|
Anyone disagreeing with the man made climate change/emergency/catastrophe is the modern day heretic, there are people here who would like those views not to be held, describing such views as right wing.
There used to be a name for people who wish to stop views they disagree with from being heard, one can excuse university students and others who have never done a days work up to a point because they are children still many of whom have yet to mature, but i would have expected better from this forum.
|
Anyone disagreeing with the man made climate change/emergency/catastrophe is the modern day heretic, there are people here who would like those views not to be held, describing such views as right wing.
If there were some good science disagreeing with climate change I'd be delighted to read it. While it's opponents include those like Nigel Lawson and Christopher Monckton who haven't a scientific qualification between them then I'll stick with the overwhelming consensus.
While there may be climate sceptics on the left I'm not aware of them whereas Monckton and Lawson are both on free market right of the Tory party. So, it seems, are most of the septics here.
There used to be a name for people who wish to stop views they disagree with from being heard, one can excuse university students and others who have never done a days work up to a point because they are children still many of whom have yet to mature, but i would have expected better from this forum.
I'm not going to come out with a 'little list' of those to whom I suspect FP refers but I'll call Joe B as an example. Fulminating about the EUSSR and the 17.4million v 16.2 isn't the forefront of justifications for leaving the EU. I did hear Carswell make a reasonable stab but very very few others do.
|
|
And of course we will never know what difference the lies told by Boris and his mates on the leave side made to the final result. If I had made misleading statements on contract forms at work my company to get work we would have been taken to court and potentially forced out of business. But Boris and his mates came out of it with nothing but a slap.
Totally disgraceful.
|
|
|
|
|
With the greatest respect, GB, I think you miss the point.
"Anyone disagreeing with the man made climate change/emergency/catastrophe is the modern day heretic, there are people here who would like those views not to be held, describing such views as right wing."
Certainly in this thread those who deny current climate change is man-made have identified themselves as right-wing and it seems that this follows a pattern amongst the public generally.
"There used to be a name for people who wish to stop views they disagree with from being heard, one can excuse university students and others who have never done a days work up to a point because they are children still many of whom have yet to mature, but i would have expected better from this forum."
I don't think anyone here wants to stop such views being heard, but (despite one poster justifying it) certain posters eager to make political capital have attempted to hijack the thread. And the quality of debate they bring is abysmal.
I take particular exception to your comment about "university students... who have never done a day's work". That is a dreadful condemnation of those who choose and are able to develop their intellect and knowledge, and who might actually be well placed to understand environmental matters.
I suspect on here we are dealing with some people who have a deep-rooted distrust of science, technology, education and anything they identify as "the establishment".
|
|
|
Anyone disagreeing with the man made climate change/emergency/catastrophe is the modern day heretic, there are people here who would like those views not to be held, describing such views as right wing.
There used to be a name for people who wish to stop views they disagree with from being heard, one can excuse university students and others who have never done a days work up to a point because they are children still many of whom have yet to mature, but i would have expected better from this forum.
I was trained to think scientifically:## does the evidence correspond with the theory?
If yes , then is it 100% correct or 50% correct or 25%..?
ANYONE who looks at the UK's "climate " over the past 70 years will see years in the 1950s, and 1960s when we had winters so severe that basic transportation stopped in most of England . But in the past 30 years we have gone from winters with 10-20cms of ice on country roads and 1 meter snow drift in our drive to a period of very mild winters.. (The so called" Beast from the East " in 2018 was a shadow of those earlier conditions.)
World sea levels are rising (approx 10-20cms over 100 years. Glaciers are melting.
And CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen 50% plus.. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
So the evidence is that cause and effect largely match tthe theory.. In theory we should be in a solar minimum period now with a mini ice age. So far it has not happened..
So far the theory matches the results...
My politics are anything but LeftWing..
## An Honours Degree in Physics so I have a reputable scientific training.
Edited by madf on 26/02/2020 at 17:44
|
|
Madf, you could have mentioned the last couple of years in Oz. Baking hot or excessively wet by turns.
|
|
As a professional scientist I have no doubt that climate change is real. However, there are a couple of questions which trouble me because I don't know the answers and I am not sure anyone else does either.
During human existence there have been previous major changes of climate. Those were to the benefit of some parts of the world and the detriment of others. For example, as recently (in climate terms) as my youth there were serious scientific concerns that the UK would suffer another ice age but nobody mentions that now. It is very likely the same sort of pros and cons will happen more widely but has anyone worked out whether overall the world will gain or lose?
Does anyone know for sure whether the very expensive and potentially disruptive efforts to avert climate change will actually work? If not would it be better to let it take its course and instead use the resources to mitigate the effects as and when necessary?
|
|
You've put your finger on the crucial issue there, Misar.
We know that average temperatures in this country were higher in about 1400 than they are now, but much lower in 1700 (when annual winter fairs were held on the frozen-over Thames in London). But what we don't know is how much our modern pollutants are contributing to either global warming or climate change (which aren't necessarily the same thing).
It seems to be agreed by all bar the extreme deniers that the pollutants are making some form of contribution; therefore we need to make efforts to minimise them. But as you say we don't know how effective those efforts are now or will be in the future.
I think we have to continue to make the efforts now, precisely because of that lack of knowledge. There's the risk that if we 'let it take its course' we might be leaving it too late.
And that's why - coming back to the price of cars - we need to establish whether EVs or hydrogen power is the best and least polluting way forward, and then build and sell the 'winner' in such numbers that they become generally affordable.
Edited by Avant on 26/02/2020 at 23:13
|
I think we have to continue to make the efforts now, precisely because of that lack of knowledge. There's the risk that if we 'let it take its course' we might be leaving it too late.
And meanwhile global population continues to grow, accelerating all those human-led effects. But that is a no-no for discussion, and the schemes to mitigate pollution mostly assume that human activity may continue at the same level if we can only do it a bit more cleanly.
It's interesting how the corona-virus has put the wind up everyone by throttling global travel. How far will that go ?
|
|
|
|
I think you can compare the UK's effort to combat climate change? global warming( just what is the difference?) as its efforts to control the flooding on the River Severn. A futile effort to combat the force of nature.
|
|
With the population growing the population worldwide will get poorer as resources stretch further. Inflation may also be an issue as prices for rarer and rarer commodities increase.
