|
|
Post by dappy on Nov 15, 2022 12:24:42 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. The argument is becoming circular Sandy. We are back to the above. Or you could try this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeOr go to any scientific bodies website and research there. You are denying a simple fact and proposing the reckless gamble I outlined above. May I ask one question before I leave it. Why is it do you think that (I would say) the vast majority of those who deny man made climate change all have very right wing political views generally? |
|
|
|
Post by Dubdrifter on Nov 15, 2022 12:28:33 GMT
In January 2018 I was looking at rilles on the Moon in LROC pics and I thought there was a few reasons to reopen up the ‘old’ idea of there being water on the Moon and surface erosion occurring.
I started a discussion thread on MacRumours Forum … It was v.popular and controversial … and I was subjected to considerable abuse from some people who considered themselves scientific experts … who told me … “don’t be silly, go away idiot … there is no water on the Moon and never has been.
A 10-month argument ensued in which some of my critics and challengers … including a volcanologist from Hawaii and a senior guy at JPL who managed astronaut pool training … eventually reluctantly came around to the idea that possibilities existed for this erosion … 4 years later water on the Moon is a confirmed fact … and soon maybe people will come around to the idea the Moon once had a thick atmosphere driven by intense volcanism that sustained a ‘climate’ of sorts.
The lesson to learn here … as Sandy says … science isn’t a religion … and scientists should never be religiously worshipped (especially when they are controlled, and funded by Religion and Deep State).
Scientists aren’t always right … and neither am I … we need to challenge every opinion … and every stat and it’s relevance.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Nov 15, 2022 12:41:08 GMT
Oh Sandy. You are wriggling and diverting to try to undermine reality. You are back now to questioning the consensus. I am well aware that the figure of 97% has been challenged. I have never used it. I imagine the figure fluctuates a bit over time. What is not questionable, in fact is simple fact, is that the overwhelming majority of climate change scientists agree that the primary cause of climate change is human. And hence you are left with the gamble I have outlined. I suppose the question is "do you feel your grandchildren will be lucky, Punk?" I have always questioned the supposed consensus and that has been the main thrust of my posts. You are back now to overwhelming majority that you have used before and all I asked for is the evidence that that is what the 'overwhelming majority' believe? Where is it if as you say it is not questionable? I do not disagree on the use of a gamble but I wish to know with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the true odds are. At the moment if it was a horse race the favourite is being doped to give him an outstanding advantage. It is to ensure I make the right decisions for my grandchildren that drives my questions, questions that just seem to be sidestepped and emotional responses and character attacks used as the ammunition of the counter argument If I may, by taking from another field of science… You are able to exist because something somewhere inside your small and large intestine pump nutrients and water against the natural diffusion gradient and thus prevent you dying of terminal dehydration caused by a bout of the shits of epidemic, biblical proportions. Back in 1979 there were TWO schools of thought as to how this was done at the molecular level. Now understand this was over forty years ago and I have not donned a lab coat in anger since the eighties. But there were two opposing schools of thought on how it could possibly be, against all natural events, that Homo sapiens did not have a lifespan measured in hours and ending in a puddle of watery stinking poo. There were whole volumes of ‘the journal of biochemistry’ and ‘biochemical society transactions’ (the records of the society’s meetings and research revealed at events held during such) dedicated to the arguments on both sides. I can’t even remember the other argument to the one I pinned my coat tails on, the ideas postulated by a bloke with a lab on Bodmin moor and a wealth of science by him and others nothing to do with him that defended his position. And we were W-R-O-N-G This is not a crime. Science progresses by interaction between theory and experiment. Ideas become hypotheses which become theories after they explain all known facts and postulate predictions which can be tested experimentally. As Brian Cox says if the Big Bang in a splendid bit of video that does the rounds from time to time, how do I know there was a big bang ? Because you can fucking SEE it. I digress. My point is that in real science being wrong because you did one more experiment or someone else thought up one that tested what you said and found life not quite as you predicted is not reason to form a crucifixion party. Politicians and the Greta clones of this world never did a science degree nor put bread on the table from being paid to be scientists and by god it shows |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 15, 2022 13:08:23 GMT
