Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "Politicians pushing climate 'alarmism' have to be held accountable" video.

  1. Journalist pushing climate change denialism have to be held accountable.
    3
  2. Shellenberger has worked out where the real money is, selling books on science denialism.
    3
  3. I can't believe that Alan would think an acceptable rebuttal to the evidence based conclusions drawn by climatologists on climate change is to point out that a small handful of school children don't believe them.
    2
  4.  @mangotango2909  Google say "China, which joined the Montreal Protocol in 1991 and said it successfully ended the industrial use of CFCs in 2007, questioned the conclusions of the EIA study. Nevertheless, the government said in mid-2019 it would boost monitoring efforts and impose penalties on companies caught illegally producing the chemical." Sounds like you're wrong yet again.
    2
  5.  @mangotango2909  Grow up troll.
    1
  6.  @martinc.n.williams3159  So, no link then? Tell me something. As a scientist, if you had a weather station that was taking temperature measurements, and that station was moved to a significantly higher altitude, where the temperatures are lower, would you need to make adjustments when comparing temperatures taken from those 2 locations? Seems to be a no brainer that you'd need to adjust for the difference in location, right?
    1
  7. @George Mann It's nothing compared to the 3 industries I mentioned.
    1
  8.  @unicorntelecoms4387  The NOAA has plenty of evidence to show CO2 has increased by 50% in the last 200 years. How much evidence do you need?
    1
  9.  @unicorntelecoms4387  Can I ask you, why do you think that relevant?
    1
  10.  @unicorntelecoms4387  So then I would imagine you'd disregard evidence against climate change if it was funded by say, an oil company? Or the IPA? Or do you only play that card when confronted with evidence that you want to dispute, but can't refute? The NOAA is funded by congress, and even when congress is controlled by the science denying right, the NOAA still maintains than CO2 levels have risen by 50% in the last 200 years.
    1
  11.  @unicorntelecoms4387  99%? Do you have a reference for that, or did you simply pull that out of your ring? Weather is not climate. Climate change doesn't mean no locally cold summer. For the last few year, NOAA was funded by climate change deniers. Your arguments are getting so ridiculous, you'll be quoting Tony Heller next.
    1
  12. @George Mann Are you kidding? $350M a year? The oil industry is worth billions, the coal industry is worth billions and the gas industry is worth billions.
    1
  13. Because we made changes to our way of life which reversed the growth of the hole.
    1
  14.  @barrettfenwick8028  It wasn't on the other side of the world for Australians, and the fact that it's invisible might explain why you do see photos of it. I think you just exposed yourself as the man who knew too little.
    1
  15.  @unicorntelecoms4387  Yes, it's factual. Confirmed by a great number of independent measurements. Why would there be an explosion of plant life? Do you think there'd be an explosion of animal life if we increased the O2 level in the atmosphere? How would the plant life be affected by the other pollutants humans dump into the environment? The fact I put my faith in come from empirical data, if you want to refute them, you're going to need a little more than unfounded hypothesise and baseless accusations of lying.
    1
  16.  @unicorntelecoms4387  So I was right, you don't have a rebuttal to any of Bill's facts.
    1
  17.  @mangotango2909  Are you suggesting we didn't stop using CFCs and change the way air conditioners work?
    1
  18. ​ @mangotango2909  CFCs are no longer used in any part of the world. What are you talking about? No, I haven't done my own experiments. How inefficient would that be? I'm basing my beliefs on the conclusions of those who have done these experiments. What are yours based on? The statement "we didn’t do that much to reverse the hole in the ozone", what is that based on?
    1
  19.  @mangotango2909  Actually, they use HFC, which do not contain chlorine and do not damage the stratospheric ozone. Not much different? What makes you say that. I know you wouldn't just say that without first doing your own experiments which support that conclusion (unless of course you're a hypocrite), so please share the results of those experiments.
    1
  20.  @mangotango2909  More lies. China stopped using CFCs in 2007.
    1
  21.  @unicorntelecoms4387  Ok then, point out one other time in history when the CO2 level rose by 50% in less than 200 years. Go on, I'll wait.
    1
  22.  @DudleyBurleson-eu6zq  If you want to refute their conclusions, you need to do so with empirical evidence, not opinions based on the desire for higher book sales.
    1
  23.  @martinc.n.williams3159  Do you have a reference to this study, I'd like to read that.
    1
  24.  @martinc.n.williams3159  There's no mention of ozone on that page. Is it one of the 500 links? There is no "other side of the coin" when it comes to climate science. There's science, and there's science deniers. That's it. If your source is science deniers, then that might explain why you linked me to a site that doesn't appear to support your claim.
