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 16 subscribers
  • Views 11478 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

    Peter, do you actually read what people post?

    I post a simple piece of information, and the naysayers all come out of their holes to say it's bunkum. Lots and lots of them.

    You posted a couple of URLs to the increasing global CO2 output. No one challenged the increase in CO2 output. 

    Jon noted that this does not appear to correlate with global temperature rise. Is that calling your URL’s bunkum or is it valid discussion?

    Some global temperature graphs from various ‘official’ resources were then displayed.  The possibly more politically  based one from NASA Climate Change appeared to show an accelerating increase in global temperature. The NASA GISS v4 monthly graph and the UAH graph both showed flat, possibly falling temperatures. Where does this say that your CO2 output URLs are bunkum?

    I don’t want to discuss “climate science” with people who can only push URL’s  and cannot actually formulate an assertion in climate science which they are prepared to argue for in any reasonable fashion.

    Where have you been formulating arguments and defending? All I have seen so far from you is the standard dogma.

Reply
  • 0

    Peter, do you actually read what people post?

    I post a simple piece of information, and the naysayers all come out of their holes to say it's bunkum. Lots and lots of them.

    You posted a couple of URLs to the increasing global CO2 output. No one challenged the increase in CO2 output. 

    Jon noted that this does not appear to correlate with global temperature rise. Is that calling your URL’s bunkum or is it valid discussion?

    Some global temperature graphs from various ‘official’ resources were then displayed.  The possibly more politically  based one from NASA Climate Change appeared to show an accelerating increase in global temperature. The NASA GISS v4 monthly graph and the UAH graph both showed flat, possibly falling temperatures. Where does this say that your CO2 output URLs are bunkum?

    I don’t want to discuss “climate science” with people who can only push URL’s  and cannot actually formulate an assertion in climate science which they are prepared to argue for in any reasonable fashion.

    Where have you been formulating arguments and defending? All I have seen so far from you is the standard dogma.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines