Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 72   Go Down

Author Topic: Skepticism about Climate Change  (Read 213525 times)

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #60 on: April 28, 2017, 09:04:12 am »

The relevance I see, is that the major and established industries industries - tobacco, oil, pharma, meat and dairy, even medical professionals) never liked disturbers or new scientific theories and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their ways. The example I quoted, with doctors refusing washing their hands, seems incredible and preposterous today, but in those days the doctors looked at the very act of washing hands as a far-fetched and purposeless requirement.
Nowadays, the aforementioned industries will employ lobbyists, conduct flawed studies, and spread fake news to confuse the public. Often, their aim is not necessarily to convince the consumers; in most cases, it's sufficient to confuse them.

That applies equally to industrial polluters denying the negative effects of CO2 and methane as to the dairy industry promoting milk and cheese as a healthy food.

Les, as Slobodan mentioned, this cuts both ways. All industries, including government-funded research centres, require a certain conformity to the ethos and purpose which underlie the existence of the industry.

A few years ago, when the bad effects of 'high fructose corn syrup' were given publicity, I came across an interesting report of the reaction of a group of board members of a certain, large U.S. company who marketed corn syrup. The board members decided the company would fund its own research.

However, they stipulated if the results of the research confirmed the current evidence, which suggested that fructose was a major contributor to obesity and heart disease, they would bury the results. Only if the results contradicted the current evidence would they publish their research. I presume a whistle blower revealed the details of the private board meeting.

A central issue about the government funding for climate research is that it all started as a result of a major concern about the possible disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels. Without the alarm being maintained, funding would be reduced, world-wide, not just in the U.S. as a result of Donald Trump's policies.

If a scientist working in a government-funded climate research centre is skeptical about the effects of CO2, and wants to keep his job, he needs to keep his skepticism to himself, or at least not attempt to publish his skepticism.

I did a search on climatologists who had resigned on principle because they disagreed with the biased nature of their colleagues and workplace ethos. I'll list a few.

(1) Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.

She recently resigned, partly because she is approaching retirement age, but mainly because she was concerned about the unscientific attitudes regarding climate science in her institute.

"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."

http://climatechangedispatch.com/disenchanted-climatologist-judith-curry-resigns-from-georgia-tech/

(2) In an e-mail to GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/

(3) When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.
After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/reef-whistleblower-censured-by-james-cook-university/news-story/c7aa0e0ac1c1dec1b065273d2e968f6d

(4) "Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream.
If you control carbon, you control life.”
- MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer


"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists.
Don't let anybody tell you there is.”
- Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem
there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into
anthropogenic global warming."
- Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg, NOAA

https://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf

(5)  http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/30/what-consensus-the-97-consensus-is-now-43-less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-un-ipcc-95-certainty/

Logged

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #61 on: April 28, 2017, 09:12:07 am »

Just to get things into perspective, the current levels of atmospheric CO2 are estimated to comprise just 0.04% of the atmosphere, having risen from 0.028% since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

So? Are you trying to suggest that because it's a low percentage it's innocent? Try adding a low percentage of strychnine to water (won't dissolve but it's easier to ingest) and drink that. BTW, diluting it more won't help either, something as little as 30 milligram is the lethal dosage for 50% of the adult humans, less will be needed for children, but even if not lethal, lower dosages still have very nasty effects.

Some more low dosage examples:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm

Quote
Directing our efforts and resources to tackling far less certain issues and problems, such as the possible adverse effects of rising CO2 levels, doesn't make sense to me.

If Bernard really believes it is 99.9% certain that man's emissions of CO2 is the dominant factor causing the current period of global warming, I think he's living in 'cloud cuckoo land'.  ;D

And denying facts like you do? Would that put you in DoDo land?

