Climate Change

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

That site must be wrong, we all know that vast swathes of England will become deserts, although there will be a thin 'green belt' of habitable land between these deserts and the frozen tundra that Scotland will become.

oh, and Peterborough is destined to have a flourishing fishing industry by 2046

The port of Scunthorpe will be thriving and full of oil tankers.

[Carth]

Grimsby will be the new Atlantis . . .


. . erm . . just how big is your boat, my bestest friend?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Carth

That site must be wrong, we all know that vast swathes of England will become deserts, although there will be a thin 'green belt' of habitable land between these deserts and the frozen tundra that Scotland will become.

oh, and Peterborough is destined to have a flourishing fishing industry by 2046

That must be why they closed John Lewis in Peterborough.

[pip08456]

Van der Lyden is as stupid as Boris et al. Renewables are not the main answer, nuclear is. It is the only viable carbon nutral back up for rewnewable and can exceed the necessary supply.

https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/stat...44984782266372

[1andrew1]

This is a classic from CNN!

https://twitter.com/wolfblitzer/stat...18286736134149

Twatter seems to have decided Im no longer worthy

All I get is this ;

Something went wrong, but don’t fret — let’s give it another shot.

No matter what i do.

[Sephiroth]

Brexit, Squire.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Paul

Twatter seems to have decided Im no longer worthy

All I get is this ;



No matter what i do.

Miserable usered

[Mr K]

All too little, too late. We needed the action 30 years ago.

[nomadking]

Sick and tired of all these nonsense programmes about eco-homes, when they are all unsuitable adaptations for most of us. They could only even possibly work in this country if, every building was demolished and completely rebuilt, and of course, we reduced out population by at least 90%, as each eco-home needs a large plot of land to go with it. Also as each eco-home is not able to be lived in at the time of being built or adapted, they need somewhere else to live.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Mr K

All too little, too late. We needed the action 30 years ago.

Yes we should have stopped David Attenborough clocking up millions of air miles on his quest to lecture us on our lifestyles and the state of the planet he was destroying.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mr K

All too little, too late. We needed the action 30 years ago.

Was that around the time they were all getting worked up about acid rain, and then found it was largely a product of natural sources and not the serious problem it was being made out to be.
Eg it was claimed that in 1o years time(from the date of the claim) that half of New York State's trees would be destroyed by Acid Rain. Guess what, it didn't happen, and as the 10-year study found most of any damage that did happen, was from natural sources.

The fact they continue to study these things and adjust their findings rather than dogmatically insisting their initial findings were correct should give you more faith in climate science rather than less.

The only people whose position on climate change has never adjusted is the 'sceptics and that's because their position isn't based on science but politics.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Damien

The fact they continue to study these things and adjust their findings rather than dogmatically insisting their initial findings were correct should give you more faith in climate science rather than less.

The only people whose position on climate change has never adjusted is the 'sceptics and that's because their position isn't based on science but politics.

So the science doesn't show that the climate has always changed, all by itself. Eg A large chunk of North America(including Manhattan Island) was well and truly buried under an ice sheet, a matter of thousands of years ago. How could that be, if Man and the Industrial Age were supposed to be responsible. That is Science, not politics.
Link

Laurentide Ice Sheet, principal glacial cover of North America during the Pleistocene Epoch (about 2,600,000 to 11,700 years ago). At its maximum extent it spread as far south as latitude 37° N and covered an area of more than 13,000,000 square km (5,000,000 square miles). In some areas its thickness reached 2,400–3,000 m (8,000–10,000 feet) or more.

Link

In New York, the ice that covered Manhattan was about 2,000 feet high before it began to melt in about 16,000 BC. The ice in the area disappeared around 10,000 BC. The ground in the New York area has since risen by more than 150 ft because of the removal of the enormous weight of the melted ice.[10]

Changing your claims to fit what actually happens, is politics and not science.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by nomadking

So the science doesn't show that the climate has always changed, all by itself.

Why do you write these kind of questions Nomad?

You know
a) It does
b) No one is saying it hasn't and
c) That the debate is about the rate of change although this debate has now been pretty much won with only money impeding progress.