To stabilise population levels you have to improve the lot of people in third world countries. Mammals like us tend to have more children if the death rate of their young is high. Solve that problem by sharing the wealth of nations more equitably then you might stabilise the population.
Unfortunately it won't happen, and as for the scale of the problem, I heard a radio documentary a while back that suggested that if everyone were to use the same electricity quantities as an average citizen of the USA then the world would need to build one nuclear power station a week for the next ten years!
|
|
|
|
With the population growing the population worldwide will get poorer as resources stretch further. Inflation may also be an issue as prices for rarer and rarer commodities increase.
To stabilise population levels you have to improve the lot of people in third world countries. Mammals like us tend to have more children if the death rate of their young is high. Solve that problem by sharing the wealth of nations more equitably then you might stabilise the population.
Unfortunately it won't happen, and as for the scale of the problem, I heard a radio documentary a while back that suggested that if everyone were to use the same electricity quantities as an average citizen of the USA then the world would need to build one nuclear power station a week for the next ten years!
|
|
|
|
You've put your finger on the crucial issue there, Misar.
We know that average temperatures in this country were higher in about 1400 than they are now, but much lower in 1700 (when annual winter fairs were held on the frozen-over Thames in London). But what we don't know is how much our modern pollutants are contributing to either global warming or climate change (which aren't necessarily the same thing).
It seems to be agreed by all bar the extreme deniers that the pollutants are making some form of contribution; therefore we need to make efforts to minimise them. But as you say we don't know how effective those efforts are now or will be in the future.
I think we have to continue to make the efforts now, precisely because of that lack of knowledge. There's the risk that if we 'let it take its course' we might be leaving it too late.
And that's why - coming back to the price of cars - we need to establish whether EVs or hydrogen power is the best and least polluting way forward, and then build and sell the 'winner' in such numbers that they become generally affordable.
The problem is that, and again, taking my cue from some here who say that 'all climate change deniers' are on the political right, that those on the political Left are stupidly arguing for such drastic measures be put in place that the result is far, far worse for us than putting some mitigations into practice and adapting to the changed conditions until more suitable solutions can be found.
That the biggest proponents of the measures listed by XR (including its founder/leader) and of the much-vaunted (by the Left) 'Green New Deal' have publicly admitted that their proposals are really only about forcing hardline Marxism/socialism on the world and very little to do with sensible, achieveable plans is rather telling.
I would also point out to those saying that universities are the bastion of unbiased scientific discovery that recent peer-reviewed studies showed that well over 70% of lecturers were socialists, in stark contrast to percentage the wider population. It also is well known that many such people are not averse to using their positions of influence, both on matters of policy and the students themselves to push their hard line political agenda.
Up until the millenium, most students had the common sense to eventually ditch any such beliefs by their late 20s/early 30s. Unfortunately, due to the entitlement culture that sprang up following Blair government's election in 1997 (and continued in most respects up until the most recent one), we now have an entire generation and more of those people from around 40 and younger who went to college in greater numbers than before, are very naive and believe all the propaganda, never 'growing out' of it as previous generations mostly did. As such, science is often used or even warped to fit agendas, as we currently see on many other issues.
I personally am not some 'alt-right' nutjob climate denier, but like misar have some serious doubts to both the accuracy/depth of knowledge of the science and degree to which both the climate is changing and our specific effect on it (especially given predictions from not that long ago both I and misar have referred to [mine in other comments earlier/on another thread]), based on the arrogance and ideological/personal agendas of many in both the scientific community, the media and politics. Being 'sceptical' is a good position as regards science.
Science is replete with many mis-steps, including those where the mainstream viewpoint was in the wrong - something I also referred to before (with examples). Many of those mistakes were not found out for many decades, sometimes longer. All many of us are saying is that we should (as a good scientist or engineer should) be wary of always going with the flow because it seems like a good idea at the time, and, more often, because it's either politically-correct or the easier path.
I speak as an engineer myself who likes cold, hard, incontrovertible evidence on matters of importance before proceeding. In my view, climate science is nowhere near that state yet, despite our 'wonderous technological age' (maybe because scientsists said that in the 1970s, 80s and 90s,and got it wrong on many fronts during those periods).
That we just about managed to send humans to the moon and haven't progressed much since, whilst pretending that we know enough about are planet in general and its incredibly complex climate, and interractions with other cellestial bodies that we can much such bold predicttion with supposedly such accuracy when the weather forecasts can't even get what it's going to be like tomorrow right half the time is hardly encouraging.
|
|
<< I ... have some serious doubts to both the accuracy/depth of knowledge of the science and degree to which both the climate is changing and our specific effect on it. Being 'sceptical' is a good position as regards science.
I speak as an engineer myself who likes cold, hard, incontrovertible evidence on matters of importance before proceeding. In my view, climate science is nowhere near that state yet, >>
Andy, there will always be ample scope for denial, as it is impossible to devise an adequate 'experiment' which can prove conclusively (especially to deniers) in a reasonably short time any cause linking humans and climate - especially allowing for short-term fluctuations (i.e. weather). And true scientists are always 'sceptical', looking for alternative explanations for effects.
If denial wishes to validate itself it should persuade scientists of a truer alternative explanation, instead of just moaning 'I don't believe it' (Victor Meldrew).
|
|
My opinion is that the climate change agenda is based on a lie and there is evidence that XR are George Soros funded. What I have stated in that short sentence my seem extreme for those following the mainstream hymn sheet but is based on around 200 hours of research. I would suggest a good starting point for a differing view on the mainstream version of things is to listen to Piers Corbyns many videos which are always backed up with evidence. Or is it a crazy idea that the sun might just impact the climate?!
Edited by carl233 on 27/02/2020 at 10:25
|
My opinion is that the climate change agenda is based on a lie and there is evidence that XR are George Soros funded. What I have stated in that short sentence my seem extreme for those following the mainstream hymn sheet but is based on around 200 hours of research. I would suggest a good starting point for a differing view on the mainstream version of things is to listen to Piers Corbyns many videos which are always backed up with evidence. Or is it a crazy idea that the sun might just impact the climate?!