    1
  25.  @mangotango2909  You're sounding like a flat earther now. Don't believe what you can't see with your own eyes... that's one of their cornerstone principles.
    1
  26.  @mangotango2909  I actually do know a climate scientist personally. He worked at the CSIRO, and did a meta study on climate change over a decade ago. His finding... Studies that concluded there was man made climate change used much sounder methods than those which did not. They were also more likely to be peer reviewed, while those that did not were more likely to base their conclusions on unfounded assumptions.
    1
  27.  @mangotango2909  The person who told you acid rain was going to kill us all wasn't a scientist though, so how would that lead to the conclusion that scientists were wrong. They never said it was going to kill us all. As for the hole in the ozone, what they said was, there's a hole (there was), it's getting bigger (it was), and it's caused by the use of CFCs (it was). If we stop using CFCs, then the hole will possibly get smaller. (We stopped, and it got smaller). How the hell do you conclude from this that scientists were wrong? EVERYTHING they said about the hole in the ozone layer was correct. Almost everything you've said about it was wrong. You're the one nobody should listen to, because you clearly haven't got the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
    1
  28.  @jimothygreen8879  Absolutely, but the purpose of the meta study was to determine the quality, not quantity, of research. He said the relationship was almost linear. The higher the quality of the study, the more it leaned toward man made climate change.
    1
  29.  @mangotango2909  LOL. How cute you think that's an insult. Greta says we should listen to scientists who know what they're talking about and back up their opinions with empirical evidence, rather than listen to people like you who don't know what they're talking about.
    1
  30.  @martinc.n.williams3159  Which one? I'm neither an ideologist nor a politician. I follow science. I've seen enough so called "science" claiming to refute the consensus on climate change, only to find that it's nothing more than a bunch of questionable conclusion based on sloppy methods and unfounded assumption, or sometime straight out lies. There are even some scientist like Tony Heller who actually claim to have evidence that the earth is cooling, although they appear to be unable to produce a valid source for that evidence. Not to mention the fact that he calls many reputable climatologist "frauds". So you'll have to forgive me for taking with a grain of salt, any claims of scientist "on the other side of the coin" having anything relevant to say on the matter. As to your claim, I couldn't find anything on the site you linked that referred to ozone, but did find a video on the SO channel which said the hole in the ozone layer was due to changes in the pole. However, there was no evidence presented in that video to support that statement. Is that what you think passes for science? Unsubstantiated claims of cause and effect? Hmmm.... I'll wait for the link to the study you're talking about before I make up my mind.
    1
  31.  @jimothygreen8879  You might also find it from people who are climate scientists, and live lifestyles they couldn't possible afford on their salary, possibly paid for by fossil fuel companies in order to influence their opinion. While these are very rare, it's difficult to believe the do not exist.
    1
  32. ​ @martinc.n.williams3159  I did that, no result that resemble your assertion. I didn't say he believes in an upcoming ice age, I said he claims to have evidence that the earth is cooling. He does make this claim. He produced a graph, apparently from raw NOAA data, which he claims shows the earth is cooling. Unfortunately, nobody knows how he produced this graph, and nobody has been able to reproduce it. It seem that no matter how you select raw NOAA data, you never get the results Tony claims he got. But then again, Tony believe that adjusting historical temperature records to conform with modern measurement techniques is tantamount to fraud, so I wouldn't expect anything accurate to come from him.
    1
  33.  @martinc.n.williams3159  Tell me something, is Tony Heller on one on the 500 scientists you mentioned earlier? Because that would be game, set and match if he were.
    1
  34.  @MonsieurDrobot  Yea, everyone knows the earth is flat, don't they Dr Bot.
    1
  35.  @mangotango2909  I don't really care what you think, you've shown time and time again that you don't know WTF you're talking about. You've made far too many false claims for me to bother reading any of your posts again. You're nothing but a pathetic troll. Bugger off.
    1
  36.  @mangotango2909  Ok troll, anything you say.
    1
  37.  @martinc.n.williams3159  So you can't answer a simple question. Speaks volumes.
    1
  38.  @unicorntelecoms4387  And it's changing faster now than it ever has in the past, due to human activity. There, FTFY.
    1
  39.  @DudleyBurleson-eu6zq  So you think that decades ago, climate scientists all got together to conspire to con the public, because they knew that in decades time, there would be a payoff? Yeah, I'm sure that makes perfect sense to you. Go back to watching charlatans like Tony Heller.
    1
  40.  @unicorntelecoms4387  Grown humans don't end their post with childish emojis.
    1
  41.  @unicorntelecoms4387  Oh FFS you are such a child. Grow the hell up.
    1
  42.  @unicorntelecoms4387  Sounds like you don't have a rebuttal to any of Bill's facts.
    1