Anthropogenic climate change? I don't think so.

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai explains how the IPCC is ripping us off with their controversial climate ideology.

Also, here's an article describing how one of the leading 'scientists', James Hansen (NASA, IPCC), manipulated data to get in line with his global warming theory, because it didn't materialise after 10 years.

Fourteen Is the New Fifteen!

2u3vjk.jpg

Looking forward to the debate.
 
Last edited:

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
269
I think this debate has been debated to death. You are either a believer or a 'denier' and ne'r the twain shall meet.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Might be true.

Still, the IPCC's theory doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
I jumped on the train too at first, because of my background (agr. sciences, env. sciences and fishery management), but started to question the narrative, when at some point I felt it didn't make a lot of sense.
Everybody's free to do the same and find out how likely the theory is, instead of just believing what some corrupted scientists have to say.
 

John Keane

New member
Messages
908
Reaction score
4
Trump is a c**t, and I’m a believer, having stood on rim of the Athabasca Glacier in Canada a mile above the mark from its 1950 limit.


.
 
Last edited:

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,404
Reaction score
3,400
Location
edzell
Were not talking climate change John.

Were talking about whether its out tiny additional percentage of C02 emissions is the cause of climate change.

The magnetic north pole has been moving for the last 40 years as well.
Does that mean the CO2 levels are causing that?

Cheers

Mows
 

seeking

Well-known member
Messages
4,571
Reaction score
1,130
Location
Yorkshire (werethereagodit'dbegod'sowncountry)
IME it's an issue of semantics.

Climate Change is a given, it happens, it's essential to evolution. It's incontrovertible that it has occurred over Earth's history for various reasons. There is a good thread HEREl with lots of interesting information and debate for the thinkers.

Calling someone a "climate change denier" is rich. After all, no one can reasonably deny that climate change occurs. Hull was underwater till recently, there's +/- 12m tidal fluctuations and +/- 15 degree temperature changes confirmed in the last few to 10k years.

Mechanisms, and distinguishing cause from coincidence, is quite another matter. Like salmon really...:D

However, the issue has arisen because it becomes conflated and deliberately confused with a debunked and easily debunkable hypothesis that was called "Anthropogenic Global Warming" or AGW for the lovers of TLAs.

Nowadays because we had a decade of cold winters etc., AGW seems to have morphed seamlessly to become Climate Change. Backed up by the thick media and those who want to tax everyone for everything. All those who thought AGW was a load of old guff and just hot air are now labelled as Climate Change Deniers. What Cobblers!

The BBC is shameless in pumping out it's propaganda in this regard. Did anyone else see the coverage when the prince interviewed Sir David A at Davo?. The BBC hyped this as "Sir David reckons anthropogenic climate change is out of control".

All you actually needed to do to prove that statement as total and utter guff was listen to what he was actually saying. Which is basically that life on earth is facing a fundamental threat from human pollution activities especially in regard to synthetic chemicals... Spot on Dave, good to have you back on board :cool: CO2 is plant food, hence essential, especially when those plants are under threat from all the anthropogenic biocides in the environment!

AGW MRIA!

PS - Anyone taking the challenge of explaining the Loch Lomond Readvance (see the latter pages of the good thread on CC linked above) in terms of CO2 flux will have my blessing. I doubt no-one on here will grasp that nettle.

I'm as sure as I can be that a load of 10 year old schoolkids (wanting a week off) won't be able to either. Neither will their teachers, neither will many academics, and certainly the voices of those that can will be buried by obfuscation by the true charlatans.

So pull the other one, AGW, it's got bells on.




PS - Alan, I think when all is well and done, we will look back and be able to confirm that the true cause was actually Brexit!
 
Last edited:

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
269
Scotland could break its warmest February temperature if it reaches 18C which has stood at 17.9C since 1897. So what caused the high February temperature then.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
Interestingly, there's a good BBC documentary on the subject.

'The great global warming swindle'

For those who aren't keen on diving into scientific research papers.

I'm not denying, that there's a change in our climate, but it's not man-made imo. The CO2 emission theory is a joke, however. 0.0something anthropogenic contribution. That's supposed to be the decisive factor? Please don't insult my intelligence.

What is it then?
It's hard to say, since everybody who doesn't align with the propagated narrative, is heavily attacked, doesn't get funding or even gets excluded from the 'scientific' community.

Could it be sun activity/eruptions? Possibly...

Please watch the vid I posted. It's a good start, if you want to know how the scam works, how much money they're gonna make and who's gonna pay for it.

Excluding the question who/what's really responsible for the situation, it couldn't be more obvious that this is just another ploy to get more of your hardearned shekels.
 

Wee-Eck

Well-known member
Messages
1,178
Reaction score
269
How much did it cost to fit my house with smart electricity and gas meters that no longer work as I have done as the government advised me and changed my supplier. I now have to read them manually and log into my account to update it. Somebody is making a fortune out of this scam.
 

John Keane

New member
Messages
908
Reaction score
4
Were not talking climate change John.

Were talking about whether its out tiny additional percentage of C02 emissions is the cause of climate change.

