Has environmental evangelism replaced the religious envagelism?

[ColchesterFC]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

Yeah, but apart from all of that where's the evidence? ;-)

 

[Fade and Die]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp

https://www.edf.org/climate/9-ways-we-know-humans-triggered-climate-change

1. Simple chemistry – when we burn carbon-based materials, carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted (research beginning in 1900s)
2. Basic accounting of what we burn, and therefore how much CO2 we emit (data collection beginning in 1970s)
3. Measuring CO2 in the atmosphere and trapped in ice to find that it's increasing, with levels higher than anything we've seen in hundreds of thousands of years (measurements beginning in 1950s)
4. Chemical analysis of the atmospheric CO2 that reveals the increase is coming from burning fossil fuels (research beginning in 1950s)
5. Basic physics that shows us that CO2 absorbs heat (research beginning in 1820s)
6. Monitoring climate conditions to find that recent warming of the Earth is correlated to and follows rising CO2 emissions (research beginning in 1930s)
7. Ruling out natural factors that can influence climate like the sun and ocean cycles (research beginning in 1830s)
8. Employing computer models to run experiments of natural versus human-influenced simulations of Earth (research beginning in 1960s)
9. Consensus among scientists who consider all previous lines of evidence and make their own conclusions (polling beginning in 1990s)

Read my post, only scientist that tow the line get funding. It’s all a con.

It is a wonderful excuse for governments to add a ‘green’ tax and pick our wallets though.
Notice how it isn’t even called global warming anymore, since a lot of people figured out that it is actually getting cooler in many places.
Climate change, as it is now called has been occuring naturally since time began.
But that is no excuse not to tax people for it.
I wish they would focus their efforts on the mass pollution and fracking that’s more of a threat to us.
Obviously you lads have swallowed it hook line and sinker so I’ll leave you to it.👍

 

[SocketRocket]

Yeah, but apart from all of that where's the evidence? ;-)

Google is our friend. I had to delete half of the Scientists as the list was too big for a single post.

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[86][87]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[88][89][90]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[91][92][93]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[94][95]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[96]
• Doug Edmeades, soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[97]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[98][99]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[100][101]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[42][102]
• Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[103]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[104][105]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[106][107]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[108][109]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[110][111]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[112][113]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[114][115]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[116][117]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[118][119]

 

[bobmac]

So all the scientists who say climate change/global warming is real and man made are all lying to keep their jobs?
And if so what should we do?
With the population/demand for energy continuing to rise, do we carry on burning fossil fuels or not, bearing in mind they will run out sooner or later or push now for cleaner, cheaper and renewable energy that won't run out?

 

[PJ87]

Don’t fret...man made global warming is a myth... It’s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

I’ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80’s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The “experts” were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago.

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago.

Do some research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No – 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just don’t get any air time.

I knew your posts made sense, all falls into place Donald.

 

[Hitdaball]

Google is our friend. I had to delete half of the Scientists as the list was too big for a single post.

SocketRocket is a flat eather too.

Seriously, who would have thunk it?

 

[Hitdaball]

Read my post, only scientist that tow the line get funding. It’s all a con.

It is a wonderful excuse for governments to add a ‘green’ tax and pick our wallets though.
Notice how it isn’t even called global warming anymore, since a lot of people figured out that it is actually getting cooler in many places.
Climate change, as it is now called has been occuring naturally since time began.
But that is no excuse not to tax people for it.
I wish they would focus their efforts on the mass pollution and fracking that’s more of a threat to us.
Obviously you lads have swallowed it hook line and sinker so I’ll leave you to it.👍

We should tax stupidity, we could use the revenue to fund solar R&D.

 

[Foxholer]

Google is our friend. I had to delete half of the Scientists as the list was too big for a single post.

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

....

They may or may not be the case. Personally, I believe there are BOTH natural and 'un-natural' causes. And I'm uncertain whether 'more likely' is the correct term, simply 'also'.

But even if there is a 'natural' it certainly doesn't mean that we should (greatly) accelerate that effect by adding - significantly - to the problem!

That's the same 'logic' that I apply to the effect that very likely killed my mother early - the ozone layer. Always been one, but atmospheric CFCs greatly expanded it - so much that school-children in NZ have restrictions on 'outdoor time' - and there's an excellent Aussie slogan 'Slip, slop, slap' for outdoor activity.

Having said all that, I'm about to harness clothing made with/using PFCs (another hazardoud range of chemicals) - GoreTex jacket, pants and shoes, so a touch of hypocrisy there! Btw. I understand Gore are actively trying to replace that product/process with a less 'hazardous' one.

 

[SocketRocket]

SocketRocket is a flat eather too.

Seriously, who would have thunk it?

Easier using an insult than engage in debate when someone posts contrary. And I get accused of using insults🙄

 

[SocketRocket]

So all the scientists who say climate change/global warming is real and man made are all lying to keep their jobs?
And if so what should we do?
With the population/demand for energy continuing to rise, do we carry on burning fossil fuels or not, bearing in mind they will run out sooner or later or push now for cleaner, cheaper and renewable energy that won't run out?

