Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Manmade Global Warming - New Extremes, page-1561

First 1561 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
nippy

11,124 Posts.

698

26/04/22

00:58

Post #: 61007715
Share

Originally posted by lucyno: ↑

So which scientist is right? What’s his name ?

I am not sure you can establish scientific credibility simply on the basis these conclusions happen to support your position.
it’s the process and the reasoning in conjunction with science that provides its merit.

I am not presenting an argument here to alter what you want to believe , this is simply my reasoning on my choice , there is also this wise old saying floating around “usually if the government suggested you do something , you are better off dong the opposite ‘

James Lovelock originally proposed the idea that the world itself was self regulating. His theories were basically the extension of Darwin’s evolution of species work that basically turned religious teachings on its head and expanded the reference and reasoning to incorporate the global environment as an evolving system. This made sense to me as having both religious and scientific background it provided a better explanation as to how the earth sat in the universe and explained its history and transition over time which could be cross referenced through geological science. It also explained in stark reality where human beings fit into the picture.
as just another organism on this planet .
what it also did was give some clarity to the earths evolutionary time frames and the minute part of that time frame humans play in it.

when the ozone layer crisis appeared (allowing dangerous radiation to penetrate to the earths surface) and was subsequently rectified by banning CFC’s and then attention was drawn to atmospheric CO2 and it’s effect on surface temperature regulation this was a concern as CO2 absorption by photosynthesis is well substantiated in science and CO2 production was on the increase as population growth exploded . It made sense that if your cutting trees down and ramping up the use of combustion of organic compounds your going to have an increase in atmospheric CO2 now when measured against atmospheric CO2 prior to the industrial revolution and this is exactly what the scientists were finding . The alarming part was even though these increases were considered minor in the big picture for the earth , when referenced with the earths time line of historical atmospheric conditions they were monumental and rapidly changing within the insignificant time humans have inhabited this planet.

So the scientists are saying excess CO2 is not good , it makes sense that it’s increasing and if left unchanged is just going to increase further. So I am not going to sit here and say I understand the science of atmospheric CO2 temperature gradients and the changes in global cross currents that maybe effect by rising the sea temperature by x amount or regurgitate someone else’s scientific research which I have no expertise in assessing it on its merit in any case . The concept makes sense , the scientists are telling us that it’s better we reduce CO2 emissions ,in real terms there should be no temperature change measured at all for the entire time human beings live on this planet that’s how short a period we have been on it , like one second in an entire day .
I certainly would prefer to breath cleaner air than polluted air and car fumes and I live in a clean air environment . Try Asia or South America , India . So why shouldn’t this transition occur , why not rather than just let everything end up like the air quality of other regions as that’s where it’s heading, and people who I give the credit where credit is due who know about this stuff are advising me it’s not good and needs to change , I will take their word for it because it makes sense , not obtain an environmental science degree from google and have an ego and arrogance to contradict them , I’f it didn’t make sense perhaps I would but this really is a no brainer

Expand

Oh dear no brainer indeed.

So easily fooled by partial truths.

You have already been advised that other factors totally swamp any effect carbon dioxide may have yet there is zero reference from you about those things.

You are been fed the narrative and fooled by it with an illusion of order.

As I said before keep working on your critical thinking skills. You need to.
4 Upvote

Reply

Top Stories

CTT

Cettire shares jump on FY24 revenue growth up 80% vs pcp – but stock still badly bruised

ATH

Trial for Alterity's neurodegenerative drug ATH434 shows reduced disability

NWC

New World Resources inks complete PFS for Antler Copper Project in Arizona, USA

AI stocks: What to expect in 2024-25

LRL

Labyrinth shares rocket by 219% on news of Comet Vale and Vivien gold project acquisitions

There are more pages in this discussion • 7,570 more messages in this thread...

First 1561 Last