Yes, by how much are the oceans predicted to rise ?
Apparently we’re going to have a sea front property
Yep, that’s the one !
I agree. A focus on good environmental stewardship because it is the right thing to do would be something achievable and supported by most people. Wild hysteria and virtue signaling panic about climate emergencies and climate justice, not so much.
Which doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. They certainly do, and in quantity.
You’re trolling. Just carry on flying. Bugger everyone else.
Agreed. The science is clear. Climate change deniers are simply ignorant and in denial. Close this thread.
Scientists used to say the same thing about smoking and lung cancer …
The questions in the opening post are ridiculous and posed simply to stir the pot. It’s like asking for evidence that the world isn’t flat. The Australian president supports coal while his country burns. Trump who cannot be mentioned supports coal. Johnson suggests dropping duties to support flying rather than investing in trains. Why does this reactionary crap need to be discussed here? Fly more. Drive more. Who cares? It’s me, me, me. Anyone who needs more evidence of climate change must be soft in the head. It’s fine to start discussion but not in this way.
The earth has a complex orbit around the sun. Not just going around, but many others. For instance its elliptical orbit will rotate the longest point some degrees off each year, taking several thousand years to complete a 360 total orbit. Who’s to know that such things make a change ?
Stop global heating eat more ice cream.
You seem to be suggesting that climatologists are not aware of (or deliberately ignore) such phenomena…
Yes, I do understand what’s being said. But I haven’t seen too much of the evidence that supports what is being said. (which is what I said in my first response).
I can also detect the “enthusiasm” expressed by some people to do “everything possible, as soon as possible” (and I have a longer record than most on this and previous Naim Forums for suggesting alternative power generation than coal or gas and one or two other ways of reducing the production of gasses that absorb re-radiated/convected/conducted energy from the sun). I haven’t seen the environmental “arithmetic” that shows how effective each element of proposed change will be in reducing warming and thereby any further climate change, or better still, reverse it.
It’s not that I don’t accept climate change or the need for action, just that most reporters fail to identify the basic evidence. Hence this topic.
Yep, I’m sure you’re correct. I’m not suggesting that they don’t exist.
For many years rich westerners have had the option to improve the prospects of the world’s less fortunate - at some personal cost - but have declined to do so. Expecting them to start doing so now in response to climate change is counterintuitive
Wide of the mark.
If the evidence was more easily available and more clearly presented, people would be more readily persuaded to co-operate…and I don’t just mean Hampshire and West Berkshire.
Please contribute with the evidence that convinced you.
And for the avoidance of doubt, please accept that I am not denying climate change, just seeking sources of evidence.
Come on Don, evidence based facts don’t count in the post truth age of virtue signaling. Indeed, one doesn’t really need facts if one chooses to live responsibly. And the trouble with science is that facts and truth evolve into different understandings that disprove previously held truths.
Reporters are reporters, not climate experts. You can’t expect them to “identify the basic evidence”.
There are thousands of papers on climate change - or global warming, call it what you will. IPCC reports can be downloaded. What more do you need? No one on this forum will provide satisfactory evidence, unless they are climatologists themselves.
Why is why I think it was a bad idea to start such a thead…
Reporters use to be reporters, and would indeed, back up statements with evidence. However, now reporters are not reporters and report opinion as fact without evidence.