Not just Bernard, but a huge huge majority of the scientific community that is specialized in this subject is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming. We are disrupting the (source/sink) balance that existed for a very long time. The natural levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are responsible for our relatively moderately elevated temperatures e.g. compared to our moon (which is roughly at the same distance from the sun as we are) to begin with. The artificially increased anthropogenic levels of CO2 are in almost perfect correlation with the rising global temperature trend, and don't forget that earth is trying to absorb 30-50% of our emissions already, it can't handle the rest.

That's why the global CO2 levels are increasing, just like the global temperature (despite the decreasing solar radiation forcing).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #62 on: April 28, 2017, 09:36:48 am »

If a scientist working in a government-funded climate research centre is skeptical about the effects of CO2, and wants to keep his job, he needs to keep his skepticism to himself, or at least not attempt to publish his skepticism.

Besides spouting more nonsense, are you changing the topic of this thread from Skepticism to Conspiracy theory?

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #63 on: April 28, 2017, 09:54:11 am »

Besides spouting more nonsense, are you changing the topic of this thread from Skepticism to Conspiracy theory?

Cheers,
Bart

I'm so very surprised that you seem so naive, Bart. I can hardly believe it. You seem to have no experience in working in a variety of institutions, and no knowledge of the history of science and the development of the scientific methodology.

Quote
So? Are you trying to suggest that because it's a low percentage it's innocent? Try adding a low percentage of strychnine to water (won't dissolve but it's easier to ingest) and drink that. BTW, diluting it more won't help either, something as little as 30 milligram is the lethal dosage for 50% of the adult humans, less will be needed for children, but even if not lethal, lower dosages still have very nasty effects.

Of course not. The low percentage is just one factor, but a major factor considering that CO2 is not a poison, but is essential for all life.

To compare it with strychnine is absurd. A more sensible comparison would be with Vitamin C. The recommended minimum dosage of around 35mg is sufficient to avoid health problems like scurvy. But taking more than 35mg has many other benefits as an antioxidant and so on. Some people, like Margaret Thatcher took 500mg per day. Some dieticians recommend 1,000mg per day, or even 2,000mg.

Your concern about CO2 levels is like someone's concern that he might be taking 50mg of Vitamin C when the recommended minimum dosage is 35mg.

Quote
Not just Bernard, but a huge huge majority of the scientific community that is specialized in this subject is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming.

Where's the scientific research that demonstrates this is true, that a huge majority of the scientific community is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming?

If you can't show me the research so I can analyse the techniques and methodology used in order to determine the extent and reliability of the consensus claims, why should I believe that?

Did you not read my previous post?
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #64 on: April 28, 2017, 11:13:52 am »

Ray, why do you think a large majority of Europeans are very strongly against the import of hormones grown American beef?

Is it because they hate tasty meat or is it because they believe in the principle of carefulness that dictates that when unsure about the negative effect of a cause, you take the safe route which is to avoid this risk.

Do you see how this example relates to climate change?

Cheers,
Bernard

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #65 on: April 28, 2017, 11:32:28 am »

Ray, why do you think a large majority of Europeans are very strongly against the import of hormones grown American beef?...

Because it doesn't cost them anything to do so (or not much)? As opposed to "preventing" global warming, which costs gazillions?

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8913
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #66 on: April 28, 2017, 12:19:50 pm »

Where's the scientific research that demonstrates this is true, ...

Yawn (and not from elevated CO2 concentrations).

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #67 on: April 28, 2017, 07:32:42 pm »

Yawn (and not from elevated CO2 concentrations).

Cheers,
Bart

Bart,
Try reading my posts more carefully. I wrote, "Where's the scientific research that demonstrates this is true, that a huge majority of the scientific community is confident that CO2 is the main driving force for the current global warming?

I'm asking for the research related to the claimed scientific consensus, not defective computer models that show possibly cherry-picked data regarding the forcings of CO2.

I understand perfectly that it is to be expected such graphs or diagrams must show that human-induced CO2 is a major cause of the current warming. That's why the research institutes were set up in the first place. Many climatologists' jobs rely upon the alarm about CO2 being maintained.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #68 on: April 28, 2017, 07:40:23 pm »

Because it doesn't cost them anything to do so (or not much)? As opposed to "preventing" global warming, which costs gazillions?

