I only meant to post the first part. Interesting how you focus on the second part - not the first part. Which totally explains the non warming for the past 16 years, which is what you asked for. So you get what you ask for, and then focus on the part that you didn't ask for- . Very interesting .
I'm not sure how you want me to respond to it though. Were they your words, or was it a quote from someone?Do you agree with this Kirst? Apparently the lack of warming is not a surprise, whilst your links say that there has been even more warming. Maybe you should argue with Beebs?
If you think that the lack of warming was not a surprise, maybe you can explain how none of the climate models could then predict the lack of warming.
Kirst is adamant that there has been more warming in the last 15 years, whilst you seem to agree that there has not been much. It looks like the science is not very settled to me when even the two of you don't seem to agree.
It is ridiculous because, as you well know, I am not a scientist - and neither are you.
I told you, it was an article - I said I could post it for you. Why are you asking me if they are my own words, when I already said it was an article. I was just posting an article that explains why it may not have warmed to expectation in the last 16 years. Which is what you asked for. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree, and we all know that science is evolving and no two studies will ever show up the exact same thing. Take from it what you will.
But I have to say - I've grown bored of your constant banging on about the same two subjects (this and how bad Labor is), so I'm going to have to bow out. It's been...something. Maybe you'll have better luck on a science forum.
Father, may I ask you a direct question? Is it 'global warming' or the claims regarding the impact of 'carbon emissions' that you have an issue with? Or just 'climate change' in general?
I live with a global warming skeptic. It's infuriating, but makes for good discussion! I can absolutely accept a conspiracy theory regarding pricing carbon emissions as there is a financial gain to be made from it. And don't get me wrong, I LOVE a good conspiracy theory.
However, climate change is a much broader issue. Interestingly, there is very little to gain economically from believing in climate change (other than R&D, new technologies etc) & much to lose economically. Hence the basis to much of the scepticism perpetuated has been to protect the economy. We need an ever increasing amount of oil, we need continuously developing industry & we need these two things to be increasingly efficient. Restricting industry is costly in so many ways.
So if it's just a global warming or carbon emissions issue, I'm ok with that, to a degree (pardon the punn!). But if you don't believe in climate change, then I probably have a few more questions for you:
Do you have no regard for changes to atmospheric conditions? Do you understand the impact of loss of biodiversity? Do you acknowledge that significant adjustments to the environment in a short timeframe has a knock on effect? Are you concerned by the chemicals we use, the waste we create, the impact on the earths surface - mining, deforestation, urbanisation, salinity issues, pollutants released into the atmosphere, bleaching of coral, soil degradation, reduction of natural resources, etc. Do you genuinely not think that the level of human existence and lifestyle is having an impact on our planet? Do you not want a sustainable future for your children and their children's children?
It would be great if I could understand your angle so that I can actually engage with you, rather than the tit for tat behaviour?
My big issue with this topic is the over-exaggerated (negative) claims of the impact of CO2 on the environment.
Yes. The globe has been warming since the 1700's. So I do believe in 'global warming'.
Hopes that helps regarding my angle.
No I don't believe warming has stalled, there's been several articles (by scientists!) linked in 'the great green con' thread regarding what you consider as warming stopping the past 16 years. If you're interested in reading them again (or I assume for the first time) I'll link the thread. The issue is also raised in the articles I listed above about the Arctic ice, but you're obviously ignoring those as well since they are not written by a cherry-picking journalist that suits your agenda.
I'm well aware you feel the issue is exaggerated and you feel money should not be invested on this 'pseudo-science.' You've made your point many times, so why keep harping on about it, on a parenting forum that you seem to take no interest in unless you are poking about labor or the climate?
Give me a reason why I should put more stock in your posts than the vast majority of the world's scientists and even the scientist hubbers on here that have posted in the past and you ignore. Is it to make me question what is happening or believe it is an even bigger problem? Because every time you post, the latter occurs, as I am sure it does for many hubbers reading along.
Last edited by Kirst33; 18-09-2013 at 06:38.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!