Attenboroughs Climate Concerns Aired Tonight - BBC1 9pm

[*concerned*]

Just some infofacts to chuck into the discussion!

Sea levels are the lowest they have been for millions of years, hence the UK is an island, Alaska is no longer 'connected to Russia etc, so its no surprise that as things go in cycles, sea levels are bound to rise - again !




CO2 reduction in the UK, costs us ££'s lots of them in many different ways, yet the amount of CO2 produced by the UK, as part of the total manmade CO2 produced is a tiny %, a very tiny % (1% for the UK, Germany which runs many coal powered power stations is 2%, China is 28% )

[Toodles McGinty]

I think it's called "I see right through you", and I'm certainly not alone.


Yes I believe it. Many of the signatories were investigated and found to be unqualified or phony... Dr Geri Halliwell?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/30...limate-change/

Geri Halliwell knows all about weather and climate change. Only an expert could predict the exact time (about half past ten) that it would start raining men.

And I'd venture that in the verse from 'Stop', she's beseeching the world to curb emissions of greenhouse gasses:

Don't you know it's going too fast
Racing so hard you know it won't last
Don't you know, what can't you see
Slow it down, read the sign
So you know just where you're going

The moment she slipped into that Union Jack dress was a devastating loss to the world of science.

[duncet]

How can any of us laymen state with authority that climate change is a hoax? You're not a scientist, neither am I, neither is Said. We all tend to read the reports that favour our side of the argument. That said, aren't the great majority of scientists in agreement that climate change is real?

Some people do, indeed, read reports that favour their side of the argument. That in itself points to the fact that there are two sides to every argument and many world renowned scientists come down on the side that whilst recognising climate is changing, that it is not related to man made activity. Of course, our wonderful, totally unbiased BBC choose not to give these people a voice as they prefer to force feed the masses with their blinkered viewpoint on all issues of the day.
That includes climate change and Brexit.

[said]

How can any of us laymen state with authority that climate change is a hoax? You're not a scientist, neither am I, neither is Said. We all tend to read the reports that favour our side of the argument. That said, aren't the great majority of scientists in agreement that climate change is real?

There you go again! Categorically stating something which you have absolutely no knowledge of. I might as well bang my head against a brick wall! Science evolves and develops, by one scientist claiming one theory and another scientist disproving that theory. Very few scientists act independently these days - most work in teams and produce that which they are paid to produce. I would have thought you would have been intelligent enough to recognise that - no matter!
You are the one who often denies the existence of 'Conspiracy theories' yet you, yourself -initiate them.

[Desert Region]

Geri Halliwell knows all about weather and climate change. Only an expert could predict the exact time (about half past ten) that it would start raining men.

And I'd venture that in the verse from 'Stop', she's beseeching the world to curb emissions of greenhouse gasses:

Don't you know it's going too fast
Racing so hard you know it won't last
Don't you know, what can't you see
Slow it down, read the sign
So you know just where you're going

The moment she slipped into that Union Jack dress was a devastating loss to the world of science.

Woe betide you!

https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/londo...actions/233083


I'm still waiting to hear what perhaps the world's leading medical practitioner can say about climate change and rising temperatures,

https://previews.123rf.com/images/de...880s-by-ch.jpg

[Toodles McGinty]

Woe betide you!

https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/londo...actions/233083

Gd job I don't bother with Twitter. The Geri fans might say mean things

[Alikado]

What local is referring to, is a more detailed description of ice formation and three states of water according to temperature. Most liquids contract when they are cooled due to molecular activity and when they reach freezing point they solidify and contract further but water is unusual in that it does not behave in this same way. When liquid water is cooled, it does contract slightly - but when it reaches to around 4 degrees C, it expands a bit. When it reaches its freezing point it expands considerably more. This behaviour is due to the structure of water molecules, where each hydrogen atom is aligned with two oxygen atoms. The hydrogen bonding strength increases as the temperature reduces because there is less thermal energy to free the bonding.
Local was questioning the very general description of 'compacting water' that I had used as an over simplification.

No wonder I failed Chemistry O Level I thought H2O meant that the molecule consisted of 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom.

[seivad]

No wonder I failed Chemistry O Level I thought H2O meant that the molecule consisted of 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom.

He made a few word/composition changes, but as you can see, the information is clearly copied from this site.

http://www.iapws.org/faq1/freeze.html

I know what H2O is, but beyond that it's all gobbledygook to me! Maybe it will make sense to you.

[seivad]

There you go again! Categorically stating something which you have absolutely no knowledge of. I might as well bang my head against a brick wall! Science evolves and develops, by one scientist claiming one theory and another scientist disproving that theory. Very few scientists act independently these days - most work in teams and produce that which they are paid to produce. I would have thought you would have been intelligent enough to recognise that - no matter!
You are the one who often denies the existence of 'Conspiracy theories' yet you, yourself -initiate them.

By saying "categorically stating something which you have absolutely no knowledge about", what particular statement are you referring to? If you mean this:

aren't the great majority of scientists in agreement that climate change is real?

1) A question mark would indicate that it's not a categorical statement

2) Even if it was, you have a short memory. Let me remind you of your reference to a petition, which, despite the beliefs of Dr Geri Halliwell, is extremely dubious. You can't cite polls/petitions yourself, and then when someone else mentions one, claim that they are not a credible indication of scientific opinion... although the one you mentioned was most definitely not!

You probably won't believe it - but the late Professor Frederick Seitz sent out a petition and received 31,487 USA Scientists signatures, 9,029 of whom are PhD professionals to support the fact that the claim for Global Warming is not only false but harmful
"31,487 American scientists are not “skeptics.”These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth." Copied and pasted as this is an actual statement from Prof. Seitz.

[Desert Region]

Some people do, indeed, read reports that favour their side of the argument. That in itself points to the fact that there are two sides to every argument and many world renowned scientists come down on the side that whilst recognising climate is changing, that it is not related to man made activity. Of course, our wonderful, totally unbiased BBC choose not to give these people a voice as they prefer to force feed the masses with their blinkered viewpoint on all issues of the day.
That includes climate change and Brexit.

Some people do, indeed, read reports that favour their side of the argument.

Which can point towards, or can be indicative of, or can lead to - confirmation bias.

That in itself points to the fact that there are two sides to every argument...

"Two sides" can potentially be misinterpreted as meaning two sides of equal preponderance.

[Graham]

https://www.skepticalscience.com/