+1

Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2017, 10:24:02 pm »

Because it doesn't cost them anything to do so (or not much)? As opposed to "preventing" global warming, which costs gazillions?

That's part of the answer, but the other part is because reasonable people take risks into account when managing their lives, and more importantly the lives of their children.

Cheers,
Bernard

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #70 on: April 28, 2017, 10:29:35 pm »

I understand perfectly that it is to be expected such graphs or diagrams must show that human-induced CO2 is a major cause of the current warming. That's why the research institutes were set up in the first place. Many climatologists' jobs rely upon the alarm about CO2 being maintained.

If you think that economical interests should be a measure of the bias of opinions for or against... you owe honesty to acknowledge the fact that there are tens of thousands more money threatened by climate warming theories compared to those against... right?

I'll just give you the example of the oil industry... and we all know how influential they have been in various countries.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: April 28, 2017, 11:57:17 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #71 on: April 29, 2017, 12:08:59 am »

If you think that economical interests should be a measure of the bias of opinions for or against... you owe honesty to acknowledge the fact that there are tens of thousands more money threatened by climate warming theories compared to those against... right?

I'll just give you the example of the oil industry... and we all know how influential they have been in various countries.

Cheers,
Bernard

Sure, there are many examples of accidents due to incompetence, poor decision making and companies taking short-cuts in the interests of economic gain.

The most amazing example of this was the decision to build the Fukushima nuclear power plant in an area that had been flooded in the past as a result of tsunamis. There are apparently stone monuments dotted along that east coast indicating the flood levels during the previous centuries. I believe some, or at least one, has an inscription to the effect, "Do not build your house below this level."

I can only presume that the people who made the decision to build that plant below the level of previous, known flood levels, decided that the risk was worth taking because of the economic advantages in locating the plant close to the sea. They probably thought that another tsunami probably wouldn't occur for another fifty or a hundred years, by which time the nuclear plant would have served its purpose and would have been decommissioned.

This type of problem is prevalent throughout society. This is the true 'burying of the head in the sand', or the true 'denialism'. That is, kidding oneself that the chances of previous natural disasters reoccurring, whether floods, droughts, hurricanes, heat waves, cold spells, earthquakes, tsunamis and so one, are very slight, and therefore it's worth taking the risk to build a standard house on a concrete slab in a known flood plain, which is what we often do in Australia.

The issue for me is this, Bernard. Which is more certain, that rising CO2 levels will cause havoc in 50 years time as a result of increased droughts, increased storms, and rising sea levels....or that the natural disasters of the past, which are not related to CO2 increases, will continue to occur?
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #72 on: April 30, 2017, 12:28:45 pm »

The issue for me is this, Bernard. Which is more certain, that rising CO2 levels will cause havoc in 50 years time as a result of increased droughts, increased storms, and rising sea levels....or that the natural disasters of the past, which are not related to CO2 increases, will continue to occur?

And that, friends, is what's known as a false dichotomy. A common, but ineffective argumentative strategy.

BOTH of those have a high degree of likelihood.

Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #73 on: April 30, 2017, 01:02:43 pm »

My heart doctor told me to stop carbohydrates and eat fat, as much of it as I want.   "Fat is good", my heart doctor says.  "We got it wrong before."   I was shocked but apparently the research and scientific evidence has changed.  How can scientific evidence change?  Who goofed?  How many people were killed because the science didn't get it right?  I have diabetes 2 because of all the carbs that I ate previously and that I'm still addicted too.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #74 on: April 30, 2017, 05:33:16 pm »

My heart doctor told me to stop carbohydrates and eat fat, as much of it as I want.   "Fat is good", my heart doctor says.  "We got it wrong before."   I was shocked but apparently the research and scientific evidence has changed.  How can scientific evidence change?  Who goofed?  How many people were killed because the science didn't get it right?  I have diabetes 2 because of all the carbs that I ate previously and that I'm still addicted too.

Sorry to bring it to you, but many more people get killed every year by eating a high fat diet than by ingesting broccoli and kale. Quite a few get killed also by side effects of prescription drugs to regulate their symptoms caused by the typical SAD (Standard American Diet). It's sad, indeed.

Alan, when it comes to your heart, the most important thing would be to change your doctor. There are definitely conflicting theories as to what's good for the heart and arteries. There are also MRI, CT, and angiogram images which illustrate how the saturated fats enter your blood stream and narrow your arteries. BTW, the low fat and low sugar diet doesn't help only your heart, but also your diabetes.

Ray Kurzweil, a famous futurist, author and inventor was diagnosed at 35 also with type 2 diabetes. Unsatisfied with his medical treatment, he stopped taking insulin injections and crafted his own diet and supplement program. A few years ago, he was hired as the chief futurist by Google and at age 69 he shows no signs of the disease.

As a matter of interest, Bill Clinton whose medical advisors include Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dr. Dean Ornish (who advocate a low or no fat plant-based diet) is doing very well on entirely plant-based diet. OTH, Dr. Atkins who advocated the same nonsense as your cardiologist, had a history of obesity, heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension. He died in 2002 and his once very profitable company eventually went bankrupt.

Heart doctors, and their videos and books to google:
Caldwell Esselstyn (and his son Rip), Colin Campbell (and his son Thomas), Dean Ornish, John McDougal. Neil Barnard, Joel Fuhrman, Michael Greger.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2017, 12:02:15 am by LesPalenik »
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #75 on: April 30, 2017, 08:38:31 pm »

The issue for me is this, Bernard. Which is more certain, that rising CO2 levels will cause havoc in 50 years time as a result of increased droughts, increased storms, and rising sea levels....or that the natural disasters of the past, which are not related to CO2 increases, will continue to occur?

Look, I totally agree that the dominant opinion isn't always right, I also agree that there are other pressing issues beside Co2 driven global warming, I even agree that we are not 100% sure about any of these things... but... the obvious fact remains that we have ample evidence in favor of the theory that man generated CO2 emissions are a major contributor to global warming.

Since we'll never be sure either way, you can either be in the camp of these people waiting for people to die, or in the camp of those preferring to anticipate as much as possible.

I have chosen to be in the latter camp, as have a vast majority of reasonable people. Not because we believe in some "religion", simply because we understand that we can't wait until we are sure because it will be way too late by then.

Life is probabilistic in nature, making choice based on imperfect available data is tough but something grown ups have to do. I see it as something I owe to my children as much as a good education.

Many apparently healthy people trust they doctor when he tells them they have a stomach cancer at early stage. That they will be fine if they get an operation within 2 months but that it will too late later. Why do they take these decisions? Because they have ample evidence around them that cancer kills. The only difference between this and our climate situation is the time scale. We can't relate to it because it is many order of magnitude larger. Too big of our little minds to grasp.

This is where science and technology comes to the rescue. We have pretty good simulations that try to model our earth as closely as possible to its actual behavior. We have data points confirming the match between experiments and simulation. Is it the perfect truth? We aren't sure, but it seems pretty reasonable.

And I do understand we'd really prefer to enjoy the sun on our motorboats in the little paradise we've built as a result of our hard work. We deserve it, don't we? ;) And, heck, if we start to care about these things, we may as well start to care about the un-employed kids in the ghettos of Los Angeles. Where does that stop?

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 08:51:31 pm by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #76 on: April 30, 2017, 09:04:57 pm »

And that, friends, is what's known as a false dichotomy. A common, but ineffective argumentative strategy.

BOTH of those have a high degree of likelihood.

And that is what's known as 'ignorance of the methodology of science', Les. The historic record going back thousands of years to the present, shows a continual repetition of extreme weather events. There's no doubt at all about that. There may be doubt in the linking of a particular flood with a particular mythical story, such as the flood relating to the Biblical story of Noah, but there's no doubt that major floods did occur in those days.

