Climate Change

[tomorton]

And as Sig has pointed out, go against the herd and get run over (Bellamy)

In every scientific breakthrough, it only take One to be right for all the rest to be wrong. That's how science works, that's progress in play.

I really don't get where you think you are going with this line Tom.

I'm not trying to prove or understand climate change, nor weigh the evidence on either side. What's interesting is the reasoning behind the selection of this scientific consensus for argument. Combined with trying to understand the rationale for winning the case as it were.

Its hard to give credit to any conspiracy theory when the theorists can't explain why they believe in conspiracies and how they would prove one to exist. And why, if they believe in one, they are sceptics when it comes to others - why they don't believe in them all.

 

[Signalcalc]

I'm not trying to prove or understand climate change, nor weigh the evidence on either side. What's interesting is the reasoning behind the selection of this scientific consensus for argument. Combined with trying to understand the rationale for winning the case as it were.

Its hard to give credit to any conspiracy theory when the theorists can't explain why they believe in conspiracies and how they would prove one to exist. And why, if they believe in one, they are sceptics when it comes to others - why they don't believe in them all.

The conspiracy is the climate change hoax! The opposite view has mountains of rationale behind it, some of it presented in this thread.

If the climate change man-made theory was pitted agains the climate change natural theory in an open an honest debate, then it would be reasonable to assume that as much evidence had been presented for either theory to be tested, then if we had to take action as a result of that debate, then the result could be accepted, possibly with caveats or possibly with an overwhelming mountain of rationale that arguing against it would be nonesensicle.

As it stands, no such debate has taken place, why then should we be accepting of such a one sided argument at face value, when nothing has been tested, opposition views have not been provided with a platform, climate models have proved to be innacurate time and again, activists can't answer straightforward questions about what they are doing on the streets, activists responses are highly controlled to the point of violence, when every man and his dog with an SJW agenda is involved, it is promoted by globalists and banksters who clearly have money invested in it and are seeking a return on their investment to the detriment of ordinary people who have no investment in it and stand to needlesly lose money as a result and have their lifestyles turned upside-down for generations to come. Climate change is the new globalist power play to the detriment of people (usually the poorest) that have nothing to do with globalist powerplays.

 

[tomorton]

The conspiracy is the climate change hoax! The opposite view has mountains of rationale behind it, some of it presented in this thread.

If the climate change man-made theory was pitted agains the climate change natural theory in an open an honest debate, then it would be reasonable to assume that as much evidence had been presented for either theory to be tested, then if we had to take action as a result of that debate, then the result could be accepted, possibly with caveats or possibly with an overwhelming mountain of rationale that arguing against it would be nonesensicle.

As it stands, no such debate has taken place, why then should we be accepting of such a one sided argument at face value, when nothing has been tested, opposition views have not been provided with a platform, climate models have proved to be innacurate time and again, activists can't answer straightforward questions about what they are doing on the streets, activists responses are highly controlled to the point of violence, when every man and his dog with an SJW agenda is involved, it is promoted by globalists and banksters who clearly have money invested in it and are seeking a return on their investment to the detriment of ordinary people who have no investment in it and stand to needlesly lose money as a result and have their lifestyles turned upside-down for generations to come. Climate change is the new globalist power play to the detriment of people (usually the poorest) that have nothing to do with globalist powerplays.

The science of climate change is understood by scientists to the point that the majority of them can say that it is real, that the atmosphere is warming, and that much of this is as a result of human activity, principally the emission of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

There has been as much scope for disagreement with this as with any scientific principle.

The reason that climate change deniers get very little media coverage is because the majority of scientists have said denial is not based on reliable science and robust evidence.

 

[Signalcalc]

The science of climate change is understood by scientists to the point that the majority of them can say that it is real, that the atmosphere is warming, and that much of this is as a result of human activity, principally the emission of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

There has been as much scope for disagreement with this as with any scientific principle.

The reason that climate change deniers get very little media coverage is because the majority of scientists have said denial is not based on reliable science and robust evidence.

Can you demonstrate that the majority of scientists believe man-made climate change is true?

 

[Signalcalc]

So, let me get this straight, if you are a minority interest group, without mainstream support, the only way you can be heard is by creating a fake emergency, protesting illegally to get your point across and by creating a global hysteria. And by doing so, you think that your minority view will be adopted by the mainstream to become the majority view, even if you disrupt to the point where you lose public support?

That's why the green party have consistently polled nowhere for 30 years, and continue to do so?

That's why there is sudden backing by billionaires, because for 30 years they have supported this minority view also but done nothing about it until 2019? For some reason, it's come out of nowhere, all of a sudden there is a massive global media build-up, almost as if controlled, large sums of money involved.

No multi-year discussion to a breaking point, all of a sudden out of left field (literally), we have a climate emergency?

