|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Feb 2, 2023 20:16:39 GMT
I'm not, getting all Godwins on you. The book is a very interesting read, as long as the reader is not biased.  You mean so long as the reader has the same bias as the author. How long did you work at a coal fuelled power station Red? Why? Not long, I caught the last few years before they were demolished and the country was plunged into fuel poverty. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 2, 2023 20:35:41 GMT
It can be summarised as ''economist doesn't like more expensive energy production''. It has very little to do with environmental science and lots to do with protecting profits and the status quo. How many shares in the fossil fuel industry does he hold Red? Once again we have to ask the question why do links, of any sort, to a fossil fuel industry question a person's impartiality in comment but drawing funds to investigate AGW does not. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 3, 2023 8:49:39 GMT
I agree. It's been obvious for decades that the so-called scientific bodies that promote the AGW theories are biased in that they deliberately present a one-sided view of the science. This is not science. Real science always deliberately looks for evidence that doesn't fit their theory. That's how science advances. The AGW industry are not interested in advancing science. Their purpose is plainly to present politicians with a settled view on "climate change" regardless of whether the science is settled or not.
I still wonder why they decided on this CO2 theory when the evidence is so scant and inconclusive. It's highly suspicious to me that the govt policies that are being put in place to "remedy" the CO2 situation are ones that will basically empoverish any nation that adopts them. The UK for example, has adopted "Net Zero" which is incredibly expensive and will destroy our country economically. And we know that there are various countries (and political movements) that want to destroy capitalism - and these countries are NOT adopting Net Zero.
Could this be disinformation warfare? I don't usually believe conspiracy theories but in the light of recent revelations about the 77th Brigade I'm beginning to wonder if this is all a gigantic con - rather than a theory put forward by idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 3, 2023 14:41:05 GMT
I agree. It's been obvious for decades that the so-called scientific bodies that promote the AGW theories are biased in that they deliberately present a one-sided view of the science. This is not science. Real science always deliberately looks for evidence that doesn't fit their theory. That's how science advances. The AGW industry are not interested in advancing science. Their purpose is plainly to present politicians with a settled view on "climate change" regardless of whether the science is settled or not. I still wonder why they decided on this CO2 theory when the evidence is so scant and inconclusive. It's highly suspicious to me that the govt policies that are being put in place to "remedy" the CO2 situation are ones that will basically empoverish any nation that adopts them. The UK for example, has adopted "Net Zero" which is incredibly expensive and will destroy our country economically. And we know that there are various countries (and political movements) that want to destroy capitalism - and these countries are NOT adopting Net Zero. Could this be disinformation warfare? I don't usually believe conspiracy theories but in the light of recent revelations about the 77th Brigade I'm beginning to wonder if this is all a gigantic con - rather than a theory put forward by idiots. I have to confess I have been sceptical for a long time as regards conspiracy theories however the evidence is mounting that there is either extreme ineptitude and callous blindness in most scientific disciplines or that there is indeed coercion and demands made to have and present a certain viewpoint to the world. If that is in any way planned, irrespective of the accuracy of any scientific opinion, then that is a conspiracy, even if for the most moral of reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by dodgydave on Feb 3, 2023 17:35:45 GMT
The 97% "consensus" figure is I believe research that looked into how often "man-made climate change" appeared in articles written by fellow scientists.
That being said, you would have to be an idiot to ignore how much damage we are doing to the planet.
People that say shit like "the climate is always changing" are just engaging in whataboutery. Everybody knows the climate changes, but we are accelerating the pace of change, that is a FACT.
However, I don't personally care about climate change, nothing lasts forever. I'll do the bare minimum I have to by law...
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Feb 3, 2023 17:43:27 GMT
The 97% "consensus" figure is I believe research that looked into how often "man-made climate change" appeared in articles written by fellow scientists. That being said, you would have to be an idiot to ignore how much damage we are doing to the planet. People that say shit like "the climate is always changing" are just engaging in whataboutery. Everybody knows the climate changes, but we are accelerating the pace of change, that is a FACT. However, I don't personally care about climate change, nothing lasts forever. I'll do the bare minimum I have to by law... I think the point is that they will use the narrative of an emergency to enact laws that are both authoritarian and restrictive on individuals. It is not intended that electric cars will be available to all, as that is bound to be the case, but that the hoi polloi will be restricted in their movements by price and law. The Middle class will gradually disappear and will mostly become part of the hoi polloi except for the lucky few that step up to the elite. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Feb 4, 2023 9:22:52 GMT
The 97% "consensus" figure is I believe research that looked into how often "man-made climate change" appeared in articles written by fellow scientists. That being said, you would have to be an idiot to ignore how much damage we are doing to the planet. Yes but the point is that governments are mainly focused on the damage done by warming - and they claim that most scientists agree that man-made CO2 is the primary driver of warming. Yet the evidence is simply not there to back this up. And it's very suspicious to me that the measures needed to reduce CO2 basically attack capitalism - and that countries like Russia, China and the USA are NOT supporting these measures (like net zero). Is this a disinformation campaign (a form of non-lethal warfare)? It's possible. I agree entirely about the damage we're doing to the planet but that's mainly caused by over-population. I don't hear any politicians talking about controlling population. CO2 has many beneficial effects. . |
|
