Is climate change real?

[Max B Gold]

A chance to vote in a scientifically measured poll.

[Story of O]

Donald T says not real.

[RedDwarf 1881]

Climate change is real because it's been happening for billions of years . The only difference is now we're around to experience the changes . Somebody should inform the climate change protesters that all our weather patterns and temperature changes are due to solar activity . I don't think there is anything we can do to influence the Sun . However , that's not to be confused with pollution which is solely down to mankind and is a major world problem to be solved.

[Real Al]

Donald T says not real.

Yeah, but he also says covfefe

[Real Al]

Climate change is real because it's been happening for billions of years . The only difference is now we're around to experience the changes . Somebody should inform the climate change protesters that all our weather patterns and temperature changes are due to solar activity . I don't think there is anything we can do to influence the Sun . However , th at's not to be confused with pollution which is solely down to mankind and is a major world problem to be solved.

You're right about climate change being natural, of course. But it being solely based on solar activity seems not be borne by the data...

[Eat The Rich]

Why Maxy, why?

[Adz]

Don't bother ra, you can't argue with the scientifically illiterate.

[Max B Gold]

Why Maxy, why?

So that guys like Real Al can trash the thickos by throwing evidence in their face and then force it down their throats. That's why.

[Orientinoz]

Is Corbyn real?...or just a real cnut?

[Max B Gold]

Is Corbyn real?...or just a real cnut?

Shut up you IMBECILE and stay on topic. We're doing a poll on Jerry later.

[Orientinoz]

Is Corbyn real?...or just a real cnut?

Shut up you IMBECILE and stay on topic. We're doing a poll on Jerry later.

I think Boris polled him in parliament earlier...JC is still applying the ointment I believe..

[Clive Evans]

So much is written about it, it is probably a fact, because of all the trees are being lopped for newspaper. Plus- Stop Press: Artic now on fire ( this happens every year apparently, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story ).

[Real Al]

So much is written about it, it is probably a fact, because of all the trees are being lopped for newspaper. Plus- Stop Press: Artic now on fire ( this happens every year apparently, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story ).

[Spen_mode]Actually, lopping is just removing branches, not chopping down the whole tree[/Spen_mode]

[StillSpike]

Who should I believe. A bunch of actual Climate Scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -passes-99

or people on a football message board (or the clown in the white house) ?

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Who should I believe. A bunch of actual Climate Scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -passes-99

or people on a football message board (or the clown in the white house) ?

These guys may well be right but I always worry when people quote scientists.

We’ve been told, via scientific evidence to switch to diesel cars, then move away from same. Don’t eat butter, do eat butter, don’t eat eggs, do eat eggs, sugar is good, sugar is bad, etc you get the gist. I have little doubt with a little research, which frankly I can’t be arsed to do, I could uncover endless examples where science moves on and with different conclusions.

Sometimes there is a belief and amazingly the findings support their belief. The sugar scientist is a case in point, extolling the virtues of the product. Turns out he worked for the industry.

[Max B Gold]

Who should I believe. A bunch of actual Climate Scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -passes-99

or people on a football message board (or the clown in the white house) ?

These guys may well be right but I always worry when people quote scientists.

We’ve been told, via scientific evidence to switch to diesel cars, then move away from same. Don’t eat butter, do eat butter, don’t eat eggs, do eat eggs, sugar is good, sugar is bad, etc you get the gist. I have little doubt with a little research, which frankly I can’t be arsed to do, I could uncover endless examples where science moves on and with different conclusions.

Sometimes there is a belief and amazingly the findings support their belief. The sugar scientist is a case in point, extolling the virtues of the product. Turns out he worked for the industry.

You don't understand science. Just admit it. We won't think any more badly of you than we do already. Which to be fair is pretty bad.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Who should I believe. A bunch of actual Climate Scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... -passes-99

or people on a football message board (or the clown in the white house) ?

These guys may well be right but I always worry when people quote scientists.

We’ve been told, via scientific evidence to switch to diesel cars, then move away from same. Don’t eat butter, do eat butter, don’t eat eggs, do eat eggs, sugar is good, sugar is bad, etc you get the gist. I have little doubt with a little research, which frankly I can’t be arsed to do, I could uncover endless examples where science moves on and with different conclusions.

Sometimes there is a belief and amazingly the findings support their belief. The sugar scientist is a case in point, extolling the virtues of the product. Turns out he worked for the industry.

You don't understand science. Just admit it. We won't think any more badly of you than we do already. Which to be fair is pretty bad.