I have always questioned the supposed consensus and that has been the main thrust of my posts. You are back now to overwhelming majority that you have used before and all I asked for is the evidence that that is what the 'overwhelming majority' believe? Where is it if as you say it is not questionable? I do not disagree on the use of a gamble but I wish to know with a reasonable degree of accuracy what the true odds are. At the moment if it was a horse race the favourite is being doped to give him an outstanding advantage. It is to ensure I make the right decisions for my grandchildren that drives my questions, questions that just seem to be sidestepped and emotional responses and character attacks used as the ammunition of the counter argument If I may, by taking from another field of science… You are able to exist because something somewhere inside your small and large intestine pump nutrients and water against the natural diffusion gradient and thus prevent you dying of terminal dehydration caused by a bout of the shits of epidemic, biblical proportions. Back in 1979 there were TWO schools of thought as to how this was done at the molecular level. Now understand this was over forty years ago and I have not donned a lab coat in anger since the eighties. But there were two opposing schools of thought on how it could possibly be, against all natural events, that Homo sapiens did not have a lifespan measured in hours and ending in a puddle of watery stinking poo. There were whole volumes of ‘the journal of biochemistry’ and ‘biochemical society transactions’ (the records of the society’s meetings and research revealed at events held during such) dedicated to the arguments on both sides. I can’t even remember the other argument to the one I pinned my coat tails on, the ideas postulated by a bloke with a lab on Bodmin moor and a wealth of science by him and others nothing to do with him that defended his position. And we were W-R-O-N-G This is not a crime. Science progresses by interaction between theory and experiment. Ideas become hypotheses which become theories after they explain all known facts and postulate predictions which can be tested experimentally. As Brian Cox says if the Big Bang in a splendid bit of video that does the rounds from time to time, how do I know there was a big bang ? Because you can fucking SEE it. I digress. My point is that in real science being wrong because you did one more experiment or someone else thought up one that tested what you said and found life not quite as you predicted is not reason to form a crucifixion party. Politicians and the Greta clones of this world never did a science degree nor put bread on the table from being paid to be scientists and by god it shows I agree. However the scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus are denigrated and ridiculed and there is every effort to have their results and conclusions ignored by repeating continuous arguments against them personally. They are described as idiots, nazis, deniers, flat earthers, charlatans and worst of all dangerous. This smacks of having a political imperative to have one view and when politics interferes with science and supports only one scientific view that is exceedingly dangerous. There are many examples in history where this has been a problem and the 'settled science' leads to all sorts of nefarious outcomes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 13:33:47 GMT
Are you suggesting that the trillion and trillions of tons of CO2 we have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution and the trillions of acres of rain forests we have removed are making very little difference to global warming? If you are what ever happened to common sense never mind the science? Certainly not but effects are not always directly proportional to increases in quantity. 'We' are not removing rainforests, the people living there are and mostly some very nice timber is just burnt. It was the royal 'we' humanity is a turkey voting for Christmas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 13:35:56 GMT
CO2 is absorbed by trees, cut down billions of trees less CO2 absorbed. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, burn more fossil fuels release more CO2. More CO2 in the atmosphere stops heat getting out, less heat getting out leads to global warming. 1+1 = 2, simple really. But you have absolutely no idea whether that amount of CO2 is a significant amount or does anything to drastically change normal climate variations - you seem to be taking it on faith rather than science. Scientists say it. Common sense says it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 15, 2022 13:40:44 GMT
Certainly not but effects are not always directly proportional to increases in quantity. 'We' are not removing rainforests, the people living there are and mostly some very nice timber is just burnt. It was the royal 'we' humanity is a turkey voting for Christmas. As a Turkey I have no vote that affects what Brazil does or does not do in terms of the Amazon rain forest. My vote ensures that trees in the UK are protected and forestry sustainable. As part of the 'we' what else can we do. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 15, 2022 13:48:37 GMT
