|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 31, 2023 12:37:33 GMT
I refer the learned gentleman to my earlier posts
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 12:40:41 GMT
I refer the learned gentleman to my earlier posts Which are? |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 31, 2023 12:46:49 GMT
Above
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2023 13:00:26 GMT
The overwhelming scientific consensus remains that man made global warming (of which greenhouse gases are the primary cause) will cause catastrophic damage to the planet's environment and the planets inhabitants living standards. Do you know anything about science dappy? Do you know how scientific method works? Basically if you have a theory - like, say, man-made CO2 is causing most of the 1.1C warming since 1850 - you need to FIRST be able to come up with evidence to show a correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increased temperature. You then have to be able to show that CO2 is causing the warming - rather than any of the other huge number of possible causes. Neither of these has been done. In fact there have been periods (such as the MWP and the ETCW) where warming has occurred without increased CO2. As for the "overwhelming consensus" of scientists saying that CO2 has caused most of the 1.1C warming, that's simply not true. I've asked you to just tell me ONE scientist who has said that they believe the CO2 theory and you don't know of any. I also don't know of any. No scientist woule ever say that this science is settled because none of the models based on it work. You like to claim you're talking about facts but the FACTS are that it remains a theory that does NOT work. The other point to make is that even if ALL scientists believed this theory it would prove nothing. SCience is not proved by an opinion poll. And the fact that most of the data has been OBVIOUSLY fiddled is highly embarrassing for the scientific community. This nonsense is destroying confidence in science. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 31, 2023 13:22:08 GMT
However much you argue with the facts Steppenwolf, it is simply fact that the overwhelming proportion of scientists knowledgable in the field agree that man made climate change (of which greenhouse gases are the primary cause) threatens catastrophic effect on the living standards of future generations (including those already born).
As I have said they could be wrong, but you are asking us to take a huge high stakes bet on that unlikely possibility that the scientists have got it wrong with catastrophic effect if you are wrong and the scientists are right all to save a relatively small impact on living standards now.
Dumb bet.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 14:28:14 GMT
?? Nowhere do you outline what is expected of the ordinary British citizen to achieve Net Zero. We pay our taxes, We recycle with some diligence, I drive an economic car in an economic fashion, we use electricity sparingly. I have a well insulated home. we eat and grow a variety of veggies and eat meat most of the time but mainly pork. What else is expected of us in order to 'do something'? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 14:33:23 GMT
However much you argue with the facts Steppenwolf, it is simply fact that the overwhelming proportion of scientists knowledgable in the field agree that man made climate change (of which greenhouse gases are the primary cause) threatens catastrophic effect on the living standards of future generations (including those already born). As I have said they could be wrong, but you are asking us to take a huge high stakes bet on that unlikely possibility that the scientists have got it wrong with catastrophic effect if you are wrong and the scientists are right all to save a relatively small impact on living standards now. Dumb bet. Where is the evidence that that is what the overwhelming number of scientists knowledgeable in the field believe? No one apart from a few sceptics has actually asked those scientists what they believe? Cook has assumed what they believe but even that was a poor sampling technique and a suspect methodology that had statisticians shaking their heads. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 31, 2023 14:34:04 GMT
Sandy, we elect a government that is more interested in doing its share of the global effort to reach net zero than tomorrows headlines in the Daily Express.
Sadly that isn't Sunak.
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 14:38:28 GMT
Sandy, we elect a government that is more interested in doing its share of the global effort to reach net zero than tomorrows headlines in the Daily Express. Sadly that isn't Sunak. Is that not the point though that we elect a government to do something but we have to be reasonably sure that what we elect them to do is what we want and indeed of critical importance is being presented to us as factually as possible. Too many lies and manipulation have come to light in what now seems to be the murky world of climate science. Sceptocs are not immune from this but to put blind faith in those who have been shown to be untrustworthy and have disseminated lies to us is asking a bit much. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Jul 31, 2023 14:55:04 GMT
You are circling again Sandy.