The sun does affect climate - nothing crazy about that...and no one who knows their stuff would disagree.
|
My opinion is that the climate change agenda is based on a lie and there is evidence that XR are George Soros funded.
What has George Soros got to do climate change (or the price of fish)?
I'm sorry but Corbyn is even less persuasive than his brother.
|
My opinion is that the climate change agenda is based on a lie and there is evidence that XR are George Soros funded.
What has George Soros got to do climate change (or the price of fish)?
He funds to a significant many of the (mainly leftist) activist groups that are pushing both the very radical agendas to do with 'resolving' climate change that also pushing hard left socialism/Marxism and to undermine many governments/local and regional councils in the process (and not via the ballot box either, as recently demonstrated in Cambridge).
That so many of the same people chose recently to use many times the average person's annual carbon footprint to lord it up in Davos preaching to all usplebs to stop flying etc was the height of hypocrisy.
|
|
<< That so many of the same people chose recently to use many times the average person's annual carbon footprint to lord it up in Davos preaching to all usplebs to stop flying etc was the height of hypocrisy. >>
They are discussing what I think we all agree is a global problem, which I guess has to be confronted in a global manner. I suggest that there is no way that these people could collectively publish their message which you would not find hypocritical ? A handful of them making noises on social media from their desks would not impress much.
No doubt you castigate Greta in the same way, tho at least she thought of rowing the Atlantic ... :-)
|
<< That so many of the same people chose recently to use many times the average person's annual carbon footprint to lord it up in Davos preaching to all usplebs to stop flying etc was the height of hypocrisy. >>
They are discussing what I think we all agree is a global problem, which I guess has to be confronted in a global manner. I suggest that there is no way that these people could collectively publish their message which you would not find hypocritical ? A handful of them making noises on social media from their desks would not impress much.
No doubt you castigate Greta in the same way, tho at least she thought of rowing the Atlantic ... :-)
a) Have the people meeting in Davos ever heard of video conferencing? They can all 'meet' and discuss the issue without leaving their home country at the touch of a button, casuing 1000x (or more) less carbon emissions. Given most of these people aren't scientists or engineers, Id love to know how they hope to understand any of the issue.
b) When Ms Thunberg did her 'sailing stunt' last year, she had the crew flown out to help sail the boat across the Atlantic, thus wiping out any gains she made by going by sailboat herself. Besides...see point a), and also...
c) she is a naive, uneducated child who has been coached by her actor parents to parrot whatever they tell her to say - she knows very little, if anything about the science, as demonstrated (on camera) many times when a decent journalist bothers to ask her proper questions rather than the 'touchy-feely' ones requiring emotive, meaningless answers or ones she was coached by Dad to say.
|
|
<< Have the people meeting in Davos ever heard of video conferencing? They can all 'meet' and discuss the issue without leaving their home country at the touch of a button, casuing 1000x (or more) less carbon emissions. Given most of these people aren't scientists or engineers, Id love to know how they hope to understand any of the issue >>
You aren't seriously suggesting a video-conference for 100 or more people ? How would that possibly work? The Davos jolly is a way to keep the topic in the news, and I don't think screenshots from a vid-con would have quite the same effect.
Do you know for a fact that most of the attenders are technically uneducated, or do you just suggest, imagine or want to believe it? Of course many are politicians, but I think my sis-in-law might resent the accusation - she used to attend Davos until a few years ago.
|
He funds to a significant many of the (mainly leftist) activist groups that are pushing both the very radical agendas to do with 'resolving' climate change that also pushing hard left socialism/Marxism and to undermine many governments/local and regional councils in the process (and not via the ballot box either, as recently demonstrated in Cambridge).
Evidence please.
|
My opinion is that the climate change agenda is based on a lie ... Or is it a crazy idea that the sun might just impact the climate?!
I thought the sun was meant to be in a quiet phase just now. I can't recall whether Earth is at a near point, but that will have an effect - although a cyclical one.
I can't claim any personal research into the question, but I have experienced 76 annual cycles of British weather, including the snowbound winters of 1947/48 and early 1963, when I drove up the Wye valley where the main road had just been ploughed clear after several weeks, and large ice-floes were floating downriver. Several parts of the UK are under a lot of water just now, and some places get weekly additions. I don't know how these will be recorded for posterity, but most earlier 'record' floods marked on church walls and the like date back hundreds of years. Somehow I doubt that it will be another hundred before the next event.
I would suggest therefore that our climate is warming up. Alongside that I would mention (a) that carbon dioxide is known (NB - scientifically known) to act as an atmospheric blanket, and (b) its proportion in the atmosphere has been rising at least since the 19th century. I also suspect that the postwar rise in commercial flying, dumping more CO2 six miles up (where it will not have been historically measured) has probably thickened the blanket more than ground-level records would indicate.
I accept that climate has always fluctuated to a noticeable degree, but I am not prepared to sign up to a conspiracy theory just because I don't like the notion of having contributed to unpleasant events.
|
Or is it a crazy idea that the sun might just impact the climate?!
Fine, but you need to explain why, after millions of years, the sun might choose to modify its behaviour rather suddenly ?
|
|
<< I ... have some serious doubts to both the accuracy/depth of knowledge of the science and degree to which both the climate is changing and our specific effect on it. Being 'sceptical' is a good position as regards science.
I speak as an engineer myself who likes cold, hard, incontrovertible evidence on matters of importance before proceeding. In my view, climate science is nowhere near that state yet, >>
Andy, there will always be ample scope for denial, as it is impossible to devise an adequate 'experiment' which can prove conclusively (especially to deniers) in a reasonably short time any cause linking humans and climate - especially allowing for short-term fluctuations (i.e. weather). And true scientists are always 'sceptical', looking for alternative explanations for effects.
If denial wishes to validate itself it should persuade scientists of a truer alternative explanation, instead of just moaning 'I don't believe it' (Victor Meldrew).
That a great deal of climate science is still guestimates (many of which from the last 20 years were wildly wrong [remember the hockey stick and that it was predicted that the Northern polar ice cap was to melt completely many years ago]) does rather say a lot.