Here's an interesting article about the evidence of a flood that might have inspired the Biblical story of Noah.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

The city of Brisbane in Australia had a major flood in 2011, described at the time as the worst on record, or at least the worst in a century. I imagine so many people were wringing their hands and blaming rising CO2 levels.

So what does the historical record tell us? It certainly wasn't the highest flood on record, not even nearly. It was the 7th highest. The highest flood levels were in 1825 and 1893 when CO2 levels were lower than today.

To claim that future predictions of the increased severity of extreme weather events are as certain as the continuation of past natural extreme weather events, is crazy, especially considering that the great authority on climate change alarmism, the IPCC, has admitted in its latest report that there is low confidence that extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and hurricanes, are on the increase.

http://www.bom.gov.au/qld/flood/fld_history/brisbane_history.shtml
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1893_Brisbane_flood

Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10365
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #77 on: April 30, 2017, 10:45:13 pm »

Since we'll never be sure either way, you can either be in the camp of these people waiting for people to die, or in the camp of those preferring to anticipate as much as possible.

I have chosen to be in the latter camp, as have a vast majority of reasonable people. Not because we believe in some "religion", simply because we understand that we can't wait until we are sure because it will be way too late by then.

That's a false analogy, Bernard. Whilst it's true that we cannot predict with certainty which years the next flood, or drought or hurricane will occur in a particular location, we do know with a high level of confidence that they will occur.

The choice of the two camps to belong to are:
(1) Do nothing or little to protect ourselves against the almost certain repetition of past extreme weather events on the grounds that reducing CO2 levels will fix the problem and cause the weather to be more benign.

(2) Organise one's affairs in the present to protect oneself and family, based upon the sound knowledge of past extreme weather events in the region, and the reasonable and rational expectation that such events will occur again.

I belong to camp 2, partly because I've personally experienced the consequences of ignoring the historical record. I lived in Darwin on the north coast of Australia for many years. On Christmas Day in 1974, a category 4 cyclone flattened almost the entire city, apart from a few sturdy office blocks and hotels. Fortunately, I was overseas on holiday at the time.

For some time afterwards, it was proposed that it would be too expensive to rebuild the city and it should be abandoned, but that proposal wasn't accepted. It was eventually decided to rebuild the city with strengthened houses that could resist future category 4 cyclones. They changed the building regulations in order to accommodate the future risk of another cyclone hitting the city, which is the sensible thing to do. It's just a pity that those regulations were not in place much earlier because cyclones across the north, northwest and northeast coasts of Australia are a matter of historical record and continue today. The last one occurred this year, across the northeast coast, Cyclone Debbie.

Here's a record of the cyclones from 1963 to 2014 in the northern region where Darwin is located. As you can see, between 1964 and 1981 there were 3 category 5 cyclones, but there have been no category 5 cyclones since, at least in the northern region.
Some residents of Darwin are worried that a category 5 cyclone might hit at some period in the future, and their houses are built to withstand only up to category 4 cyclones.

There's no evidence that rising CO2 levels are increasing the frequency or intensity of cyclones.


Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #78 on: May 01, 2017, 12:40:28 am »

So? Are you trying to suggest that because it's a low percentage it's innocent? Try adding a low percentage of strychnine to water (won't dissolve but it's easier to ingest) and drink that. BTW, diluting it more won't help either, something as little as 30 milligram is the lethal dosage for 50% of the adult humans, less will be needed for children, but even if not lethal, lower dosages still have very nasty effects.

Some more low dosage examples:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-trace-gas.htm
...

Great examples! Remind me to remind you of those next time you claim that only a very small percentage of a certain religion is violent and dangerous  ;)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Skepticism about Climate Change
« Reply #79 on: May 01, 2017, 01:07:56 am »

Great examples! Remind me to remind you of those next time you claim that only a very small percentage of a certain religion is violent and dangerous  ;)

It is true, most Republicans are very decent people. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 72   Go Up