Extinction Rebellion versus brexit

[Andyregs]

43 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

No, some have different opinions as I do.

The Chem. Form for Nitrous Oxide is N2O....lol.

All those 200+ state that climate change is real and we are having on impact on it. 
 

and? 

[Paul6754]

18 hours ago, toyahw said:

I don't know why I waste my breath on rabid ignorant idiots. Upper case is the last refuge of the internet scoundrels.

There you go again making abusive statements which is your hallmark. For a supposed lecturer at a Univ that is very poor form.

Post the graph/evidence of what you refer to on page 1 of this thread, you won't 'cause you know it does not back up your claim.

18 hours ago, toyahw said:

Let me take this slowly. Your argument is there is no evidence of cause and effect. There was a massive increase in C02 and temp increase. Clearly demonstrated in the records. This coincided with mass volcanic eruptions. So your logic says, increased C02  led to volcanic eruptions. Not vice versa? Nuts.

Now let me take this a little more slowly, there is no evidence  or data that I'm aware of to indicate that increased levels of CO2 lead to an increase in volcano eruptions, that is purely in your mind.

18 hours ago, toyahw said:

Why you are so rabid over this defies me. Agree to disagree and call it a draw that pumping <ovf censored> in the atmosphere is a bad plan.

i'm not rabid at all but will remain skeptical 'til real, solid evidence appears linking CO2 Levels and global warming.

18 hours ago, toyahw said:

You made a ridiculous comment about the amount of C02. A small part of the atmosphere. But the largest part, Nitrogen is passive. So double the amount of C02, by your reckoning this makes bugger all difference. Still a very small proportion of the atmosphere. But it doubles the amount causing, or potentially causing, the problem.

Not a ridiculous comment at all, the basic science that a tiny, tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the control knob for climate change is ludicrous and there is no evidence for it whatsoever. CO2 isn't even the most prevalent and powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and doubling atmospheric levels of CO2 will not double the greenhouse effect, not even close and there is a basic scientific explanation why not.

The graph you refer to shows that over thousands and thousands of years the level of atmospheric CO2 has varied immensely from ca 200 ppm to 1000's of ppm, much higher levels than the 400 ppm seen now and that was before man was making CO2, so atmospheric levels of CO2 vary naturally.  Many scientists have said there is insufficient CO2 in the air at the moment, CO2 is plant food and greens the earth.

18 hours ago, toyahw said:

Do you want to take the risk? Or does it make sense to cut it down?  Seeing as with a few changes to our life styles this is easily done? 

 

I'm fine to agree to disagree but would say all this stuff about the world is gonna end in 12 years, Extinction Rebellion and paying carbon tax is nonsense and the view that Africa should develop using energy generated from much more expensive solar and wind methods is plan wrong. The Earth's climate is a huge equilibrium, always has been always will be.

[Andyregs]

34 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

There you go again making abusive statements which is your hallmark. For a supposed lecturer at a Univ that is very poor form.

Post the graph/evidence of what you refer to on page 1 of this thread, you won't 'cause you know it does not back up your claim.

You’ve called me psychotic, a maniac, insane, a nut job and a PSYCHOTIC MARXIST! Because I think trump might be just a little corrupt. 
 

Both those sentences make you seem just a tab hypocritical.

[Andyregs]

You’d think, seeing as the scientific consensus on climate change has been truly debunked because Paul says so, that there would be reams and reams of peer reviewed scientific papers that show climate change isn’t man made. 

[Andyregs]

21 hours ago, Paul6754 said:

No, some have different opinions as I do.

The Chem. Form for Nitrous Oxide is N2O....lol.

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806#authorNotesSectionTitle
 

jjst released, signed by 11,000 scientists from 153 countries.

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

“Policymakers and the public now urgently need access to a set of indicators that convey the effects of human activities on GHG emissions and the consequent impacts on climate, our environment, and society. Building on prior work (see supplemental file S2), we present a suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the last 40 years for human activities that can affect GHG emissions and change the climate ”

pretty clear cut.

[Paul6754]

On 08/11/2019 at 14:57, Andyregs said:

You’d think, seeing as the scientific consensus on climate change has been truly debunked because Paul says so, that there would be reams and reams of peer reviewed scientific papers that show climate change isn’t man made. 

There is if you would look for it.

[Paul6754]

On 09/11/2019 at 10:49, Andyregs said:

https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biz088/5610806#authorNotesSectionTitle
 

jjst released, signed by 11,000 scientists from 153 countries.

“Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to “tell it like it is.” On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.

“Policymakers and the public now urgently need access to a set of indicators that convey the effects of human activities on GHG emissions and the consequent impacts on climate, our environment, and society. Building on prior work (see supplemental file S2), we present a suite of graphical vital signs of climate change over the last 40 years for human activities that can affect GHG emissions and change the climate ”

pretty clear cut.

I see one of the 11,000  "Scientists" is Professor Mickey Mouse  plus a fair few others of similar ilk but I guess you'll still run with it.

Just about sums up your debate/discussion skills which are to cut and past without reading, understanding or having any knowledge of the subject matter or quality control of the article, priceless. Listen to this video or pick from many articles saying the same.

 

[Andyregs]

40 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

There is if you would look for it.

I did, and they all seem to show that humans are having a negative impact on climate change. I showed you one signed by 11000 scientists in a respectable journal. 

[Paul6754]

On 08/11/2019 at 14:39, Andyregs said:

You’ve called me psychotic, a maniac, insane, a nut job and a PSYCHOTIC MARXIST! Because I think trump might be just a little corrupt. 
 

Both those sentences make you seem just a tab hypocritical.

Nowt wrong with the truth.

[Andyregs]

3 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

I see one of the 11,000  "Scientists" is Professor Mickey Mouse  plus a fair few others of similar ilk but I guess you'll still run with it.

Just about sums up your debate/discussion skills which are to cut and past without reading, understanding or having any knowledge of the subject matter or quality control of the article, priceless. Listen to this video or pick from many articles saying the same.

 

I didn’t cut and paste, I linked a respected journal and took out specific quotes because I figured you wouldn’t read it. By all means link similar from an equally respected journal. You know instead of YouTube.

[Andyregs]

3 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

Nowt wrong with the truth.

It just shows how low you’re scraping. 

[Andyregs]

7 minutes ago, Paul6754 said:

I see one of the 11,000  "Scientists" is Professor Mickey Mouse  plus a fair few others of similar ilk but I guess you'll still run with it.

I checked. I don’t see it. 
 

[Andyregs]

Oh my god, you’re mocking me for linking a respected scientific journal and your YouTube source is the guy who was rightfully criticised in the press for his comments about someone with aspergers. Perhaps explains your ‘issues’ with Greta.

His comment on cardinal pell, the convicted child abuser.

"I am not a Catholic or even a Christian. He is a scapegoat, not a child abuser."

That’s your source of rebuttal. Lol

[Paul6754]

11 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

I didn’t cut and paste, I linked a respected journal and took out specific quotes because I figured you wouldn’t read it. By all means link similar from an equally respected journal. You know instead of YouTube.

You cut and pasted a link to an article which you clearly hadn't read or hadn't understood, it's the only method of debate you have.

The article couldn't even have been  peer reviewed by the looks of it as it contains Prof. Mickey Mouse as one of the "11,000" scientists together with others of similar ilk. How do you know the journal is respected.

There is absolutely no point in this discussion, period, it's laughable that you or anyone would stand behind this article you quoted/posted.

[Paul6754]

18 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

I checked. I don’t see it. 
 

It's been removed, take a look at the other hundred or so articles which say the same. I'm done, your way past cuckoo.