Saying something 'might' be true is far easier when you have a relatively small amount of data than trying to prove something isn't. That so many scientists (and again, I draw your attention to the study conducted [and never refuted] about the political persuasions of academics these days) appear to already hold a firm opinion (or at least say so in public, possibly to get funding or to keep the activist 'cancel happy' wolves off their backs) before starting their research doesn't in my view bode well for the impartiality of the work they are conducting, nor the results they get.
I've come across many people who fit their results to what they or others 'want to hear' (ustilising the good ol' fiddle factor) over the years because they thought the answer should be X, they got half that so they double their result, rather than examine why they got the result they did.
Imagine for a second if indeed the consensus was wrong on climate science (and I'm not saying that it is, more the scale), it would mean that many millions of scientists and other staff working in academia would be out of a job and the career prospects ruined. It stands to reason (and why most ordinary people 'follow the herd') that they would only accept this once incontrovertible evidence to the contrary was provided.
That they use the emotive language of 'catastrophy' (and via naive, brainwashed uneducated children) to push their narrative that we must do 'something major to combat climate change, just in case it IS us completely and irreparably changing things' has my BS meter dinging away, especially when the narrative is being funded by shadowy billionairres and used by Marxists as cover for effective political takeovers without the public noticing.
I have yet to read here anyone exhorting the virtues of the Green New Deal (and not just picking and chosing a small amount), which is what a large proportion of those behind the 'science' are supporting.
And, BTW, older people normally have far more wisdom than the young because they've effectively 'seen it all' and can know when they are being deliberately mislead. If people believe that the millenial generation are, in the main, anything other than naive fools, then they are no better.
|
|
On another forum earlier this year there was an exchange between several posters that initially stated when one commented that you should always let your car warm up by idling before driving away. The first comment was:
"Do you not let your car warm up first start?"
The thread continued pointing out to the person above:
"he is wasting fuel and adding pollutants to the atmosphere which are contributing to climate change"
Another poster joined in saying:
"I'll keep letting mine warm up as I I've always been taught applying heavy loads to mechanical components from cold is an idiots way."
Should say at this point the original poster lives in Australia and when asked about the contribution wasting fuel could be having on global warming that may be causing his homeland to be burning his answer was:
"your country should know all about fake news"
He was asked to provide proof that the news coverage we were seeing daily was fake, guess what, no more comments.
From a personal point of view I have no proof of global warming one way or the other but what I do know is why do we continue to risk the planet when we should start looking after it. Its the only one we have.
|
|
I have a simple rule in life:
People who have to rely on conspiracy theories are part of a conspiracy themselves but they don't yet realise it. :-)
|
|
I have not read, let alone understood, much of Engineer Andy's recent post but this bit caught my eye.
I personally am not some 'alt-right' nutjob climate denier, but like misar have some serious doubts to both the accuracy/depth of knowledge of the science and degree to which both the climate is changing and our specific effect on it (especially given predictions from not that long ago both I and misar have referred to [mine in other comments earlier/on another thread]), based on the arrogance and ideological/personal agendas of many in both the scientific community, the media and politics. Being 'sceptical' is a good position as regards science.
I would like to point out that I do not have serious doubts about the accuracy/depth of knowledge of the science and degree to which the climate is changing or our specific effect on it. Nor did I say as much in my post. I merely asked two questions.
Has anyone considered whether the expected climate change might be a benefit rather than a detriment if the eventual effect on the entire globe is taken into account?
Has anyone considered whether it may be more effective to mitigate the effects of climate change instead of, as at present, trying to prevent it happening?
As I said, I do not know the answers. Hence I am not advocating either possible outcome to each question as the correct one.
|
|
I"Has anyone considered whether the expected climate change might be a benefit rather than a detriment if the eventual effect on the entire globe is taken into account?
Has anyone considered whether it may be more effective to mitigate the effects of climate change instead of, as at present, trying to prevent it happening?
As I said, I do not know the answers. Hence I am not advocating either possible outcome to each question as the correct one."
Benefits: our winters are warmer. London will become unihabitable in large parts.
As far as stopping climate change, I applaud wht we are tring to do but it is very unlikley we can stop it. Who wants to go to Bognor for a holiday vs going to Tenerife wher there is sun (and added virus just for fun.).?
|
Who wants to go to Bognor for a holiday vs going to Tenerife wher there is sun (and added virus just for fun.).?
I remember planning a trip abroad in the 80's which required a typhoid injection according to the current advice. Went to see my GP who told me there was more chance of getting Typhoid in Skegness and refused to give me an injection.
At exactly the same time the wife was seeing her GP who after confirming it was required immediately gave her the injection.
So next day back on the phone and made an appointment with a different GP who checked the current info and confirmed I needed the injection. To make life easier for me (and him) it was agreed he would give me a prescription and the nurse where I worked would do the honours.
Have to say that the first GP was well known for being an objectionable opinionated turd on a good day.
|
|
Apologies if I unintentionally misrepresented your view misar. I was under the impression that you were intimating that which the data from scientific studies was accurate, that we still did not have the whole picture, and yet many in the scientific community are continuing to do extensive research, not about ways of mitigation, but to show evidence of and the extent to which the climate is changing.
Surely if the scientific community is so sure of what is to happen and how bad it is, why is so much research currently being undertaken? As you say, I have yet to see anything of note as regards meaningful mitigation of the effects or even revsersing them, other than standard 'flood prevention' measurers.
My fear is that we as a species are currently thinking we know it all, and yet this is not the first time a generation of humans (including more than once in the last 150 years - a very short timescale in the grand scheme and of human existence) have over-estimated their brilliance, often leading to staggering amounts of suffering and injustice world-wide.
Call me a cynic, but we cannot just believe one side is always right and barrel ahead headlong without thinking of the consequences of our actions. That few here on the absolute belief in every degree and cause of climate change (especially those on the same side of the political aisle as those advocating non-solutions like the 'Green New Deal' or similar) appear to be defending the IMHO nutty plans of certain political and so-called environmental activists is indicative to me that they aren't convinced of those plans and have some (at least private) doubt about aspects of the climate change issue, even if that is, as I feel, limited to the scale and effect we are having and can have.
A healthy degree of scepticism (as opposed to blindly believing or disbelieving everything, often for ideological reasons, to get publicity or to 'fit in') is a good thing. Scientists often make some wonderful discoveries, but they also, and more often than you think, are naive, have huge egos and crave publicity. The phrase that often springs to mind on this issue is 'bandwagon jumping'.
