General / Off-Topic Recycle or Die! (the elite environmental thread)

I swear i do not know what you are talking about most of the time Six6VI? Are these words and conversations you normally have? Isn't woke to do with born again christians or something? Anyway it is all irrelevant to this topic.

---------------

'Climate change: Study underpins key idea in Antarctic ice loss':


It's long been suspected but scientists can now show conclusively that thinning in the ring of floating ice around Antarctica is driving mass loss from the interior of the continent.

A new study finds the diminishing thickness of ice shelves is matched almost exactly by an acceleration in the glaciers feeding in behind them.

What's more, the linkage is immediate.

It means we can't rely on a lag in the system to delay the rise in sea-levels as shelves melt in a warmer world.

The glaciers will speed up in tandem, dumping their mass in the ocean.

"The response is essentially instantaneous," said Prof Hilmar Gudmundsson from Northumbria University, UK.

"If you thin the ice shelves today, the increase in flow of the ice upstream will increase today - not tomorrow, not in 10 or 100 years from now; it will happen immediately," he told BBC News.
Luckily pretty much everyone i know has land on high ground and away from flood plains (it's been family tradition for the last decade or longer to only invest in land/property with a concern for rising sea levels and flood events). Pretty much sucks for all those that ignore the warnings though.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
The other thread succumbed to off-topic political discussion - should participants wish this thread to remain open, please refrain from engaging in political discussion.
 
The other thread succumbed to off-topic political discussion - should participants wish this thread to remain open, please refrain from engaging in political discussion.
Aside from the occasional post about recycling (or dying), that's really all this thread is about, at it's core. It would be nice to see some consistency.
 
That looks suspiciously like denial type behaviour. Did you bother to actually watch it or just read the video title and jump the shark? Observation seems to show the crisis team being unable to tolerate wrong think.

Ok, let's play! I'll see your unqualified debunk claim and raise you this one, assuming you won't watch it...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uma-w6caJhY
Oh nice, more YT videos, they'll sure trump decades of research by thousands of scientists. About the debunking:


TL:DR There was never a year in which concensus on global cooling was achieved.
 
Oh nice, more YT videos, they'll sure trump decades of research by thousands of scientists. About the debunking:


TL:DR There was never a year in which concensus on global cooling was achieved.
Wouldn't it be amusing if 'skepticalscience' turned out to be a load of scare tactic funded rubbish as well.

Did you actually watch the video? It looks at the 97% consensus claimed by skepticalscience John Cook.
 
Wouldn't it be amusing if 'skepticalscience' turned out to be a load of scare tactic funded rubbish as well.
You said it yourself pal.

Did you actually watch the video? It looks at the 97% consensus claimed by skepticalscience John Cook.
The only real objection I've heard is that the 97% doesn't take into account neutral papers, the issue is that they aren't papers dealing with climate change in the first place, i.e., they are completely irrelevant for the concensus of climate change because they weren't adressing it in the first place.
 
You said it yourself pal.



The only real objection I've heard is that the 97% doesn't take into account neutral papers, the issue is that they aren't papers dealing with climate change in the first place, i.e., they are completely irrelevant for the concensus of climate change because they weren't adressing it in the first place.
Eyeroll... You didn't watch the video then. If you did, you'd know it listed what J. Cook did with the papers.

Remember, when pointing your finger at others, three more fingers are pointing back at you, the "denier".
 
Last edited:
Eyeroll... You didn't watch the video then. If you did, you'd know it listed what J. Cook did with the papers.

Remember, when pointing your finger at others, three more fingers are pointing back at you, the "denier".
If public and scientific poles have shown anything is that climate change deniers are a minority so no "three fingers" to point at me.
 
It's a simple example to demonstrate the propensity of those who point the finger of blame being totally oblivious of their own contribution to the problem. You seem very quick to declare any and all information that appears to disagree with your beliefs "debunked" without bothering to look at that information yourself.

I read and watch all the hyper-emotive opinion stuff the crisis team post, for objectivity. But you're scared?
There's no point in reviewing information that I already know is not true, it's a waste of time.
 
Top Bottom