No-one, other than the numpties who do believe it, is buying it, it has never been a mainstream view, but now there is a massive push to make it so, with a multi-pronged attack by the globalists threatening businesses to comply or die and as a result people lose their jobs.

Hmmm, methinks the only mainstream adoption of the climate emergency will be by the billionaire investors, the elite, the MSM and rich hypocrites etc.

And when the citizenship do not adopt a minority view that is forced upon them, it leads to chaos, which it is already doing in various places around the planet.

Notice how the 4 deg rise in global temperature spouted by the useful idiot XR cultists chimes with Carney's dictat message to business, jeez there has to be some money to be made somewhere in this.

 

[Signalcalc]

UN report states that even with $trillions spent every year, global temperatures will still rise and where are those $trillions going exactly? Social engineering on a massive scale for what?

 

[Signalcalc]

More global scamming

 

[counter_violent]

UN report states that even with $trillions spent every year, global temperatures will still rise and where are those $trillions going exactly? Social engineering on a massive scale for what?

Well that does it!
My plan is set........i'll keep taking the money they are throwing at me every week and deal with the consequences as they happen.
SORTED!

 

[cantagril]

Well that does it!
My plan is set........i'll keep taking the money they are throwing at me every week and deal with the consequences as they happen.
SORTED!

Now, that sounds like a plan, the end of the debate and possibly life as we know it ...or not, Jim.

 

[cantagril]

I have been interested and very much entertained by the ebb and flow of opinion (and opinions) on this thread.

Spirited discussion (involving the odd bloodied nose) is part of the British traditional style of debate. I think it's worth reminding ourselves that different cultures, including those just across the ditch, don't necessarily share our traditions. What we all have in common is the beginning of an understanding that all is not right with the world on a ...errr...worldly level. Whether this is based on reason, fear or the lack of quality TV is irrelevant - this is the first time in the history of unkind mankind that this has happened.

The sky may not be falling but the realisation by millions (if not billions) that it might be and that we humans might have something to do with it is nothing less than a Damascene moment. If one looks at historical movements that have swept the globe that basically comes down to Christianity, Islam and our old favourite, war.

Personally and very selfishly, I really do think that those Big Three are rubbish and whilst a good purge helps the gene pool, we have rather gone beyond that sort of thing in terms of our species. To me, the whole Climate Change debate (done or doing, I'm not bothered) is a front runner for yet more difficult and bloodier-nosed times ahead of us, as Jon hinted at. Let us assume for the moment the world is indeed in a cooling cycle which will eventually lead us to an ice age in another geological blip of say, 10,000 years... who cares? The sun will eventually (that debate's over, maybe) go nova and toast the planet, are we fretting? ....but stuff that happens or that we think is happening during our lifetimes we do very much care about, especially if we've got another 50+ years.

Climate angst is the title music for an epic of more than biblical proportions in which we have the starring roles as both innocents and villains. Pollution, overpopulation, peak everything (including food and water) are just over the horizon - maybe not mine - but certainly irritating Scandinavian teenagers and, more sadly for me, my own only slightly older loin fruit. Is any of it real? A lot of it probably is. Can I do anything about any of the above? Probably not. Should I care about rising sea-levels? Weeell, completely seriously I have already started recommending people not to buy property in low-lying areas round the Thames and I note that some T2Wers have already moved away.

What happens in a millenium or so is too far away for me to feel one way or another but what I can see coming down the road scares the shit out of me...not personally but for my children. If we haven't even agreed that there is a debate let alone something to debate then I reckon that by the time we do start on CV's survival To Do list it won't be worth bothering trying to reverse anything and ineffectual mitigation will be the remaining option. Or just run, or climb and if you can't do either, get the claret back out of the cupboard and pray.

 

[Pat494]

There is another point which should be made and that is the drive for renewables is also made to cut the advanced economies addiction to oil mainly and those that have most of it under their control.
There are other major global issues e.g. nuclear proliferation, pollution, over population etc. that need tackling and the world's leaders need to be considering. In the past they have been forced to go to war to tackle arseholes like Hitler but now hopefully that lesson has been learnt.
Delaying sorting these problems tend to make them bigger and bigger. If Adolf had been tucked away in a mental institution/jail for sedition much earlier then WW2 might have been avoided.

 

[tomorton]

Can you demonstrate that the majority of scientists believe man-made climate change is true?

My position is a reflection of the status quo, so I don't feel a need to do this. To be convinced that climate change is a hoax, I would need to see evidence that the majority of scientists say so.

 

[cantagril]

So, as I understand it, we are now debating whether we believe (or not) that the majority of scientists believe (or not) that climate change is true, or not???

 

[Signalcalc]

My position is a reflection of the status quo, so I don't feel a need to do this. To be convinced that climate change is a hoax, I would need to see evidence that the majority of scientists say so.

The status quo does not exist, it is a figment of the media!