This can lead to bad science, and without an impartial critical eye (no good if everyone believes the same because politics gets involved or societal pressure is brought to bear to keep opinion 'in check') will continue until someone does discover mistakes or even deliberate alterations, including limiting the scope of work to get a result they desire.
Remember, pride cometh before a fall.
Edited by Engineer Andy on 28/02/2020 at 14:23
|
|
I remember "cold fusion" which was an obvious fake. It appeared to be so easy to do that even a cup of water could generate electricity.. All went quiet when no-one could replicate results..
Which is a key point. If you cannot replicate results, then it is probably false..
Like Dr Wakefield who "proved" vaccination lead to autism..
|
|
Following the bad cold time of the Little Ice Age... circa 1300 - 1850... with a break here and there...we warmed 0.85 degree C from 1880 - 2012.
Quote: "The globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature data as calculated by a linear trend show a warming of 0.85 [0.65 to 1.06] °C 2 over the period 1880 to 2012, when multiple independently produced datasets exist."
(I.P.C.C. Synthesis Report Summary for Policy Makers
www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FI...f).
Have you studied previous warm and cold times ? (e.g. Holocene Climatic Optimum, Minoan Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period... et... in order to decide if we should panic or not?
Have you studied charts and graphs of the Glacial Periods and Interglacial Periods covering the last 500,000 years in order to determine whether our present warming is well within the range of normal variability or not?
Have you studied the proxy CO2 and Temperature data covering the last 600,000,000 years to determine whether we are outside the boundaries of natural varibility for this planet ? ?
I have. I've studied all those things..
The whole panic thing is to push a politico/economic sociaist agenda.... nothing more.
Do I deny climate ? ? Of course not. Climate has been changing on this planet ever since the planet got water and an atmosphere.. Changing sometimes fast.. sometimes slow.. sometimes a little ... sometimes a lot. Sometimes up.. sometimes down.
But the best times for life have always been the warm times.. not the cold times.
Please do have a nice day... Here is some interesting information for you.
youtu.be/8455KEDitpU
Caring about the planet is very much a dictatorship building idea when it is used as a "weapon" to build Socialism. The level of brainwashing by teachers these days would make all Socialists, Fascists and Communists/Marxist-Leninists proud. Joseph Goebbels, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao... would all be proud.
"It's all about money in the end. Keeping the Gravy Train Running."
youtu.be/J9Oi7x2OBdI?t=03
AOC’s Chief of Staff Admits the Green New Deal Is Not about Climate Change:
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti admitted recently that the true motivation behind introducing the Green New Deal is to overhaul the “entire economy.”
Quote:
“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal, is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,” Chakrabarti said to Inslee’s climate director, Sam Ricketts, according to a Washington Post reporter who attended the meeting for a profile published Wednesday.
“Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?”
Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing,” he added.
A Century of Climate Crisis
youtu.be/JCvVPPO1rnE
"This Is What Climate Propaganda Looks Like"
youtu.be/ZGuRUO4Wr2o
Climate Strikers say yes to violence, revolution over capitalism
youtu.be/0X7HjYP1WKo
"Shameless Sea Level Lies At The L.A. Times"
youtu.be/WenaZWJGTxk
"Ten Key Graphs Behind the Climate Change Scam"
youtu.be/DJFkMm002Rs
Denier Land: How Deniers Look at Global Warming
youtu.be/Uif1NwcUgMU
"Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers"
"Climate Change Scientists Caught Tampering With Data to Show Rising Sea
Levels "
"NOAA And NASA Corrected Historical Temperature Data And Fabricated
Temperature Data"
"NASA Made Efforts To Discredit Their Own Satellite Data"
"NASA Refused To Give Data And Information Requested By The US
House Of Representatives Science, Space And Technology Committee"
"NASA And NOAA Caught In Climate Data Manipulation"
"NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000"
"Spectacularly Poor Climate Science At NASA"
"NASA/NOAA Mislead, Deceive and Lie About 'Hottest Year' Claim - Concede
2014 NOT "Hottest Year"
"Climate Fraud: NASA's Recent Global Warming "Corrections" Equal a +95.0°C
Per Century Trend"
www.google.com/#newwindow=1&q=noaa+nasa+caught
********************************************************
UN Official Admits That Climate Change Used As A Ruse To Control The
World's Economy
www.nowtheendbegins.com/diabolical-lie-called-clim...d-
un-promote-economic-agenda/un-promote-economic-agenda/
***
"Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" Causes Climate Change
www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/11/un-climate-summit...f-
climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/climate-change-unequal-distribution-of-wealth-and-power/
***
U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare - It's Not About Climate Change At All.
www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-chan...o- destroy-capitalism/
***
Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare
www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-clim...t- admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/
***
United Nations Official Admits the Purpose of the Global Warming Hoax is
to Destroy Capitalism
lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/donald-r-may/...2-
27/united-nations-official-admits-purpose-global-warming#.V-nGUOM1HmE
|
|
All the above must be true if its on youtube, that well known scientific site for truth.
|
All the above must be true if its on youtube, that well known scientific site for truth.
...as opposed to Al Gore (and many other politicians and 'climate activists'), who always told the absolute truth. Climate science should be about the pursuit of tructh (as all science) and not about ideology.
As regards YouTube and other similar platforms (I don't include Twitter, Facebook, etc), there are an increasing number of independent media outlets on there who report factual news far more truthfully and fairly than practically all the MSM outlets on this and many other issues in current affairs, because they use journalists fed up with their former employers in the MSM going the ideological route.
They aren't all Alex Jones...
|
|
Just when I was thinking the quality of debate had improved...
Joe's post is a series of hand-picked soundbites with precious little authority, plus comments.
E.g. "Do I deny climate ? ? " (What is that even supposed to mean?)
"Caring about the planet is very much a dictatorship building idea..." (Which dictatorship is being "built" by caring about the planet?)
Etc, etc.
I won't bother to analyse further - there's no point.