The magnetic north pole has been moving for the last 40 years as well.
Does that mean the CO2 levels are causing that?

Cheers

Mows

Ah, right, thanks.

Trump is still a c**t though!
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
364
Reaction score
273
Location
Wild west of Wales
Might be true.

Still, the IPCC's theory doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny.
I jumped on the train too at first, because of my background (agr. sciences, env. sciences and fishery management), but started to question the narrative, when at some point I felt it didn't make a lot of sense.
Everybody's free to do the same and find out how likely the theory is, instead of just believing what some corrupted scientists have to say.

So you’re educated, but would still rather listen to trump supporting computer scientist with political ambition, rather than 98% of the scientific community?
The science is clear, the cause and the drivers are clearly understood. There is no argument, it’s not a case of belief. You can either understand a scientific fact or ignore it formulating whatever conspiratorial nonsense that fits your prerogative..
 
D

Deleted member 21851

Guest
I've never believed in AGW for plenty of reasons.
I used to believe it was all harmless stuff, and that if the whole movement can eventually increase our knowledge and improve how we do things then it will all be worthwhile. It won't be the first time the scientific community has taken a wrong turn on some theory or other, backed up by politicians with money and an agenda, but it usually works itself out in the end. If we get some great high tech which means we are more sustainable and less wasteful with our energy and less reliant on oil then it should be good right?
I'm not so sure now. It's now much more than just a scientific theory. It's more like a religious belief amongst many and it's shaping politics, culture and attitudes. It takes a very long time for people to change their culture and attitudes so I'm afraid it will be a very long haul. The big problem I see is that it diverts attention away from the real dangers, like the dramatic reduction in bee and insect populations which too often are lazily attributed to "global warming" while multi-nationals continue to coin it in with their latest and greatest insect killing chemicals and single use disposable plastic products.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,404
Reaction score
3,400
Location
edzell
I've never believed in AGW for plenty of reasons.
I used to believe it was all harmless stuff, and that if the whole movement can eventually increase our knowledge and improve how we do things then it will all be worthwhile. It won't be the first time the scientific community has taken a wrong turn on some theory or other, backed up by politicians with money and an agenda, but it usually works itself out in the end. If we get some great high tech which means we are more sustainable and less wasteful with our energy and less reliant on oil then it should be good right?
I'm not so sure now. It's now much more than just a scientific theory. It's more like a religious belief amongst many and it's shaping politics, culture and attitudes. It takes a very long time for people to change their culture and attitudes so I'm afraid it will be a very long haul. The big problem I see is that it diverts attention away from the real dangers, like the dramatic reduction in bee and insect populations which too often are lazily attributed to "global warming" while multi-nationals continue to coin it in with their latest and greatest insect killing chemicals and single use disposable plastic products.

Spot on Walleye.
 

mows

Well-known member
Messages
4,404
Reaction score
3,400
Location
edzell
I've never believed in AGW for plenty of reasons.
I used to believe it was all harmless stuff, and that if the whole movement can eventually increase our knowledge and improve how we do things then it will all be worthwhile. It won't be the first time the scientific community has taken a wrong turn on some theory or other, backed up by politicians with money and an agenda, but it usually works itself out in the end. If we get some great high tech which means we are more sustainable and less wasteful with our energy and less reliant on oil then it should be good right?
I'm not so sure now. It's now much more than just a scientific theory. It's more like a religious belief amongst many and it's shaping politics, culture and attitudes. It takes a very long time for people to change their culture and attitudes so I'm afraid it will be a very long haul. The big problem I see is that it diverts attention away from the real dangers, like the dramatic reduction in bee and insect populations which too often are lazily attributed to "global warming" while multi-nationals continue to coin it in with their latest and greatest insect killing chemicals and single use disposable plastic products.

Spot on Walleye.

It might be flawed and have it's own agenda, but it doesn't take away from the fact we have major environmental and population issues.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
rather than 98% of the scientific community?

You can either understand a scientific fact or ignore it formulating whatever conspiratorial nonsense that fits your prerogative..

I wish it was 98% and if you'd spend some time to put this to the test, you'd probably come to the conclusion, that silencing people who don't agree with your theory/ideology to then claim that 98% agree, is questionable. 30.000 scientists signed a letter distancing themselves from AGW. Are all of them sharlatans?

Conspiratorial nonsense... ?
Why am I not surprised that certain people in this ideological debate resort to smear tactics instead of presenting a counter-argument?
Typical shill behaviour.

@Walleye and mows:

I agree wholeheartedly. Synthetic chemicals and subsequent loss of habitat and biodiversity are among the biggest challenges of our time. It seems to me, as if in a lot of cases, morals are kicked overboard as long as the profit 'justifies' it.
This is not a new development, but i find the scope of it is unprecedent and it worries me.
It's true that it almost takes religious dimensions, but thinking about it, I understand it has to be like that for those spreading the narrative.
 

