Man made climate change

Status
Not open for further replies.
gant said:
Didn't like to say, you know how that fragile ego plagues you.
Click to expand...
I rather suspect that if you had discovered my mistake, you would have jumped on it with glee.
Therefore I assume you didn't watch Emily's lecture, and didn't realise my error.
 
Oh but I did, I dutifully started 10 minutes in with a cup of tea and a bowl sugar puffs. After ten minutes had elapsed with my bowl emptied and the remaining dregs of my tea going cold, it was at this point I gave up listening to the droning Mateless, as climate change didn't look like ever being on the radar.
 
gant said:
Oh but I did, I dutifully started 10 minutes in with a cup of tea and a bowl sugar puffs. After ten minutes had elapsed with my bowl emptied and the remaining dregs of my tea going cold, it was at this point I gave up listening to the droning Mateless, as climate change didn't look like ever being on the radar.
Click to expand...
Like I said, and by your own admission, your boast of already knowing that I had erred was exactly that, a lying boast.
Emily didn't make the comment about two-sidedness, until about 35 minutes into her lecture. So you wouldn't have known that I had erred.
 
Pat ex said:
I saw Emily Maitles's speech
(start 10 minutes in) she referred to the supposed balanced presentation of programmes like Newsnight.
She said that they could find numerous scientists within 5 minutes who blamed climate change on humans' actions. Whereas it would take several hours to find someone who could offer a counter argument. But in the sense of balance, one of each proponent was presented to the public on TV. That's not a balanced situation, but it is presented as such.
Click to expand...
There, (start ten minutes in).
So what what am I expected to do, get a bigger bowl of sugar puffs to get to 35 minutes when the good bit comes.
Best leave it there, times precious don't want to get bogged down in sucking the life blood out of thread going sparring
 
you generally talk a load of nonsense, so any guess that you "Erred" would likely turn out to be true.
 
Munroast said:
you generally talk a load of nonsense, so any guess that you "Erred" would likely turn out to be true.
Click to expand...
That's just it, gant claimed he knew, not that he'd guessed.

gant said:
Didn't like to say, you know how that fragile ego plagues you.
Click to expand...

Did you watch Emily's lecture (all 45 minutes of it)? Certainly worth watching in my opinion.
 
gant said:
There, (start ten minutes in).
So what what am I expected to do, get a bigger bowl of sugar puffs to get to 35 minutes when the good bit comes.
Best leave it there, times precious don't want to get bogged down in sucking the life blood out of thread going sparring
Click to expand...
Emily's lecture starts ten minutes in to the video. The first ten minutes is the introduction before Emily even starts.
The good bit starts right from the off, in my opinion.

It's kind of like reading a book that espouses all one's own opinions that one has jumbling around in one's head,, but puts them into print or a well thought out and entertaining speech. One silently responds with, "blimey, someone else, someone more intelligent, lucid and famous, thinks like me!"
 
IT Minion said:
Not really, there isn't really a 'normal' level in geological terms. The earth's plates move up and down as well as moving around, smashing each other into other shapes and being rammed over the top of each other.

There are also geological era variations of temperature. Over a period of thousands or millions of years tiny percentage changes of plant cover and atmospheric makeup can lead to increased or decreased temperature. That then causes changes in sea level. In geological terms that means there's no 'normal' in any real sense.
Click to expand...
Yes that what I thought unless you have a reference point to measure from how do you know what you are measuring? Don't get me wrong not a climate change denier just think the subject is some times confused and contradictory with big bits missed out.
 
Andydevon said:
Yes that what I thought unless you have a reference point to measure from how do you know what you are measuring?
Click to expand...
This one goes back 800,000 years. There is an awful lot of data and research on this now. (Warning: do not read if you believe NASA are in on the scam...)

1661701190435.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top