Edited by FP on 28/02/2020 at 17:01
|
|
I remember a few years ago as the climate change debate gathered pace that purveyor of all that's true, the Daily Mail, suggesting that we should all embrace global warming since it would mean that the south coast of England gained the climate of the south of France.
One fact is not out for debate, if the planet warms up the ice caps melt to some extent and that will result in a raising of sea levels. So the "benefit" of those higher temperatures championed by the Daily Mail will be limited when the all the south coast resorts (and those on other coasts plus the capital) are actually under water.
|
I won't bother to analyse further - there's no point.
+ 1. The difficulty with having a healthy dose of scepticism is that none of the arguments from either side seem convincing enough to be believed, so everyone sits on their hands waiting for something epoch-making. Which of course never arrives until it's too late to take evasive action. We may already be in that position.
|
|
The scariest post in this thread is from JoeB. Scary because he is no longer a freak, his approach is becoming the new norm.
He is an expert on climate change because as he says "I've studied all those things". His research is to start with a prejudice and scour YouTube and the rest of the Internet looking for claims that support it.
That way you can "prove" anything, no matter how crazy. The entire Apollo programme was shot on Disney's back lot - of course. Aliens are running the US Government - sounds plausible. Star Trek was a documentary - why not?
|
|
"...his approach is becoming the new norm."
I don't know if that is actually true - yet, at least.
But as sure as heck a lot of people seem to think like that (if "think" is the right word).
Now, I'm a bit sceptical about Greta Thunberg and were she's coming from, but there is a new kid on the block called Naomi Seibt (the "anti-Greta") and some of the stuff she has come up with is pretty scary - support for a white nationalist and potential anti-semitic views.
I'd be a lot happier if the discussion about climate change could be freed from the nasty stuff on both sides, which is a huge distraction. The climate change is a big enough agenda on its own without being tainted by extreme political views.
|
What has George Soros got to do climate change (or the price of fish)?
I'm sorry but Corbyn is even less persuasive than his brother.
There has been much leaked evidence, that George did fund not all but a significant element of XR, how can XR afford prime London offices ever considered how they afford the large high end six figure lease?
Do not want to go way off topic but the pricing of petrol and diesel vehicles is related to the larger picture which links in to agenda 21 and agenda 30 and XR are simply a tool on the road to that outcome. Ever thought if XR are all about pollution why do they not target airports? The answer is based on my 200 hours research that airports simply are not part of agenda 21 and agenda 30.
As to Corbyn being persuasive, the man is not an actor (e.g not a political figure) we have had many lifetimes of following these actors. Piers is simply displaying facts based on research that can be reviewed and considered although many will not do this as it does not follow the climate agenda.
XR are also silent when the National Rail Network in the UK (or more appropriate the private train owners which are largely owned by banks) lease out diesel stock with 1980's engines without any form of DPF. My research has also showed that over 400 powered cars that include Class 142, 143, 144, 150,155, 156, 158 and 159 train vehicles essentially have Cummins\Perkins engines that are raw 80's emission standards without any issue by the 'climate cult' whilst the motorist is largely demonised when running far more efficient and modern engines.
|
XR are also silent when the National Rail Network in the UK (or more appropriate the private train owners which are largely owned by banks) lease out diesel stock with 1980's engines without any form of DPF. My research has also showed that over 400 powered cars that include Class 142, 143, 144, 150,155, 156, 158 and 159 train vehicles essentially have Cummins\Perkins engines that are raw 80's emission standards without any issue by the 'climate cult' whilst the motorist is largely demonised when running far more efficient and modern engines.
So do XR have to show a up and protest everything that may emit emmisions?
|
So do XR have to show a up and protest everything that may emit emmisions?
Anyone really interested in the climate 'agenda' (whilst ignoring that it is connected to the Sun!) would based on common sense target airports? Why no focus on Heathrow and the many 1980's 747-400 aircraft being used by BA? It seems the only protest for XR is the motorist which again makes it very evident they are following agenda 21 and agenda 30 for anyone with a brain cell on active duty. Please note anyone suffering from cognitive dissonance at this point should post a comment about conspiracy as it may conflict with what has been programmed.
I would urge people to do their own investigations and spend much time in doing so as the mainstream is simply too corrupt to be used as any form of authority on this. Many so called SME's on the climate know without the current cult following their funding will soon dry up.
|
So do XR have to show a up and protest everything that may emit emmisions?
Anyone really interested in the climate 'agenda' (whilst ignoring that it is connected to the Sun!) would based on common sense target airports? Why no focus on Heathrow and the many 1980's 747-400 aircraft being used by BA? It seems the only protest for XR is the motorist which again makes it very evident they are following agenda 21 and agenda 30 for anyone with a brain cell on active duty. Please note anyone suffering from cognitive dissonance at this point should post a comment about conspiracy as it may conflict with what has been programmed.
I would urge people to do their own investigations and spend much time in doing so as the mainstream is simply too corrupt to be used as any form of authority on this. Many so called SME's on the climate know without the current cult following their funding will soon dry up.
So when they protested at London Airport and got on the plan that does not count?
|
So when they protested at London Airport and got on the plan that does not count?
No indeed it does not 747 aircraft are not certified for City airport if that is the demonstration you are recalling. When was the last demonstration and impacting action towards the countries busiest airport e.g. Heathrow? City airport typically has very fuel friendly aircraft certified e.g. A318 and BAE146 to name a few.
|
No indeed it does not 747 aircraft are not certified for City airport if that is the demonstration you are recalling. When was the last demonstration and impacting action towards the countries busiest airport e.g. Heathrow? City airport typically has very fuel friendly aircraft certified e.g. A318 and BAE146 to name a few.
They were protesting at Heathrow, which is the main base for BA 747 fleet, last year.
The 747-436 aircraft mostly date from nineties and are fitted with later generation RB211 engines. The fleet is being retired over next few years.I suspect their seat mile costs for fuel are considerably less than the A318 versions BA use at LCY which are all business class and used on the premium service to NYC via Shannon.
I also wonder how the 747 compares per seat mile with the Embraers which are mainstay of BA domestic/European service from LCY.
|
So when they protested at London Airport and got on the plan that does not count?