The answer is 'Yes' but we should do that irrespective of the climate.

 

[SocketRocket]

We should tax stupidity, we could use the revenue to fund solar R&D.

🙄

 

[Fade and Die]

I knew your posts made sense, all falls into place Donald.

I’ll take that.👍

 

[Fade and Die]

We should tax stupidity, we could use the revenue to fund solar R&D.

As long as we don’t try taxing common sense as we will be skint in a week!

 

[Hitdaball]

Easier using an insult than engage in debate when someone posts contrary. And I get accused of using insults🙄

You could post links to a 100s of scientists who are don’t believe human activity is affecting climate change and it would not change the fact that 97% of them agree with the consensus as already linked by @Liverpoolphil before your post. But you ignored that.

Therefore in the face of overriding evidence to the contrary by people far more intelligent than your good self you choose to hold a contrarian view and share it in here. I’d say thats fair game.

I thought you would take Flat Earther as a compliment to be honest, you probably like to think you are a bit edgy and outside of the establishment, above sheeple like me who listen to experts. You strike me as someone who would type experts in parenthesis, fair play to you.

 

[Kellfire]

Gravity isn’t a thing either. Things fall due to density. 😬

 

[Hitdaball]

Gravity isn’t a thing either. Things fall due to density. 😬

They do in here.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Don’t fret...man made global warming is a myth... It’s an industry,
Scientists who sign up get lucrative grants and new jobs. Scientists who disagree get finished.

The world is still pulling out of the last ice age and temps are expected to rise, as they are.
They are just abusing this fact.

I’ll keep it simple but the warming lobby tell you that carbon dioxide is causing the planet to warm to a level where we will be generally flooded in 50 years.
That this CO2 is produced by us burning fossil fuels. Material that is naturally on this planet.

The amount of CO2 which Mount St. Helens blew out over 2 days when it blew in the early 80’s is
more than the industrialised world has exhaled in the last 30 years.

The “experts” were telling us 20 years ago that London, Holland and Maldives would be under water by now...Result- no sea level rise at all!

Told us ice caps would all be gone...
Northern ice caps reached a 50 year high 3 winters ago.

Remember the Romans were growing grapes as far North as Lincolnshire 2000 years ago.

Do some research...Another myth btw is that 95% of scientists agree about MMGW. No – 95% of the scientists attached to the International Panel on Climate Change agree but they have a vested interest. There are thousands of scientists who are sceptical about our part in global warming. They just don’t get any air time.

Well, as someone who believes that increased CO2 ( if not absorbed sufficiently) would contribute to global warming ( forget the dolts who think all it means is the planet gets warmer), I nevertheless note that this post alleges some facts. !
So, are they facts? No one yet has said that StHelens did not spew out what is alleged, nor that the Northern ice caps ........, And , yes, grapes in Lincs would have needed good temps.
If they are facts, there is some relevance there to F and D 's point.
Which is, as far as I can see, that though there is increased industrial CO2, it is not going to be critical as feared, and the natural cycle of the planet will accommodate it.
However, he has not addressed the ( to my mind) valid accusation that denying human caused climate change is usually found to be done by business minded people and politicians who know full well that if they acknowledge climate change, they will be asked to make financial sacrifices to correct it.
AKA, Problem? What problem?

Personally I think we humans should reduce carbon emissions somewhat, after all we seem to be discovering ways technologically to do it. So, why not use them.
What is undeniable is the effects of plastic. No way is that a natural cycle.
Now , that requires really urgent action.

 

[SocketRocket]

You could post links to a 100s of scientists who are don’t believe human activity is affecting climate change and it would not change the fact that 97% of them agree with the consensus as already linked by @Liverpoolphil before your post. But you ignored that.

Therefore in the face of overriding evidence to the contrary by people far more intelligent than your good self you choose to hold a contrarian view and share it in here. I’d say thats fair game.

I thought you would take Flat Earther as a compliment to be honest, you probably like to think you are a bit edgy and outside of the establishment, above sheeple like me who listen to experts. You strike me as someone who would type experts in parenthesis, fair play to you.

I am making the point that going to google and picking out a list that supports your preferred view is not a way to argue your case when its possible to do the same and produce a contrary view. Thats why I did it, hopefully showing how shallow an arguement that is.
Read the post above for a sensible responce.

 

[Hitdaball]

I am making the point that going to google and picking out a list that supports your preferred view is not a way to argue your case when its possible to do the same and produce a contrary view. Thats why I did it, hopefully showing how shallow an arguement that is.
Read the post above for a sensible responce.

I completed a degree in environmental science 15 years ago in my spare time for giggles. That’s what has helped formed my opinion. Do you have a degree in google?

 

[Hitdaball]

So, are they facts? No one yet has said that StHelens did not spew out what is alleged

No , they are not facts . I’ll take one.

USGS suggests Mount St. Helens eruption was equivalent to 2.5hrs of man made emissions.

Mind what do those pesky “experts” at the USGS know.