So science is required then!
I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.
Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?
Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?
So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?
I do not claim to have the solution (presuming that a solution is required), otherwise I would gladly offer it.Just asking, but when you say questions have been unanswered, do you believe you are the only person with the key to the solving it or do you cherry pick papers to suit your concreted stance?
I think we are all biased because we allow our own interpretations of life's experiences to skew the idea that we may be wrong.
So science is required then!
I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.
In relation to the topic of personal prejudice, I refer you to my most recent response to Tisme.Did I say science was not required ? I don't think so. What I said that not all knowledge is personal experience , in response to your assertion as to whether I had personally experienced hurricanes etc.
The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.
What informs you seems to be your own prejudices. I think it goes back to your polio experience, for which I have a lot of sympathy for you but it seems to have clouded your opinion of science in general to the point where you seem to think that scientists are all cranks and you know a lot better than they.
This gave rise to several of my questions of you, including the one about your personal experience of these phenomena.... It doesn't need science, just the ability to look at the accumulation of weather events and realise that something serious is happening at a rapidly increasing rate.
Perhaps your health issues need to be brought into the argument!
And when those "scientists", you've chosen to heed, start providing credible answers to the crucial questions that I have repeatedly raised, I will gladly join you in listening to them.I'm quite well, but thank you for asking.
Maybe I got the words the wrong way , I should have said "it doesn't need just science, also the ability..."
Anyway, you pick the scientists that agree with you, whoever they are, but I'll stick with the people who work in the field and most of them say AGW is real and is mostly caused by burning coal and other organic fuels.
I do not claim to have the solution (presuming that a solution is required), otherwise I would gladly offer it.
I do consider the failure of the alarmists to answer some very pertinent (and crucial) questions, relating to our biological needs, to be cause for very great concern, hence my intense skepticism.
I would hope by now that you have noticed that I have never claimed to be without prejudice.
I would also hope that you have noticed that very few (if any) people in this thread, let alone the entire planet, can truly make such claims.
Is there a difference between and alarmist and say someone like me who just admits a belief that general climatic events are making a persistent entropic change? I'm not spending any time running around with doom and gloom, although I do lament the loss of what I knew as a boy to be good predictable climate events peppered with the odd surprise (say an Indian rain during the dry spell).
The input of scientists is one of the factors that informs me as well as a knowledge of the increasing intensity of heatwaves, fires and floods.
.
I cannot help but wonder whether his "scientists" may perchance include the Sierra club amongst their ranks.So what degree of intensity over would you say that I experienced in the 30's and 40's......I witnessed plenty of intense storms in Brisbane......plenty of heat waves through out the country.....Fires in Vic and NSW were a common occurrence except people were not stupid enough to build in the dense bush and those that did had adequate fire breaks.......Plenty of great floods.....in Brisbane, houses in the Chelma area where floods went over roof level in the 50's......Homehill and Ayr were often flooded before the Burdekin dam was built......I once saw a cow with its head stuck in the fork of a tree in Homehill 12 feet above the ground on the main highway.
So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
You make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .
So science is required then!
I hope that you have noticed just how quickly you've contradicted your own assertions.
Have you failed to notice that my questions regarding biological needs and their possible link to natural (as opposed to artificial) causation remain unanswered by the "scientists" to whom your question alludes?
Have you also failed to notice that those subscribing to the apocalyptic view, are themselves ignoring the expertise of scientists presenting findings not supportive to that view?
So I could rightly ask you, why are you ignoring the expertise and work of so many scientists?
Did you take the time to view the linked video in my previous post?Trump's kind of "scientist" or peer-reviewed scientific journals kind of scientists?
Luu. you are not taking into account the 20% difference in efficiency of coal....You don't take into account what happens when the SUN does not shine or the wind does not blow.....So what do they fall back on when this takes place?
So I ask you again to what degree of greater intensity as to what has happened in the mid 40's and 50's?
You make statements but don't always volunteer to back it up. .
I cannot help but wonder whether his "scientists" may perchance include the Sierra club amongst their ranks.
Did you take the time to view the linked video in my previous post?
How can the peer review process take effect when the "scientists" insist that their assertions are not open to debate?
Efficiency will also be gained once there's a stable market for solar. There's already a few innovation I've seen happening at Australian universities that could potentially triple the current panel's efficiency, and that was by chance watching a doco on the ABC.
Safer to go with an energy mix. Coal might still not be able to be delivered. That's why there's a panic in China from Cyclone Debbie. They have to scramble for coal from other places due to the shut downs and damages Debbie cause to rail and ports.
Then there's that eventual running out of coal and other finite resources. Not to mention pollution, health effects and that imaginary climate disaster.
So you are saying that one day solar panels will be 45% efficient...Where is your back up link or is that just your usual mere hear say.....Perhaps Smurf might may be able to help here.
There is enough coal for the next 186 years and beyond.
Yes the some coal mines were shut down after TC Debbie but have you seen the massive stock pile at Abbott Point?
There has ben no Global Warming for over18 years.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/11...ns-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?