monkey wrote:

We're all drawing out evidence from Google I presume anyway, a company known for intentionally corrupting its search results, with an opaque formula for producing them and that has given money to and lobbied politicians to deny climate change.

They seem to have seen the light.

dynamiteReady wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

No response to the referenced, scholarly article from a respected scientific journal explaining the likely cause of the pause?

Here's another perspective. But seriously, my carbon footprint is very likely smaller than yours (and yours...), despite me having a car, so I won't be demonised. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

If only you'd do the slightest bit of research.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818106002049?via=ihub

http://antigreen.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/the-latest-paper-from-swedish-sea-level.html

See what I mean.

This is a latter paper.

It's all tit for tat shit.

And for the billionth time, that's why I'm weary of arguments for both sides.

Christ, this is the man you're choosing to believe (from Wiki):

Mörner has written a number of works claiming to provide theoretical support for dowsing.[19] He was elected "Deceiver of the year" by Föreningen Vetenskap och Folkbildning in 1995 for "organizing university courses about dowsing...".[3] In 1997 James Randi asked him to claim the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge, making a controlled experiment to prove that dowsing works.[20] Mörner declined the offer.[21]

Just to recap, on the one hand we have 97% of 12,000 peer reviewed articles on climate change, on the other, 5 academics who feel that their articles were misrepresented in that study, a geologist, a biogeologist who doesn't dispute the fact he has no climate credentials, an economist and the Deceiver of the Year 1995 who believes that dowsing can be scientifically proven, but who refuses to do so under controlled conditions despite being offered a million dollars to do so.

Tit for tat my arse.

Essentially, we need to stop burning fossil fuels and invest massively in nuclear and renewables. Fingers crossed our leaders do something this week.

If you want to have a personal impact on climate change, become vegetarian. That's the single biggest thing you can do to reduce your carbon footprint unless you own a power station or take a private jet to work.

monkey wrote:

The time has come for me to disengage from conversing with @dynamiteReady until he's at least attempted to address the below because he's all over the place at the moment, and seems to be scarcely reading other people's posts.  

I quote myself for clarity:

- Climate change is happening  - It is happening very quickly - A major reason for the rapidity of change and the severity of change is humans Without even going into the potential outcomes, which of these points do you dispute, and on what basis / what alternatives for the observed data do you have? It's that simple. Nothing to do with dogma, fanaticism, or bullshit articles in economy magazines. Just simple discussion. Please can you address this before continuing so we can have a constructive discussion?

Well... I tried.
What I wanted was discourse, what I got, was bullying.

Climate change is happening  - It is happening very quickly - A major reason for the rapidity of change and the severity of change is humans.

And my question was, and still is, what is the correlate?

Co2s? That's disputable, the chart makes that an easy challenge. 

The birth rate is a strong one, but we haven't examined that yet. Agriculture is also a major one... And how do we set up 'controls' for lab work in an experiment performed on a living system? How do we know if this pattern of climate change has anything to do with us, and not an unknown cosmic phenomenon? 

And how do we explain ice ages of the past? Do you think we may see another ice age in the future? There's still a great deal of dispute about the cause of the ice age, and that's in the benefit of hindsight...

What's wrong with asking questions aout the subject?

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking these questions, but some of you have already made up your minds, much like the Catholic church once did before Galileo started asking questions.

I'm not saying the human effected climate change is impossible. I'm trying to say that it's impossible to be certain about this, and that the intelligent thing to do, is to learn more...

And stop bullying Dyn-o-mite, he is nice.

Yes, we're the Catholic Church, dogmatically sticking to our beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

oof wait i already did pre-birth

ahahaha dowsing!

Skerret wrote:

And stop bullying Dyn-o-mite, he is nice.

He is, he's lovely. Unfortunately, he's also deeply wrong on this subject.

cockbeard wrote:

Vegetarian argument is far too simplistic. It is September and I can get spring onions, baby carrots, asparagus and new potatoes. Where have they travelled from?

As long as they haven't been transported around the world several times, you should be alright.

According to a study led by Gidon Eshel of Bard College. Looking at foods commonly found in vegetarian and vegan diets, like potatoes, rice and wheat, his report finds that, per calorie of beef, cows require 160 times more land and produce 11 times more greenhouse gases.

Even if it's all made up, even if all these scientific experts are covering their backs and fishing for grants with their doomsday hypothes, even if all that is possibly true, what is the worst that could happen? We waste a lot of time/money cutting back on mindless consumption and pollution for the sake of nothing? I'd certainly take that over total population collapse and the end of a habitable planet.

equinox_code wrote:

Even if it's all made up, even if all these scientific experts are covering their backs and fishing for grants with their doomsday hypothes, even if all that is possibly true, what is the worst that could happen? We waste a lot of time/money cutting back on mindless consumption and pollution for the sake of nothing? I'd certainly take that over total population collapse and the end of a habitable planet.

THIS. THIS MULTIPLIED BY INFINITY MULTIPLIED BY THE KELVIN INVREASE IN GRIFFS HOT SPACE.

cockbeard wrote:

What do you think would reduce your ecological footprint more, going vegetarian or turning your back on supermarkets?

I'm pretty sure going vegetarian would. Did you read that article? It can take 18,000 gallons of water to make a third-pound hamburger patty.

Ditching supermarkets wouldn't hurt, though.