|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2022 14:11:00 GMT
Do you honestly think that your granddaughter will one day thank you for recklessly gambling with her very future when virtually the entire scientific community with expertise in the field were advising you not to and your motivation for doing so was driven purely by political ideology not by best available facts?
Even if by some remote possibility your reckless gamble was proven with hindsight correct?
Sorry mate, I think she will think her granddad was a right selfish *&*%. (I think she will be right).
|
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 14, 2022 14:39:05 GMT
Those would be the same scientists who, only a few decades ago, were predicting the imminent arrival of the next ice age.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2022 14:46:18 GMT
Those would be the same scientists who, only a few decades ago, were predicting the imminent arrival of the next ice age. There was a rider on that due to the effects of global warming. The Earth goes through cyclic weather events, and we are destroying the balance. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2022 14:46:47 GMT
Do you honestly think that your granddaughter will one day thank you for recklessly gambling with her very future when virtually the entire scientific community with expertise in the field were advising you not to and your motivation for doing so was driven purely by political ideology not by best available facts? Even if by some remote possibility your reckless gamble was proven with hindsight correct? Sorry mate, I think she will think her granddad was a right selfish *&*%. (I think she will be right). Well let us take just one aspect of what you have just said. Where is the evidence that 'virtually the entire scientific community with expertise in the field are advising me not to'? What are the best available facts and how would I know they are the best available? If I find the best available have serious errors in them as pointed out by others should I still accept all other aspects as true? In recent years the overall concensus of experst have said that the covid vaccines are safe and effective, will stop or seriously limit transmission and will protect the person and others from the disease. I was willing to have that jab but my wife was seriously against it so I demurred to her wishes. Did she save my life, did she save my immune system? Was she selfish or just sensible and wanting to protect me? As more and more information gradually leaks out despite the best efforts to stop the leakage it seems her fears were well founded. Two years ago she would have been called a selfish ****. Political ideology holds that do not assume that those wishing you to act in a certain way always have your best interests at heart. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2022 14:56:43 GMT
Those would be the same scientists who, only a few decades ago, were predicting the imminent arrival of the next ice age. There was a rider on that due to the effects of global warming. The Earth goes through cyclic weather events, and we are destroying the balance. We are affecting the balance, to what degree is unknown and unproven and every living thing affects balance, it was plants that took all the carbon dioxide and changed the balance to allow Oxygen requiring organisms to thrive. Plants changed slightly over time they did not die out nor did they collectively agree to control the output of oxygen. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 14, 2022 15:06:20 GMT
That isnt really true Sandy. Even if it were, are you prepared to look your 1 year old granddaughter in the eye and tell her "I am gambling with your very long term existence against the advice of nearly all those who have more knowledge of the subject than me, all so that I can live a little better now. Granddad is a bit of a selfish c*nt, you see?" Mmh, tricky.
I think that I would turn to my 13 year old grand daughter and say dolly, your mother and her wife are both university lecturers and your elder sister and brother are headed that way and I hope that you will join them. It is a good life with decent pay, holidays and no heavy lifting, so if you get the chance of an academic career, go for it.
Just remember that if you want to be a department head or similar, you will have to have books or papers published. They don't have to be accurate, but don't go against the current orthodoxy or at least, not until you have tenure whereupon you can be the university's tame radical. Climate Change is the in thing these days. Most of the folk who make a fuss about it could not count up to twenty one without taking their trousers off, but it is not a bad bandwaggon to be on, or at least until a better one turns up.