The point remains that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that man made climate change (mainly through greenhouse gases) poses a massive threat to future living standards (at best). There are some politicians that disagree but not based on the science.
If the scientists are wrong and we follow their advice, we lose a little bit of living standards
If the scientists are right and we ignore them, then we suffer a massive loss of future living standards.
You want to bet on the less likely outcome (massively so most would say) risking a massive loss if you lose for only a small gain.
That's dumb.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jul 31, 2023 16:25:19 GMT
However much you argue with the facts Steppenwolf, it is simply fact that the overwhelming proportion of scientists knowledgable in the field agree that man made climate change (of which greenhouse gases are the primary cause) threatens catastrophic effect on the living standards of future generations (including those already born). Name ONE dappy. Name ONE. As I said I read a lot of science stuff and I watch/listen to a lot of science programs and I've never heard a single scientist say that the science is settled on climate change. The only people who push this agenda are politicians and organisations like the BBC. The scientists are always very careful about what they say. The truth is they simply don't know what's going on. I heard one scientist on "A life scientific" talking about climate and she said that the truth was that they need at least another few hundred years of data to "diagnose climate change". You see the problem is that there's only ONE set of data (since 1850) and a lot of that data is a bit patchy and unreliable. They haven't even settled what the Sun's cycles are yet. You point the finger at Right wing politicians - by which I assume you're referring to Tice - but he's not saying that climate change is or isn't happening. He's just pointing out the obvious fact that the data has been "manipulated" - which it has. But there are some people who are spending a lot of money promoting CO2 driven climate change. There's the IPCC and BBC of course, but I think there's more to it than that. I reckon there are some clever spreaders of disinformation (in Russia or China maybe) who are shitting themselves laughing at how we're tying ourselves in knots trying to cut out CO2. Activists like Just Stop Oil and XR are probably just bit players, but their intention is plainly to destroy the capitalist system. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 19:35:20 GMT
You are circling again Sandy. The point remains that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus that man made climate change (mainly through greenhouse gases) poses a massive threat to future living standards (at best). There are some politicians that disagree but not based on the science. If the scientists are wrong and we follow their advice, we lose a little bit of living standards If the scientists are right and we ignore them, then we suffer a massive loss of future living standards. You want to bet on the less likely outcome (massively so most would say) risking a massive loss if you lose for only a small gain. That's dumb. I circle because you repeat the same points but present no evidence for those points. Where is the evidence that the overwhelming scientific consensus is that man made climate change poses a massive threat to future living standards. As I have said the only reference I can find is Cook et al and their methodology has been seriously criticised as has their conclusion. 'The scientists' are by no means all of one mind with many openly sceptical as regards the 'climate crisis' in particular. Again you refer to a 'little bit of living standards'. All the current evidence of what will happen and what is potentially proposed is that living standards, freedoms and social outcomes for many will plummet dramatically. I wish to place my money not on a rigged and obviously corrupt and corruptible book but on predictions honestly made and carefully and accurately presented. That is not dumb that is eminent common sense. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 20:10:23 GMT
Perhaps we could consider what an IPCC representative has said in an interview. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer. www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/ |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2023 20:40:27 GMT
Perhaps we could consider what an IPCC representative has said in an interview. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer. www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/How long do you think it will be until questioning this policy is treated as a thought crime? We saw how easy it was for them to shut down lockdown critics, and while this would be harder they only need to shut down just enough to call themselves the consensus. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 31, 2023 21:25:38 GMT
Perhaps we could consider what an IPCC representative has said in an interview. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015. "We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer. www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/How long do you think it will be until questioning this policy is treated as a thought crime? We saw how easy it was for them to shut down lockdown critics, and while this would be harder they only need to shut down just enough to call themselves the consensus. I think we are almost there. The language used is derogatory, the sceptics are cancelled and isolated and refused publication. 'Misinformation' is used as the excuse to shutdown. Criminality is but a short step from here. |
|
