Humans Causing Climate Catastrophe Hoax.

[oaksoft 10,546]

7 hours ago, shull said:

 

And to think, the fecking Forum Psychiatrist, HSS wanted to fecking question me. 

 

You didn't answer his perfectly reasonable question TBF.

[oaksoft 10,546]

9 hours ago, shull said:

Tell any Climate Warrior ye know that I am having another Steak Pie. 

 

Why don't you just tell any children or grandchildren you have?

Let them judge you.

[shull 28,936]

13 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Why don't you just tell any children or grandchildren you have?

Let them judge you.

The Steak Pie was yummy. 

[shull 28,936]

Aw, bless em ....

Unfortunately, this new religion may turn nasty.

Deniers of Man Made Climate Change will be jailed in the future and tortured by these hippy maniacs..

 

[shull 28,936]

Less than 10 years to go.

Then boom.

We're fecking doomed.

[shull 28,936]

Spoke too soon 

Could be saved. 

Emma Thompson says she is going to fly a lot less and continue to plant trees.  

I planted around 2000 trees myself in the early 1980's.

Here to help. 

[Slartibartfast 6,752]

Eating chestnuts then shitting in a public park does not constitute planting trees.

Here to help.

[Slartibartfast 6,752]

If we act to try and prevent climate change and:

1. The scientists are wrong, then the human race may survive.

2. The scientists are right, then the human race may survive.

 

If we don't act to try and prevent climate change and:

1. The scientists are wrong, then the human race may survive.

2. The scientists are right, then the human race may not survive.

 

Therefore, acting to try and prevent climate change gives twice as many chances of the human race surviving, whether the scientists are right or not.

 

Whether or not the human race surviving is a good thing is a totally different argument.

 

It is quite telling that, in the US especially, it's mainly the right wing religious nutjobs who are the climate change deniers. After all, they are actively working to bring about "The Rapture" and the final battle at Armageddon. If humans are going to die out soon, then Jesus will have to return soon.

 

 

 

 

[DougJamie 6,137]

On 4/26/2019 at 8:47 PM, shull said:

 

Who the hell am I  ?  

FIFY....There are that many of you on here i am not surprised

[oaksoft 10,546]

9 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

If we act to try and prevent climate change and:

1. The scientists are wrong, then the human race may survive.

2. The scientists are right, then the human race may survive.

 

If we don't act to try and prevent climate change and:

1. The scientists are wrong, then the human race may survive.

2. The scientists are right, then the human race may not survive.

 

Therefore, acting to try and prevent climate change gives twice as many chances of the human race surviving, whether the scientists are right or not.

 

I learned a painful lesson on here a couple of years ago not to play with statistics so I shall refrain from commenting. 🤣

[bazil85 2,252]

9 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

If we act to try and prevent climate change and:

1. The scientists are wrong, then the human race may survive.

2. The scientists are right, then the human race may survive.

 

If we don't act to try and prevent climate change and:

1. The scientists are wrong, then the human race may survive.

2. The scientists are right, then the human race may not survive.

 

Therefore, acting to try and prevent climate change gives twice as many chances of the human race surviving, whether the scientists are right or not.

 

Whether or not the human race surviving is a good thing is a totally different argument.

 

It is quite telling that, in the US especially, it's mainly the right wing religious nutjobs who are the climate change deniers. After all, they are actively working to bring about "The Rapture" and the final battle at Armageddon. If humans are going to die out soon, then Jesus will have to return soon.

 

 

 

 

Plus, you know, the scientists are categorically correct. 

[bazil85 2,252]

15 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I learned a painful lesson on here a couple of years ago not to play with statistics so I shall refrain from commenting. 🤣

Did you forget that lesson briefly recently?

[Slartibartfast 6,752]

Plus, you know, the scientists are categorically correct. 

Technically, you know that the scientific consensus is probably accurate since it is backed up by all the evidence. It could still be wrong, though.

[bazil85 2,252]

3 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

8 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

Plus, you know, the scientists are categorically correct. 

Technically, you know that the scientific consensus is probably accurate since it is backed up by all the evidence. It could still be wrong, though.

Yeah agreed, like anything really, it could be wrong. Technically we could be wrong about the existence of the Easter Bunny, Santa and Rangers being the same team as well but it isn't likely 

[shull 28,936]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-48103757/climate-change-ed-miliband-says-uk-needs-to-be-on-war-footing

Ed wants UK to create a STATE OF EMERGENCY over Climate Change. 

He did say on Radio there that he is eating less meat to help. 

Also, he might think about flying less, change his car to electric and maybe even get solar panels. 

He did add, that if Labour get in then Taxes will be increased to SAVE THE PLANET. 

Bless him. 

[oaksoft 10,546]

4 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Plus, you know, the scientists are categorically correct. 

 

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Yeah agreed, like anything really, it could be wrong. Technically we could be wrong about the existence of the Easter Bunny, Santa and Rangers being the same team as well but it isn't likely 

You are not in a position to know.

Your attitude here is part of the problem - claiming things as fact when it's really only your opinion because you lack the background to know for certain. That attitude really f**ks off large parts of society who need to be persuaded to change their behaviour. This is where the non-scientific parts of the climate lobby are going wrong.

slarti is correct. Scientists are largely in agreement that man-made global warming is causing the wild fluctations that we are seeing and that evidence exists to back that up BUT a smoking gun has unfortunately not yet been found to convince everyone to change. It's important to recognise two things. Firstly, not all scientists agree. Secondly, it is vital that scientists and the science remains open to question. Scientists could be wrong over all this. Don't think for one second that agreement means they are correct by default. Even Isaac Newton and Einstein were wrong about basic things.

The smoking gun thing was a problem with the Ozone layer disaster a few decades ago. Many people didn't believe man made CFCs were causing a problem. Just like climate change. Then a smoking gun provided evidence which couldn't be ignored and almost overnight CFCs were banned. Decades later the ozone layer is still recovering from that disaster. 

In the meantime it's great that people lacking the background, like you, are prepared to accept what scientists say but you need to recognise your limitations here and adopt a bit less smuggery in your treatment of others who don't share your view.

Edited April 30 by oaksoft

[bazil85 2,252]

35 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

 

You are not in a position to know.

Your attitude here is part of the problem - claiming things as fact when it's really only your opinion because you lack the background to know for certain. That attitude really f**ks off large parts of society who need to be persuaded to change their behaviour. This is where the non-scientific parts of the climate lobby are going wrong.

slarti is correct. Scientists are largely in agreement that man-made global warming is causing the wild fluctations that we are seeing and that evidence exists to back that up BUT a smoking gun has unfortunately not yet been found to convince everyone to change. It's important to recognise two things. Firstly, not all scientists agree. Secondly, it is vital that scientists and the science remains open to question. Scientists could be wrong over all this. Don't think for one second that agreement means they are correct by default. Even Isaac Newton and Einstein were wrong about basic things.

The smoking gun thing was a problem with the Ozone layer disaster a few decades ago. Many people didn't believe man made CFCs were causing a problem. Just like climate change. Then a smoking gun provided evidence which couldn't be ignored and almost overnight CFCs were banned. Decades later the ozone layer is still recovering from that disaster. 

In the meantime it's great that people lacking the background, like you, are prepared to accept what scientists say but you need to recognise your limitations here and adopt a bit less smuggery in your treatment of others who don't share your view.

Don't be so ridiculous, what an absolute nonsense post. Climate change is real, we have all the evidence we need to be very worried that people aren't taking action. What kind of smoking gun would do for you? How about some more animal and plant death from extreme weather events? How about yet more people far further educated than you or I saying 'This is a real thing' We don't have the time for people to get their s*it together on this, we need this pushed before it is too late, like literally too late.

If people are 'f*cked off' because people are believing what the best educated and best equipped (scientists) are telling us and lobbying on their behalf, they are absolute idiots and little will be done to change that. Even if man-made climate change was proven to be wrong (it wont be) me posting on BAWA that it is real and others saying we should be taking action to reduce it isn't in anyway a negative and won't influence any but the most dimwitted among us, who like I say, likely wont change on their own. 

Can I just be clear are you genuinely saying your average person should question what many scientists agree on, can provide evidence on and have produced many experimental outcomes on? We shouldn't be pushing this agenda? ffs let me be as clear as I can, us arguing over two stands for the OF or income streams or whatever is all fun and well, people not 'sharing your view' on climate change is a real life problem, a massive one that could irreversibly alter this planet. 

 

[oaksoft 10,546]

3 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Don't be so ridiculous, what an absolute nonsense post. Climate change is real, we have all the evidence we need to be very worried that people aren't taking action. What kind of smoking gun would do for you? How about some more animal and plant death from extreme weather events? How about yet more people far further educated than you or I saying 'This is a real thing' We don't have the time for people to get their s*it together on this, we need this pushed before it is too late, like literally too late.

If people are 'f*cked off' because people are believing what the best educated and best equipped (scientists) are telling us and lobbying on their behalf, they are absolute idiots and little will be done to change that. Even if man-made climate change was proven to be wrong (it wont be) me posting on BAWA that it is real and others saying we should be taking action to reduce it isn't in anyway a negative and won't influence any but the most dimwitted among us, who like I say, likely wont change on their own. 

Can I just be clear are you genuinely saying your average person should question what many scientists agree on, can provide evidence on and have produced many experimental outcomes on? We shouldn't be pushing this agenda? ffs let me be as clear as I can, us arguing over two stands for the OF or income streams or whatever is all fun and well, people not 'sharing your view' on climate change is a real life problem, a massive one that could irreversibly alter this planet. 

 

You are talking to one of those scientists right now Baz.

I am not interested in further debating this with you because the conversation will only go one way.

It starts with you wilfully misrepresenting my post. As you have done here yet again.

End of conversation.

Edited April 30 by oaksoft

[oaksoft 10,546]

8 hours ago, Slartibartfast said:

8 hours ago, bazil85 said:

Plus, you know, the scientists are categorically correct. 

Technically, you know that the scientific consensus is probably accurate since it is backed up by all the evidence. It could still be wrong, though.

If my fellow scientists can manage to find a smoking gun, you'll see things move much faster than they are doing right now just as with happened with CFCs. It's a race against time though.

[oaksoft 10,546]

For those who want to gain a little perspective over how humans could be affecting things as vast as our atmosphere or our water here is a pretty stark graphic showing the relative volumes of the earth and it's associated water and air.

If this doesn't shock you, nothing will TBH.

Air and Water volume compared to volume of earth

[Slartibartfast 6,752]

It doesn't shock me - but electricity has, so I think that disproves your assertion.

[bazil85 2,252]

15 hours ago, oaksoft said:

You are talking to one of those scientists right now Baz.

I am not interested in further debating this with you because the conversation will only go one way.

It starts with you wilfully misrepresenting my post. As you have done here yet again.

End of conversation.

This is your go to argument technique. You say something ambiguous but with clear undertones, you then call people out when they question you. You've done it as long as I can remember. 

[shull 28,936]

I prefer a plastic straw rather than a paper one. 

No need to ban them. 

They can be cleaned and reused. 

WE'RE NOT DOOMED. 

[cockles1987 4,174]

I prefer a plastic straw rather than a paper one. 
No need to ban them. 
They can be cleaned and reused. 
WE'RE NOT DOOMED. 

Just got some stainless steel straws from the work. Will try one out at the weekend celebrating our win

[shull 28,936]

Burping cows are a major danger to the Planet.

Why can't the News people say farting cows ?