So feel to storm through the streets screaming Save the World and How Dare you! It is all bollocks and both humanity and the world will survive the current bout of weenie hysteria. But you are only young once and if you can be at the next demo in Trafalgar Square (there is always one going on), I think your grandmother will be happy to meet you in the restaurant at the National Gallery, prior to a foray down Oxford Street
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2022 15:08:55 GMT
Are you seriously asking me (with the infernal quote system on this board) whether the overwhelming majority of scientists with knowledge in this field agree that man made climate change threatens the world? I had you down as more knowledgable than that. There are reams of evidence to this effect on the internet. Here is just one summary from an organisation that given its nature probably regards this as an inconvenient reality. Inconvenience doesnt change the truth however. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Now as I say you are free to prioritise your personal political beliefs over the interests of your granddaughter and gamble with her living standards and potentially her life against the best evidence of those with most knowledge of the subject. Don't do so pretending that you know better than those scientists though. You don't. You are gambling they are wrong because you would prefer them to be wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 14, 2022 15:23:42 GMT
Are you seriously asking me (with the infernal quote system on this board) whether the overwhelming majority of scientists with knowledge in this field agree that man made climate change threatens the world? I had you down as more knowledgable than that. There are reams of evidence to this effect on the internet. Here is just one summary from an organisation that given its nature probably regards this as an inconvenient reality. Inconvenience doesnt change the truth however. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Now as I say you are free to prioritise your personal political beliefs over the interests of your granddaughter and gamble with her living standards and potentially her life against the best evidence of those with most knowledge of the subject. Don't do so pretending that you know better than those scientists though. You don't. You are gambling they are wrong because you would prefer them to be wrong. Well there you are dappy.
It is my belief that both the world and humanity will still be here tomorrow. But what do I know when so many clever chaps are saying otherwise?
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2022 15:50:49 GMT
Are you seriously asking me (with the infernal quote system on this board) whether the overwhelming majority of scientists with knowledge in this field agree that man made climate change threatens the world? I had you down as more knowledgable than that. There are reams of evidence to this effect on the internet. Here is just one summary from an organisation that given its nature probably regards this as an inconvenient reality. Inconvenience doesnt change the truth however. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Now as I say you are free to prioritise your personal political beliefs over the interests of your granddaughter and gamble with her living standards and potentially her life against the best evidence of those with most knowledge of the subject. Don't do so pretending that you know better than those scientists though. You don't. You are gambling they are wrong because you would prefer them to be wrong. Well let us go through some of the groups Nasa received an open letter from 49 former employees wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/10/49-nasa-scientists-call-bs/and wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/10/the-misrepresentation-of-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/For the AAAS the argument is circular, they quote research into the consensus as proving the consensus yet ignore the questions surrounding that research. It is well worth a look at their funders as well The statement from International Academies is also circular as it quotes IPCC to reach its consensus. The Government agencies quoted use only selected scientists for their report and limited to 300 only a few of whom are climate scientists. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 14, 2022 16:03:17 GMT
Are you seriously asking me (with the infernal quote system on this board) whether the overwhelming majority of scientists with knowledge in this field agree that man made climate change threatens the world? I had you down as more knowledgable than that. There are reams of evidence to this effect on the internet. Here is just one summary from an organisation that given its nature probably regards this as an inconvenient reality. Inconvenience doesnt change the truth however. climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/Now as I say you are free to prioritise your personal political beliefs over the interests of your granddaughter and gamble with her living standards and potentially her life against the best evidence of those with most knowledge of the subject. Don't do so pretending that you know better than those scientists though. You don't. You are gambling they are wrong because you would prefer them to be wrong. Well let us go through some of the groups Nasa received an open letter from 49 former employees wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/10/49-nasa-scientists-call-bs/and wattsupwiththat.com/2022/02/10/the-misrepresentation-of-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change/For the AAAS the argument is circular, they quote research into the consensus as proving the consensus yet ignore the questions surrounding that research. It is well worth a look at their funders as well The statement from International Academies is also circular as it quotes IPCC to reach its consensus. The Government agencies quoted use only selected scientists for their report and limited to 300 only a few of whom are climate scientists. I hope that you are not suggesting that NASA supports Climate Change because it gets paid to shoot rockets into the atmosphere to prove that Climate Change exists?
Folk are so cynical these days.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2022 16:04:30 GMT
Whatsupwiththat.com Sandy is a blog designed to promote misinformation in connection within its founder's political wishes to deny climate change. If you wish to rely on it that is your right. If you look hard enough you can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear.
