Millions of peoples are worrying about weather and global heating ,is the last COB27 really work for solving problems as big polluting countries still emitting gases and use fossile fuel ,and poor and developing countries are suffering ,who to blame?and who will pay?
The real question that you should ask yourself is how big is the environmental impact of organizing COP27 itself. If you consider all the GHG emissions from transportation and the amount of electricity consumed during the COP27 days, you will be shocked about how ironic it is.
COP 27 and all of its advocates follow the belief in mathematical models rather than long climate history. The evidence for CO2 forcing is purely a hypothesis the magnitude of which cannot be proved or disproved experimentally. This shortfall makes it ideal for launching political and media fear-campaigns: - many of the islands (such as Mauritius) that were predicted to be water inundated by now are actually growing; Arctic ice is supposed to be gone along with the polar bears: neither is true. Apart from a welcome small amount of heating after the LIA there is no evidence of AGW effects that has stood examination.
Trump was the only world leader to state these facts, but China and India are clearly not worried about carbon.
Dear friends ,despite all efforts to reduce green house gases and global heating is still abig problem ,with more burning coal and fossil fuels and pertroleum and oil pollution ,we are a way from becoming close to clean environment ,industralized countries and big giant countries are not obeying clean environment rules .
Tareq Alasadi: What are these clean environment rules? Most countries have their own laws and regulations concerning specified emissions, but apart from CFCs there is little consensus about what should be reduced. The CO2 issue was covered by INDCs at COP 25: these mean very little as the west moves into a self-inflicted energy crisis.
Youssef Benmoussa Jack Broughton
it is "unfortunate" that denialists infest so much of public discourse with their/your ignore-ant polemics - but now even here on a research forum you want to contaminate and drag it down to anti-scientific unresearched low-brow opinions ?
You make the unsubstantiated claim, typical of denialists who are vehemently opposed to any form of action or protest which challenges your myopic little bubble of priviledge and preferences, that COP27 itself is a significant environmental and climate threat. Yet you provide no data at all.
You state that it is both shocking and ironic, and yet you are too lazy and incompetent to substantiate your feeble and incorrect opinion with any data or even credible estimates. Plus, you implicitly pretend that ALL of the other continuous uninterrupted consumption of resources and energy and emissions of GHGs are insignificant compared to any single COPxx event.
Your implied, passive-aggressive message, is that COPxx should not be held, that no climate or environmental action should be taken, or if any such action might be contemplated, it must be done with no travel, no technology, consume zero energy, emit zero GHGs.
You purport to impose a degree of unnatural impossible perfectionism which you do not practice in any area of your life as a kind of oblique denialist attack - without being clear that that is what you are doing.
You also resort to your incoherent disingenuous dishonest attack on the entirety of climate science by claiming that all of the models are incorrect and irrelevant.
You provide zero evidence or substantiation. You refer to some erroneous predictions made by Al Gore and others who are not climate scientists but Big Green Lies opportunists.
You claim that CO2 forcing is "purely a hypothesis" and imply that CO2 plays no role in Global Heating - and yet you provide no superior alternative explanation.
You provide no evidence that the models are fatally broken.
Of course, you end your gratuitous diatribe with the ultimate self-discrediting reference to TheMarmaladeMenace as a climate expert, the only correct world leader to be correct on the climate (and reading into your facile credulous devotion, everything else he said).
Net result: Credibility = zero.
I challenge you to substantiate your incoherent drivel with verifiable evidence and data worthy of the term "research" or else retract your meaningless statements
Kurt Klingbell: your response is typical of the unthinking, bullying AGW advocates. Your fear of being proved wrong in your unproven assertions is driving you to hysterical replies. The essence of the reason to deny AGW is that the theory is based on an arbitrary and unmeasurable radiative forcing function that varies with different modellers and has given answers that are far above measured values since 1990. In addition, there is no real-world evidence of climate change over the last century, even the IPCC could not attribute any changes to climate change with confidence.
Scientific debate needs knowledge ( science = knowledge) not repetition of memes.
Who?
The team aren't solving it.
They are politicians they don't do heating mechanism, they are for votes not for heat /or cold they will say.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Communications (Networks)
- Simulators