Safranfoer

Well-known member
Messages
9,674
Reaction score
3,103
What if its less about our CO2 emissions, and more about our deforestation activities and harvesting/destruction of ocean algae/phytoplankton life? The Earth's cycles are natural and unstoppable, but I believe we would have more time to adjust if we stopped destroying our natural CO2 filters.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
What if its less about our CO2 emissions, and more about our deforestation activities and harvesting/destruction of ocean algae/phytoplankton life? The Earth's cycles are natural and unstoppable, but I believe we would have more time to adjust if we stopped destroying our natural CO2 filters.

You're right. It's a logical consequence. Destroying depots and filters will have a detrimental effect.
We, as humans, know so little, but think we're the pride of creation.
Most interventions create feedback loops we can't even anticipate.

I'll be starting a business this year and the whole idea is basically centered around nature and animal protection, even though I've become very critical of AGW. Still, I know a step back can't hurt.

One thing people on this forum have in common, is a general interest in, as wrll as care and love for nature.
 

tom_o_m

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
4

Why start a thread on this? Upwards of 90% of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. Those that disbelieve are frankly a visceral minority spouting dangerous conspiracy nonsense. Why danergous? Well if we don't act now we're going to be too late. Those whose disagree have got to ask themselves why they think their 'opinion' has more weight than science.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0

Why start a thread on this? Upwards of 90% of scientists agree that climate change is a result of human activity. Those that disbelieve are frankly a visceral minority spouting dangerous conspiracy nonsense. Why danergous? Well if we don't act now we're going to be too late. Those whose disagree have got to ask themselves why they think their 'opinion' has more weight than science.

Thanks for stopping by to shill and trying to spread panic. What an informative post. Are you friends with Greta Thunberg?
Is shouting conspiracy theory (a term invented by the CIA) trendy now? ?

650a03620f25609e49d012bd8029e8290e2c3b59117e5ad67a0e745d911f008f.jpg
 
Last edited:

Toasted heretic

Well-known member
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
32
So you’re educated, but would still rather listen to trump supporting computer scientist with political ambition, rather than 98% of the scientific community?
The science is clear, the cause and the drivers are clearly understood. There is no argument, it’s not a case of belief. You can either understand a scientific fact or ignore it formulating whatever conspiratorial nonsense that fits your prerogative..

The survey quoted quite apart from being a popular petrochem advocacy meme targeted the broadest possible pool of STEM graduates, in fact a cohort of some 10 million, thus a percentile in the region .3% would be more accurate. Interestingly of that approx .3% only 36 individual respondents had successully graduated a climate science program.
 

Deepwading

Member
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Why IS this stuff being posted on this forum?

Given this is a forum is headed 'SalmonfishingForum' - you really do have to wonder about the motivations of those who continue to post such articles. Perhaps statements like 'it's (climate change) essential for evolution' rather give the game away?

Anyway, putting the so-called 'semantics' aside, and in the interests of some balance, it's perhaps worth noting the response of Greenpeace to the author whose article was posted at the very begining of this thread.

This refers in part to the Greenpeace Statement on Patrick Moore:

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.
 

tom_o_m

Member
Messages
62
Reaction score
4
Thanks for stopping by to shill and trying to spread panic. What an informative post. Are you friends with Greta Thunberg?
Is shouting conspiracy theory (a term invented by the CIA) trendy now? ?

View attachment 35352

It is gross negligence to not to be significantly more panicked than we are. We need to have culture change, we need serious action now.

I genuinely couldn't care less who came up with the phrase. Thanks for the irrelevant point. It is a nonsense conspiracy theory to claim that scientists are collaborating to exaggerate man made climate change.
 

Canewizard

New member
Messages
396
Reaction score
0
You two are a fine pair of shills with 69 posts combined.
And again, no counter-argument, but smear tactics, defamatory language and a vain try to spread panic.
Is this how you are going to convince people the hoax you're promoting is real? Don't you think you should bring a bit more to the table to defend your agenda?

2uib0n.jpg
 

Jonsey

Well-known member
Messages
364
Reaction score
273
Location
Wild west of Wales
You two are a fine pair of shills with 69 posts combined.
And again, no counter-argument, but smear tactics, defamatory language and a vain try to spread panic.
Is this how you are going to convince people the hoax you're promoting is real? Don't you think you should bring a bit more to the table to defend your agenda?

View attachment 35367

And your peer reviewed evidence to the contrary?
 

Isisalar

Well-known member
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
399
Location
North west London
Given this is a forum is headed 'SalmonfishingForum' - you really do have to wonder about the motivations of those who continue to post such articles. Perhaps statements like 'it's (climate change) essential for evolution' rather give the game away?

Anyway, putting the so-called 'semantics' aside, and in the interests of some balance, it's perhaps worth noting the response of Greenpeace to the author whose article was posted at the very begining of this thread.

This refers in part to the Greenpeace Statement on Patrick Moore:

Patrick Moore often misrepresents himself in the media as an environmental “expert” or even an “environmentalist,” while offering anti-environmental opinions on a wide range of issues and taking a distinctly anti-environmental stance. He also exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes.

While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.

Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.[/QUOT
Hate to break the news but Patrick Moore has been dead for some years now.
Pretty sure climate change had nothing to do with it.
 
Top