The simple fact is that the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field agree that man made climate change threatens severe damage (at best) to human living standards.
You can choose to ignore them, believe you know better and gamble with your young granddaughter's life to further your political beliefs and to get a marginal improvement in your living standards in exchange for in all likelihood a massive reduction in your granddaughters (at best).
If that is what you want to do and you can live with yourself looking in her eyes knowing the extent of the gamble you are taking against all expert scientific advice, then that is your right to make that judgement and my right to call you out as a very very selfish and stupid human being. Wouldn't it be quicker though to simply push her pram into the road because some arsehole on the internet has promised you, against the evidence of all the experts on the subject, that a magic forcefield will somehow prevent her being harmed by the oncoming lorry
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Nov 14, 2022 18:53:26 GMT
No one has suggested they are, Pacifico. Please don't misrepresent constantly - getting a little boring now. So in a discussion about mankinds contribution to climate change you wish to ignore the largest contributors... |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 14, 2022 20:00:34 GMT
Whatsupwiththat.com Sandy is a blog designed to promote misinformation in connection within its founder's political wishes to deny climate change. If you wish to rely on it that is your right. If you look hard enough you can always find someone to tell you what you want to hear. The simple fact is that the vast majority of scientists with expertise in the field agree that man made climate change threatens severe damage (at best) to human living standards. You can choose to ignore them, believe you know better and gamble with your young granddaughter's life to further your political beliefs and to get a marginal improvement in your living standards in exchange for in all likelihood a massive reduction in your granddaughters (at best). If that is what you want to do and you can live with yourself looking in her eyes knowing the extent of the gamble you are taking against all expert scientific advice, then that is your right to make that judgement and my right to call you out as a very very selfish and stupid human being. Wouldn't it be quicker though to simply push her pram into the road because some arsehole on the internet has promised you, against the evidence of all the experts on the subject, that a magic forcefield will somehow prevent her being harmed by the oncoming lorry Now you are the expert on what blogs are supposed to do and denial is not his mission, exposing inaccurate statements is. One link is to an open letter from 'scientists' to NASA and the other is a fully researched essay with details and references and its conclusion was not misinformation it was well founded by refuting the promoted consensus. Its conclusion was balanced and considerate when it said "So if we return to Dr Michael Mann’s statement that, ‘There’s about as much scientific consensus about human-caused climate change as there is about gravity’ this is very disingenuous. Whilst there is almost total scientific consensus that climate change is ‘real’ and happening and that there has been some human-caused influence, there is no such scientific consensus over the extent of the human-caused influence and whether or not it could reasonably be described as ‘dangerous’, let alone a ‘crisis’." By you repeating what is demonstrably wrong in a slightly different way does not help neither does calling it a simple fact that has been shown not be a specific simple fact on several occasions. What political beliefs do I hold that are furthered by not taking at face value statements that are aggressively presented and aggressively protected by appeals to emotional values such as you are doing? Only cultists believe implicitly in their cause, I stand to be convinced and too often I can detect the falsities. |
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 14, 2022 22:56:08 GMT
Therein lies my problem Sandy. I can just about see how you would argue that the scientists forming the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate change problem we face is man made are all wrong - I mean its pretty arrogant and moronic to think you know more about the subject than pretty much all the relevant scientists but I suppose you could argue you are entitled to your opinion nonetheless. But to argue that the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate change problem we face is man made does not exist is just factually wrong - plain and simple. The evidence is overwhelming. Wiki and all its links is just one reference point but there are loads others if you want to dispute that one. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeSo I wonder why would you argue something that is plainly factually wrong. I can only think of three reasons 1) you are thick 2) you are ignorant 3) your political views are so all-consumingly important that you would be "economical with the truth" about a fact even where that lie comes at the cost of a massive drop in your granddaughters living standards and possibly her very survival. Thing is Sandy, I don't think you are thick or ignorant. Which rather leaves option 3. And honestly I think that's weird. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Nov 14, 2022 23:00:09 GMT
I doubt he is losing the plot, he is following the plot.
|
|