No indeed it does not 747 aircraft are not certified for City airport if that is the demonstration you are recalling. When was the last demonstration and impacting action towards the countries busiest airport e.g. Heathrow? City airport typically has very fuel friendly aircraft certified e.g. A318 and BAE146 to name a few.
As Bromptonaut mentioned they did protest at Heathrow as well...are you happier now?
|
So when they protested at London Airport and got on the plan that does not count?
No indeed it does not 747 aircraft are not certified for City airport if that is the demonstration you are recalling. When was the last demonstration and impacting action towards the countries busiest airport e.g. Heathrow? City airport typically has very fuel friendly aircraft certified e.g. A318 and BAE146 to name a few.
As Bromptonaut mentioned they did protest at Heathrow as well...are you happier now?
...and probably caused far more CO2 than by not being there. Did you know that The Green New Deal, which XR endorse, says )amongst many other nutty socialist things) that we should stop all flying? ALL flying.
|
I would urge people to do their own investigations and spend much time in doing so as the mainstream is simply too corrupt to be used as any form of authority on this..
By all means do your own investigations, but make sure to do them even-handedly.
|
There has been much leaked evidence, that George did fund not all but a significant element of XR, how can XR afford prime London offices ever considered how they afford the large high end six figure lease?
Why do the sources you rely on focus on Soros?
If he or a n other philanthropist then XR is a worthwhile cause then so what?
The rest of your post is just 'whatboutery'. AIUI XR's focus is climate change/CO2. The Pacers (being withdrawn) and Sprinters are diesels and I'll take your word that they lack DPF. That probably means they emit particulates but, while harmful, PM is a local and not a global issue.
|
There has been much leaked evidence, that George did fund not all but a significant element of XR, how can XR afford prime London offices ever considered how they afford the large high end six figure lease?
Why do the sources you rely on focus on Soros?
If he or a n other philanthropist then XR is a worthwhile cause then so what?
The rest of your post is just 'whatboutery'. AIUI XR's focus is climate change/CO2. The Pacers (being withdrawn) and Sprinters are diesels and I'll take your word that they lack DPF. That probably means they emit particulates but, while harmful, PM is a local and not a global issue.
The founder and leader of XR admits on their own website and in interviews that his organisation is using climate change as cover for spreading Marxism, and that he cares little about the environment.
|
|
"The founder and leader of XR admits on their own website and in interviews that his organisation is using climate change as cover for spreading Marxism, and that he cares little about the environment."
If you're referring to Roger Hallam, then he was disowned by XR in November last year for anti-semitic comments. I've no idea what his present status is within the organisation.
I've scoured the XR website and cannot find anything about Marxism; I may have missed something and am happy to be corrected. In fact, I am struggling to find any concrete evidence of a connection. I did find this: "Extinction Rebellion is led by extreme Marxists whose aim is to “bring down the Government”, but as it appeared in the Daily Express I'm taking it with a large pinch of salt.
Some commentators have concluded that the logical endpoint of XR's philosophy is that, as capitalist society has created the problems in the environment, it must be replaced by its opposite: socialism. I still can't find any evidence - it's surmise.
It seems that anyone who believes XR is a Marxist threat has fallen victim to some conspiracy theory. What does emerge is that XR has a mainly white, middle-class demographic, if that is relevant to anything.
And I can find no reliable information that George Soros has any connection with XR, nor that Soros himself is in some way evil – contrary views seeming to spring from yet more conspiracy theories and possible anti-semitism.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the whole debate around climate change is irrevocably mired in wild political dogma and prejudice and it has skewed most sensible discussion.
|
"The founder and leader of XR admits on their own website and in interviews that his organisation is using climate change as cover for spreading Marxism, and that he cares little about the environment."
If you're referring to Roger Hallam, then he was disowned by XR in November last year for anti-semitic comments. I've no idea what his present status is within the organisation.
No, Stuart Basden (see my post from yesterday below to the article where he says what I'm talking about).
medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebelli...9
I've scoured the XR website and cannot find anything about Marxism; I may have missed something and am happy to be corrected. In fact, I am struggling to find any concrete evidence of a connection. I did find this: "Extinction Rebellion is led by extreme Marxists whose aim is to “bring down the Government”, but as it appeared in the Daily Express I'm taking it with a large pinch of salt.
See Stuart's article. And locally to me, XR wanted to 'take control' of Cambridge City council from its (ironically Labour) elected politicians and impose rule by their appointed 'experts'. Seemingly this is a country-wide phenomenon, so taking control of the government by mean other than the ballot box is quite a valid assertion. Apparently in Germany they have been classed as an extremist group by the authorities. I don't read the Express., BTW.
And I can find no reliable information that George Soros has any connection with XR, nor that Soros himself is in some way evil – contrary views seeming to spring from yet more conspiracy theories and possible anti-semitism.
Soros apparently (as far as I understand) funds many subvertive orgaisations, not directly, but via many of his thiird party 'charitable' organisations. Antifa (who aren't just marching against the far Right) being one of them, who aren't a pleasant bunch to say the least. It included paying for them to be bussed into areas all over the US as rent-a-mobs.
I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the whole debate around climate change is irrevocably mired in wild political dogma and prejudice and it has skewed most sensible discussion.
Indeed, but as with another recent major issue, many people thought that their view was the only view and all others should be curtailed. I'm not personally advocating what JoeB was saying, but that we need to consider the possibilities of both incomplete (and by a long way) and skewed science in order to fit political dogma.
I think it is prudent to assume that a reasonable portion of the data is correct, in the sense that the climate generally is warming and we do have a measure of impact ourselves, however many of the early predictions from not that long ago have been inaccurate, so we have to be wary of over-reacting in our response.
Bankrupting the entire world's economy (no flying, etc [Green New Deal]) or saying that all humans should die (another climate activist - a professor from Anglia Ruskin univeristy) is not the answer, and EVs themslves or hydrogen power, as I've personally explained many times on these pages, are nowhere near mature enough as tech (including resolving the significant logistical issues) and won't be by 2035, 2040 or probably 2070.
There are, however, many mitigation measure we can take which are both far cheaper and that would be of benefit to the economy, such as insulating homes and buildings, ramping up significantly the use of PV arrays on roofs (especially offices, public and industrial buildings) to generate electricity to reduce the need for energy produce from non-sustainable sources and to improve the overburden on generation generally (power cuts).