So absolutely you need to do this, otherwise it is all but fantasy promoted by a section of so-called elitists that does not command majority opinion.

 

[Signalcalc]

So, as I understand it, we are now debating whether we believe (or not) that the majority of scientists believe (or not) that climate change is true, or not???

I would say so. Where are the stats on the scientists?

 

[timsk]

The science of climate change is understood by scientists to the point that the majority of them can say that it is real, that the atmosphere is warming, and that much of this is as a result of human activity, principally the emission of CO2 from fossil fuel combustion.

There has been as much scope for disagreement with this as with any scientific principle.

The reason that climate change deniers get very little media coverage is because the majority of scientists have said denial is not based on reliable science and robust evidence.

Hi Tom,
I, and Sig' especially, have laid out our stall as best we can and (I think) made clear that our beef isn't so much to do with whether or not climate change is real (or not) but, rather, that those who dare question it are shut down, de-platformed, belittled and ridiculed etc. You don't smell a rat, whereas we smell a bloody big one! So, perhaps the way forward to to discuss one key element of the whole debate and present 'settled' science that supports the so called 'deniers' argument?

Let's take Co2. A central plank - if not the central plank - of the climate change argument is that Co2 causes temperature increases and that Co2 is rising rapidly, principally due to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Ergo, higher levels of Co2 result in higher temperatures. Can we agree on that? If not, feel free to summarise the point better and/or more accurately.

The problem with this argument is that scientists have known and accepted for a century or more that increases in Co2 make little or no difference to temperature. I've linked a video below in which an eminent physicist explains this in detail. The analogy he offers is if you paint your house red with a good quality paint, then painting it again won't make much difference and painting it a third time would be a waste of time any money. I've heard another scientist offer a similar analogy using a black out window blind. One does the job pretty well, adding another one won't make much difference. And so it is with Co2; it could be ten times what it is today and it'll have negligible effect on temperature. When this is coupled with the other accepted scientific fact that Co2 is as critical to plants as oxygen is to humans, and that higher levels of Co2 result in the greening of the planet, then surely it's reasonable to at least question why everyone is hell bent on going to really extreme lengths to reduce it?
Tim.

 

[cantagril]

I would say so. Where are the stats on the scientists?

"Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree"
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Pah! Nasa? Whadda they know? Everybody knows that the moon landing was a hoax...

 

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,
I, and Sig' especially, have laid out our stall as best we can and (I think) made clear that our beef isn't so much to do with whether or not climate change is real (or not) but, rather, that those who dare question it are shut down, de-platformed, belittled and ridiculed etc. You don't smell a rat, whereas we smell a bloody big one! So, perhaps the way forward to to discuss one key element of the whole debate and present 'settled' science that supports the so called 'deniers' argument?

Let's take Co2. A central plank - if not the central plank - of the climate change argument is that Co2 causes temperature increases and that Co2 is rising rapidly, principally due to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Ergo, higher levels of Co2 result in higher temperatures. Can we agree on that? If not, feel free to summarise the point better and/or more accurately.

The problem with this argument is that scientists have known and accepted for a century or more that increases in Co2 make little or no difference to temperature. I've linked a video below in which an eminent physicist explains this in detail. The analogy he offers is if you paint your house red with a good quality paint, then painting it again won't make much difference and painting it a third time would be a waste of time any money. I've heard another scientist offer a similar analogy using a black out window blind. One does the job pretty well, adding another one won't make much difference. And so it is with Co2; it could be ten times what it is today and it'll have negligible effect on temperature. When this is coupled with the other accepted scientific fact that Co2 is as critical to plants as oxygen is to humans, and that higher levels of Co2 result in the greening of the planet, then surely it's reasonable to at least question why everyone is hell bent on going to really extreme lengths to reduce it?
Tim.

You don't need to convince me about anything concerning CO2 Tim. But with good quality scientific evidence, the scientists who produced this information should be able to try to convince the majority of scientists of their argument. If and when they have done this I will believe what the (then) majority of scientists say. If they fail to do so (and scientists certainly don't need the mainstream media to talk with other scientists) then I have to assume its because their evidence was insufficient.

 

[tomorton]

The status quo does not exist, it is a figment of the media!

So absolutely you need to do this, otherwise it is all but fantasy promoted by a section of so-called elitists that does not command majority opinion.

If you can produce a majority of scientists I will believe what they say.

 

[timsk]

. . . But with good quality scientific evidence, the scientists who produced this information should be able to try to convince the majority of scientists of their argument. . .

Tom,
Sadly, it's clear from this comment that the point that Sig' and I have been making repeatedly isn't hitting home. If this is due to poor explanations by us then, for my part, I apologise. However, I like to think we've been pretty thorough. That you're sticking to your position and refusing to even to look at the evidence offered is - to say the very least - surprising. Think rats Tom! Big money rats and lots of' em!
Tim.