pay for all this sky is falling extortion.

Like I said, I am not worried about it.

That makes two of us Azhya.

 ac_smile

[Anonymous]

Not worried about it either.

[Frood]

Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

But the science is settled, the world is near the tipping point, and it's all your fault. Now repent of your sins and hand it all over.

 ac_biggrin



If they had faith in that point instead of pussyfooting around the logical conclusion of a contrived problem, they'd be prepared to kill themselves for the planet as a salvation.



Climate change religion nutters want others to die but never themselves or their own.

[Bricktop]

Reel is an exemplary stereotype.



He is not qualified, by any measure, but talks like he is. He provides a dissertation on thermodynamics that he admits is high school equivalent, and then scowls at the audience and says "prove me wrong".



Its a typical alarmist tactic.

It could actually be very serious. It could mean 6 days longer before Arctic freeze up and thus 6 days sooner for Arctic break up. A 12 day shift might not seem like a lot, but that could make a huge ecological difference as well as reduce that heat sink, further accelerating the process. At any rate, it's good reason for scientists to study the effects and for the rest of us to take pause and re-examine what we are doing, don't you think?

He thus admits he doesn't KNOW, yet regales us whilst contradicting an eminent physicist. Does he expect us to ignore said academic in lieu of an amateur who builds boats?



And he bleats that scientists are in agreement. THAT is the point of this thread. Not that the speakers are right or wrong, but the science is NOT conclusive, nor unanimously accepted by their community. There is dissent, valid and worthy of consideration, but the warmists cannot or will not accept it.



THAT is what this is about.



Because until the science is unequivocal, and ALL scientists agree on the prognosis, Governments spending OUR money on daffy side issues like wind farms and solar power are WASTING it away.



What we can do, right now, is to stop the polluters carrying out their operations that poison our environment. The fist significant step in that direction is to replace ALL coal fired power generators with nuclear.



Next, reduce by HALF, the power of motor vehicles, especially those with massive engines that spew out carbon monoxide. A 2 litre motor vehicle is ample for most drivers, and more than enough for city based users. Then apply emission control on those engines.



This will achieve more in a few years than any of these cockamamy technologies greenies scream for.

[@realAzhyaAryola]

In other words, there are no geniuses here. Yes, we know.

[cc]

Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

[RW]

No science is without challenge and ALL scientists will never agree.  The whole point of science is to question itself and it does it well.



Consensus in science also doesn't mean unanimity.  It means a group of scientists in a particular field agree on something at a given point in time.  Consensus aside, what's ore important is a standard of evidence.  Can other scientists reproduce an experience and get the same result.  Consensus is formed when scientists reproduce tests and get the same result.



These are people actually doing the experiements, not some old codger bleating from a podium.  He's not a climate scientist yet we're supposed to take a few minutes of him snapping off slides as a legitimate challenge?  That doesn't much work on a scientific level and if your laureate doesn't know that, he should.



This article explains things fairly well of how things work in terms of "consensus" - http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/scientific-consensus-has-gotten-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/2/">http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/ ... erve-it/2/">http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/scientific-consensus-has-gotten-a-bad-reputation-and-it-doesnt-deserve-it/2/

[RW]

Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

I used to think science relied on faith but it relies on reproducible results.  Religion - not so much.

[cc]

Last time I checked they didn't hand out Nobel prizes for Climate or Environmental sciences - only chemistry and physics in the sciences.  Has something changed?

Shhh. If you are heard in Norway / Sweden, they will create one

[cc]

Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

I used to think science relied on faith but it relies on reproducible results.  Religion - not so much.

I was  describing  the flock as religious-like, not the science. I stand behind that

[RW]

Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

But the science is settled, the world is near the tipping point, and it's all your fault. Now repent of your sins and hand it all over.

 ac_biggrin



If they had faith in that point instead of pussyfooting around the logical conclusion of a contrived problem, they'd be prepared to kill themselves for the planet as a salvation.



Climate change religion nutters want others to die but never themselves or their own.

Right now science is theorizing about the consequences and doing what science does in experimenting.  It's not the fault of science that politics has grabbed a hold of it and is barrelling at break neck speed with the propaganda and capitalism machines in toe.

[RW]

Look at all the religious climate change talk which has transpired in this thread already.  ac_smile

Bingo Dinky. "Religious" is an appropriate description of the climate cooling .. damn .. I meant warming flock

I used to think science relied on faith but it relies on reproducible results.  Religion - not so much.

I was  describing  the flock as religious-like, not the science. I stand behind that

I can't argue that.

[Bricktop]

These are people actually doing the experiements

Really?



10,000 "scientists" are all doing these experiments? Please enlighten us. What are these "experiments"? What are they actually doing?



The eminent physicist did not do any "experiments".



He used data collected by the SAME organisations that collect the SAME data relied upon by the alarmists. Do you propose that every one of these so-called "climatologists" (an academic discpline I am unaware of) is making their own data?



Seriously?