But you have absolutely no idea whether that amount of CO2 is a significant amount or does anything to drastically change normal climate variations - you seem to be taking it on faith rather than science. Scientists say it. Common sense says it. Do scientists say it or do some scientists say it? Common sense plays very little part in it as when common sense is applied by some they are shouted down as denialists and flat earthers. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 13:58:19 GMT
It was the royal 'we' humanity is a turkey voting for Christmas. As a Turkey I have no vote that affects what Brazil does or does not do in terms of the Amazon rain forest. My vote ensures that trees in the UK are protected and forestry sustainable. As part of the 'we' what else can we do. Blame it on others, then? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2022 14:00:38 GMT
Scientists say it. Common sense says it. Do scientists say it or do some scientists say it? Common sense plays very little part in it as when common sense is applied by some they are shouted down as denialists and flat earthers. The majority, but you know this. Ah, if one 'scientist' claims it is not happening then it isn't. The dodo must have said the same. |
|
|
|
Post by borchester on Nov 15, 2022 14:09:23 GMT
May I ask one question before I leave it. Why is it do you think that (I would say) the vast majority of those who deny man made climate change all have very right wing political views generally? A rather broad statement I admit, but at a guess I imagine that it is because the right represents the awkward squad and thinks for itself, while the left spends much of its time looking for leaders to do its thinking for it. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 15, 2022 18:29:58 GMT
As a Turkey I have no vote that affects what Brazil does or does not do in terms of the Amazon rain forest. My vote ensures that trees in the UK are protected and forestry sustainable. As part of the 'we' what else can we do. Blame it on others, then? In terms of the Amazon rainforest who else is there to blame. I cannot do anything about it and neither can Just Stop Oil as if they tried what they do here in Brazil they would be shot by those burning the rainforest. Pretty final way to solve their stolen futures. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 15, 2022 18:35:19 GMT
Do scientists say it or do some scientists say it? Common sense plays very little part in it as when common sense is applied by some they are shouted down as denialists and flat earthers. The majority, but you know this. Ah, if one 'scientist' claims it is not happening then it isn't. The dodo must have said the same. Dappy keeps saying this as well and provides no evidence other than groups and associations who are given of proof that the IPCC are correct by quoting the IPCC. A bit like saying I am right because my brother says I am and I told him I was. I repeat, yet again, I am not saying it is not happening all I am concerned about is the information that it is accurate and is that accepted by the majority of climate scientists. No one seems able to verify this without referring to Cook. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 15, 2022 18:48:27 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. The argument is becoming circular Sandy. We are back to the above. Or you could try this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_changeOr go to any scientific bodies website and research there. You are denying a simple fact and proposing the reckless gamble I outlined above. May I ask one question before I leave it. Why is it do you think that (I would say) the vast majority of those who deny man made climate change all have very right wing political views generally? To answer directly there are several reasons. The word is not deny, the word is question. The left see climate change action as a unifying cause with various groups seeking different ways of meeting the same needs which suits their particular political aims and furthers those aims. They are not all necessarily very right wing as that is your opinion and you onow equate questioning the climate change narrative as a RW activity. I have not denied anything to my mind you gave me links to NASA initlally whereby most of teh groups I looked at quoted teh IPCC to agree with their stance and you used this as evidence the IPCC is right. That is not denial that is a pertinent question as to how is the 'overwhelming majority' value actually obtained and apart from Cook (much criticised and countered) no one seems to know. It has now become one of those throwaway stats that are based on the flimsiest of evidence yet is cast up again and again no matter how many times the evidence to show it is so is asked for. It is quite important to find it as that is the sole reason that climate change has been labled an emergency. Edit ;your new link just regurgitates Cook which has been heavily criticised for its methodology and its findings. There seems to be little else. The list of science associations refer to the IPCC 97% which seems to come from Cook. As I said how to pull oneself up by one's own bootstraps. It is a neat trick and seems to fool the gullible. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Nov 15, 2022 20:01:13 GMT
I think Rishi Sunak's actions so far have been good. The pound is on the rise and our borrowing costs are falling back again. Stability is being restored to the markets because Rishi knows what he is doing, unlike Labour who do not have a bloody clue about economics.
|
|
