Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 167 replies
  • Subscribers 14 subscribers
  • Views 10101 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Roger B

If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.

We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.

 

 

Parents
  • 0

    Roger Bryant: 
     

    Although interesting, being the longest measured temperature series, the CET is not very helpful in discussing global warming as it is just 3 points in England which may or may not reflect global conditions. 

    It is obviously helpful in discussing climate warming, for the lessons it renders. 

    The Karoly-Stott analysis about how the likelihood of such a rise has increased because of anthropogenic factors is obviously generalisable to any situation in which there is enough reliable data. Indeed, it is explained in the Stone-Allen 2005 paper (available in preprint from the Oxford site). Similarlywith  the observations of Stott, Stone and Allen about the 2003 European heatwave.

    The point of citing that work is this. If you can show the risk of specific adverse events of a given magnitude has increased because of anthropogenic factors, then that provides an obvious argument for taking measures to mitigate the effect of those factors.

    I argue we should be doing that. 

    What is your position on that? That those anthropogenic factors aren't really there? 

     

    What is the global average temperature? …..

     

    IPCC AR5 split there global temperature between land and ocean…… IPCC AR6 presents a much more extreme view. The previous reduction in the rate of rise has disappeared 

    I don't see much difference between the data you quote from AR5 and AR6, except for the mode of presentation. Can you tell us why you find AR6 “much more extreme”?

     

Reply
  • 0

    Roger Bryant: 
     

    Although interesting, being the longest measured temperature series, the CET is not very helpful in discussing global warming as it is just 3 points in England which may or may not reflect global conditions. 

    It is obviously helpful in discussing climate warming, for the lessons it renders. 

    The Karoly-Stott analysis about how the likelihood of such a rise has increased because of anthropogenic factors is obviously generalisable to any situation in which there is enough reliable data. Indeed, it is explained in the Stone-Allen 2005 paper (available in preprint from the Oxford site). Similarlywith  the observations of Stott, Stone and Allen about the 2003 European heatwave.

    The point of citing that work is this. If you can show the risk of specific adverse events of a given magnitude has increased because of anthropogenic factors, then that provides an obvious argument for taking measures to mitigate the effect of those factors.

    I argue we should be doing that. 

    What is your position on that? That those anthropogenic factors aren't really there? 

     

    What is the global average temperature? …..

     

    IPCC AR5 split there global temperature between land and ocean…… IPCC AR6 presents a much more extreme view. The previous reduction in the rate of rise has disappeared 

    I don't see much difference between the data you quote from AR5 and AR6, except for the mode of presentation. Can you tell us why you find AR6 “much more extreme”?

     

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines