That suits me fine, and suggests that perhaps you either have no logical argument, or can't see the truth for the anger welling up within. Have a nice evening, Mr. Grumpy!
That video makes perfect sense to me Chris.
Its easy to cherry pick a scientist with an impressive cv who happens to represent any particular viewpoint. The climate change debate has an ever increasing range of "experts" to choose from however I prefer to accept the consensus. This guy is definitely an unreliable source I am afraid
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
if you want to see some of the misrepresentation this particular scientist makes. An impressive cv is interesting, I especially do not credit any "scientist" who misquotes and quite honestly totally misrepresents the argument.
I don't thinks we have all then answers yet, and whilst I am a geologist, I studied the 3ed level OU course on The Geological Record and Climate change to be better informed. This course does not flatly conclude that climate change is human caused. As with all science it cannit be dogmatic, but the evidence is overwhelmingly towards a human cause - correlation is not causation of cause but we also have an awful lot of direct measurements.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm
Exactly. 97% of scientists agree that recent climate change is primarily due to human activity so we should have given up debating this a long time ago and focus on doing something about it before it's too late. Thankfully, lots of people are. For example, Climate KIC is the EU's largest Climate change initiative which is doing great things to put researchers in partnership with industry to innovate postive solutions. They've also produced lots of free e-learning at various levels for anyone who wants to collaborate or who is interested: http://learning.climate-kic.org/
Thanks Patrick. I did read through a lot of it but it became very repetitive, just using the same point to reject multiple comments.
Nine out of ten cat owners agree.......... Stats, I just love 'em :-)
True. Most newspaper science journalism springs from some correlation or another. http://flowingdata.com/2014/05/12/random-things-that-correlate/ is one of many sites with spurious (and funny) correlations. Research papers spouting correlations MUST be supported by a lot of other research before one can presume causation.
One of the commonest logical fallacies to be ignored is that "correlation does not equal causation". That and "confirmation bias" though strictly not a logical fallacy.
But if we ignored such correlations we would probably still think smoking wasn't harmful - now there's a real conspiracy for you!
All the more reason to be wary, if so many of his points can be countered so easily But the site could do with a bit of proofreadung, some of the his points are repeated albeit then with the same countering point .
"Nine out of ten cat owners agree......"
IIRC, that was modified to encompass those "who expressed an interest" after complaints...
Yes, I remember the early days of data analytics and one of the correlations Walmart or somebody similar found was that six packs of beer and disposable nappies seemed to bought together a disproportionate amount of times. Therefore don't discount both at the same time :-)
I blame the Dinosaurs, I can image a gang of Velociraptors sitting around a camp fire, burning wood and fossil fuels, eating red meat which they had just hunted, and probably smoking as well. Not sure if they drove cars, but in any case probably produced a lot of Methane and CO2.
Then all of a sudden their world ended because of Climate Change, and that really taught them some manners, serves them right, they should have protected their own environment better. Nature had nothing to do with it…………..
Well if climate change hadn't got them smoking certainly would have.
We put the heating back on this morning. 5 degrees in Pays de Loire.
It's snowing! It's April 30 and it's snowing!
Thought I would resurrect this thread because as I look out the window it is lashing with rain, overcast and 14 degrees, it's also the 18th May in the south west of France. The weather has been really naff here in the Charente for over 6 months now and we haven't managed a period of settled high pressure sunny weather for more than a few consecutive days, having looked at the France Meteo site daily over the last few months it seems most of France is faring little better. A blip in the weather or is it always like this? I can't relate this last few months weather to the the fact that all the old houses here look like they were constructed for a mediterranean climate??? Is'nt Poitou Charente the 2nd sunniest place in France?
There are at least 3 sunnier regions: PACA, Languedoc Rousillon and Corsica (not to mention some of the overseas regions). But of course you have to like wind for the first two of those. When you see the weather maps of France at the moment it seems that the mistral and tramontane are constantly blowing.
This spring has been disappointing but I remember reading last year about El Nino and how it's thought to bring a mild winter to Western Europe which gradually turns into a cold spring. So if that's correct then we may be fitting into that pattern.
I found these maps quite informative for my own house hunt. Of course these are averages. Most people think in terms of weather -eg what are winters like here? will often elicit an answer like "once our vet couldn't get up the hill because of the ice" when in fact that was a once in a generation incident. Personal opinion seems purely anecdotal, so stats like on these maps helped me a lot.
A few years ago I worked in a sunnier French department (973), and it was very sunny, in fact virtually always sunny, other than when it was raining, although apart from the Sun you would be better off staying in North Charente.