Similarly we could go back to the older ways of town planning, and, yes migration would have to be severely curtailed to achieve this so we don't need to keep building so many new homes and on flood plains and a long distance from where people work. The main reason why pollution has gone up so much is that both that the population has risen dramatically in the past 20 years despite a falling and non-replacement birth rate, and that increasingly people are forced into living a long way from where they work because they cannot afford to live nearer because overcrowded cities are full and house prices are extortionate.
That we are going to be forcing people, especially those least able to afford it to choose between going EV, which many car-owning people on lower incomes won't be able to afford or have the charging facilities for (living in flats/terraced housing and in dodgy areas [vandalism of chargers, etc) will be forced back onto public transport, whilst all the richer middle classes and above lord it over them a-la 100 years ago in their expensive EVs.
I think these are reasonable questions to ask and arguments to make. We may resolve them, but a) who pays for it, and b) the timescales (especially if much of our housing stock has to be rebuilt to acheive this) are not on the 10-20 year scale but 75-100 (or more).
|
|
Stuart Basden, though he claims to a co-founder of XR, is actually stated by some XR sources to have joined the organisation after its inception, having been (and still is?) a member of Rising Up!. Anyway, that is a small detail.
Basden's politics are certainly anti-capitalist, but I cannot find anything that suggests they are Marxist. "Eco-socialist" is a term that gets thrown around, possibly because - if you know your history - Marxism and its child, communism, have an extremely bad record relating to the environment. Both communism and capitalism are about maximising industrial and technological output. (Yes, about China... Is it just me or are XR silent on the world's major polluter?)
Don't get me wrong - I hold no torch for XR, who, despite their aspirations, are undemocratic and whose efforts, I think, are counter-productive. Some of the behaviour of their members is childish and reminiscent of the sort of things some students do when they think they're really getting into something politically important.
"Soros apparently (as far as I understand) funds many subvertive orgaisations, not directly, but via many of his thiird party 'charitable' organisations. Antifa (who aren't just marching against the far Right) being one of them, who aren't a pleasant bunch to say the least. It included paying for them to be bussed into areas all over the US as rent-a-mobs."
I don't buy this. "As far as I understand" suggests there is no hard evidence, only whispers, which is what my searches confirm.
Edited by FP on 01/03/2020 at 13:09
|
"Soros apparently (as far as I understand) funds many subvertive orgaisations, not directly, but via many of his thiird party 'charitable' organisations. Antifa (who aren't just marching against the far Right) being one of them, who aren't a pleasant bunch to say the least. It included paying for them to be bussed into areas all over the US as rent-a-mobs."
I don't buy this. "As far as I understand" suggests there is no hard evidence, only whispers, which is what my searches confirm.
I have both read and seen news reports showing how seocndary Soros funded organisations fund others like XR and Antifa to keep his hands clean. Essentially they are 'arms length' organisations.
That quite a lot of the things people say in favour of XR come from the likes of The Grauniad and Indie are hardly indicative of being factual, especially as some of their proponents admit to picking and choosing which articles in those papers they believe.
|
The scariest post in this thread is from JoeB. Scary because he is no longer a freak, his approach is becoming the new norm.
He is an expert on climate change because as he says "I've studied all those things". His research is to start with a prejudice and scour YouTube and the rest of the Internet looking for claims that support it.
That way you can "prove" anything, no matter how crazy. The entire Apollo programme was shot on Disney's back lot - of course. Aliens are running the US Government - sounds plausible. Star Trek was a documentary - why not?
So you have nothing except typical leftist ad hominem.
Total inability to intelligently rebut a single point: Noted
Sorry to disturb you. You can go back to reading the “Works of Lenin” now.
Please do have a nice day
|
|
"Total inability to intelligently rebut a single point: Noted"
You're complaining that a previous poster did not engage with your lengthy post of Fri 28 Feb 2020 15:44.
Frankly, it's too tedious to take it apart one reference at a time, but I'll limit myself to one YouTuber whom you apparently approve of: Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard).
You really should check the accuracy of the information this guy purveys in his videos: tinyurl.com/wayfo9j
And there are of course any number of YouTube videos debunking Heller's views, many of which have as much authority as Heller has.
I don't know what you hope to gain from your use of sarcasm and implication that someone who disagrees with you is a Leninist.
If you want to convince people of the validity of your case you have to do better than throwing a lot of second-hand, selective information at us. In effect, your argument is that we are required to believe what someone else has concluded and if that is the extent of your so-called "study" I can tell you it won't cut it. (I expect you would like us to think you are some kind of expert.)
One of the troubles with those who deny human responsibility for climate change is that, because they think they know the reason behind the actions of those who wish to impose restrictions on the use of fossil fuels (it's all a left-wing conspiracy), this somehow proves their case. In other words, their "proof" rests on a supposition. Another argument that doesn't cut it.
The beliefs of Joe and others like him makes them look like some kind of cult, where their so-called experts inspire unquestioning faith.
Edited by FP on 29/02/2020 at 13:36
|
The beliefs of Joe and others like him makes them look like some kind of cult, where their so-called experts inspire unquestioning faith.
I wonder if he has offered his services to Dominic Cummings? Judging by recent appointments JoeB seems to be exactly the sort of material Cummings needs for his ace team of special advisers.
|
|
<< The whole panic thing is to push a politico/economic sociaist agenda.... nothing more. >>
Oh dear, Joe - how do you ever sleep at night ? - having to keep persuading yourself of all this biased nonsense ? With it raining hard day after day too.
|
|
I refuse to reply to JoeB.
People who believe the kind of rubbish he does are apparently incapable of rational thought.
|
I refuse to reply to JoeB.
Pretty much my line. I'm always keen to tackle unsubstantiated opinion with fact but that last post was TL:DR and simply not worth the effort.
|
I refuse to reply to JoeB.
Pretty much my line. I'm always keen to tackle unsubstantiated opinion with fact but that last post was TL:DR and simply not worth the effort.
You didn't reply to my earlier post about the founder/leader of XR. Here's the article I referred to:
medium.com/extinction-rebellion/extinction-rebelli...9
AOC in the US admitted much the same about The Green New Deal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