I understand our scientific knowledge is continuing to evolve and what we believe today to be true may well not be the case tomorrow. Science can prove most things if they want to, even that you are smart, but then again I’m sure other scientists could prove you are not.

The world is full of experts who opinions differ from other experts.

[BoniO]

Can there really be anyone stupid enough to still be denying climate change? I get that a-holes like Trump will deny it because it doesn't fit in with his political aims but for the majority, who have nothing to gain, just how thick do you need to be to rubbish the solid evidence.

[Max B Gold]

These guys may well be right but I always worry when people quote scientists.

We’ve been told, via scientific evidence to switch to diesel cars, then move away from same. Don’t eat butter, do eat butter, don’t eat eggs, do eat eggs, sugar is good, sugar is bad, etc you get the gist. I have little doubt with a little research, which frankly I can’t be arsed to do, I could uncover endless examples where science moves on and with different conclusions.

Sometimes there is a belief and amazingly the findings support their belief. The sugar scientist is a case in point, extolling the virtues of the product. Turns out he worked for the industry.

You don't understand science. Just admit it. We won't think any more badly of you than we do already. Which to be fair is pretty bad.

I understand our scientific knowledge is continuing to evolve and what we believe today to be true may well not be the case tomorrow. Science can prove most things if they want to, even that you are smart, but then again I’m sure other scientists could prove you are not.

The world is full of experts who opinions differ from other experts.

Nope. Not even close. Try this link. I'm only giving it to you because you're a mate.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01

[StillSpike]

Can there really be anyone stupid enough to still be denying climate change? I get that a-holes like Trump will deny it because it doesn't fit in with his political aims but for the majority, who have nothing to gain, just how thick do you need to be to rubbish the solid evidence.

Is it being thick - or is it just "seeing both sides" - see post above yours !

It's a bit like saying that you've got a 50% chance of winning the lottery, because either you win or you don't. Some people never tire of showing just how daft they are - so often in the name of showing how open they are to alternative views (however stupid those alternative views might be!)

[BoniO]

Can there really be anyone stupid enough to still be denying climate change? I get that a-holes like Trump will deny it because it doesn't fit in with his political aims but for the majority, who have nothing to gain, just how thick do you need to be to rubbish the solid evidence.

Is it being thick - or is it just "seeing both sides" - see post above yours !

It's a bit like saying that you've got a 50% chance of winning the lottery, because either you win or you don't. Some people never tire of showing just how daft they are - so often in the name of showing how open they are to alternative views (however stupid those alternative views might be!)

I think we're way past the "seeing both sides" of the argument period. For me, anyone who currently denies climate change is a) a complete moron b) someone who will personally gain from impeding changes to slow down the damage being done (also a moron) c) a contrary knob (and a moron) who just loves being contradictory for the sake of it - we have more than our fair share on here.

[Max B Gold]

Can there really be anyone stupid enough to still be denying climate change? I get that a-holes like Trump will deny it because it doesn't fit in with his political aims but for the majority, who have nothing to gain, just how thick do you need to be to rubbish the solid evidence.

Is it being thick - or is it just "seeing both sides" - see post above yours !

It's a bit like saying that you've got a 50% chance of winning the lottery, because either you win or you don't. Some people never tire of showing just how daft they are - so often in the name of showing how open they are to alternative views (however stupid those alternative views might be!)

I think we're way past the "seeing both sides" of the argument period. For me, anyone who currently denies climate change is a) a complete moron b) someone who will personally gain from impeding changes to slow down the damage being done (also a moron) c) a contrary knob (and a moron) who just loves being contradictory for the sake of it - we have more than our fair share on here.

So - no room for IMBECILES just morons in your blinkered thinking?

[claptonCasual]

And the Earth is flat.

[Max B Gold]

And the Earth is flat.

Cheers for that. I shall organise a poll on that subject.

[BoniO]

Is it being thick - or is it just "seeing both sides" - see post above yours !

It's a bit like saying that you've got a 50% chance of winning the lottery, because either you win or you don't. Some people never tire of showing just how daft they are - so often in the name of showing how open they are to alternative views (however stupid those alternative views might be!)

I think we're way past the "seeing both sides" of the argument period. For me, anyone who currently denies climate change is a) a complete moron b) someone who will personally gain from impeding changes to slow down the damage being done (also a moron) c) a contrary knob (and a moron) who just loves being contradictory for the sake of it - we have more than our fair share on here.

So - no room for IMBECILES just morons in your blinkered thinking?

I'll do you a deal, I'll accept moronic imbecile as a substitute.