Climate Change

[timsk]

Hi Tom,
A question for you. . .
In a room of 100 people, if 51 of them tell a lie and 49 of them tell the truth, will you accept what the 51 say simply because they're the majority? You don't care that they're lying - all that matters is that you side with the majority. To me, this would appear to be your position on climate change.
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

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.

I'm sure the scientific evidence on climate change has been looked at by scientists and the majority have reached the conclusion that its real.

Obviously there will be winners and losers economically speaking from every scientific conclusion reached. This effect does not nullify the scientific conclusion.

The only point you need to make to convince me that a scientific conclusion is correct is a majority of scientists. 51% will do for me.

 

[tomorton]

Hi Tom,
A question for you. . .
In a room of 100 people, if 51 of them tell a lie and 49 of them tell the truth, will you accept what the 51 say simply because they're the majority? You don't care that they're lying - all that matters is that you side with the majority. To me, this would appear to be your position on climate change.
Tim.

The context is not similar.

 

[cantagril]

Hi Tom,
A question for you. . .
In a room of 100 people, if 51 of them tell a lie and 49 of them tell the truth, will you accept what the 51 say simply because they're the majority? You don't care that they're lying - all that matters is that you side with the majority. To me, this would appear to be your position on climate change.
Tim.

....like the Brexit referendum you mean?

 

[timsk]

....like the Brexit referendum you mean?

No cant', that was 52 : 48 - so completely different!

 

[counter_violent]

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.

If anyone is serious about investigating any topic, not just climate change, the subject matter being almost irrelevant, the central plank when it comes down to agendas and machinations is to follow the money. Scientists are not producing (so called evidence) for altruistic reasons. Someone is funding their research, paying wages and depending on "the who", determines what the science will say.

Then we have the MSM, who is reporting and who is not reporting what.

Then we have the Govt and it's agencies. They should ALWAYS be scrutinised

We have been through the same exercise on the Brexit thread.

 

[timsk]

Well, forget scientists for a bit and trust our own minds a bit, like Cantagril. When I were but a lad they used to say you could stand the population of the world on the Isle of Wight. And with over 4billion square feet to play with you could, too, up until 1974 when the world population hit 4 billion. It’s 7.7 billion now and has tripled, yes that’s TRIPLED , since 1950 (a mere pin-prick of 70 years for God’s sake) and continues to increase at around 1 - 1.5% a year. Now apply that multiple to the growth in everything those billions need, or think they need, to live, the resources involved in providing and servicing those needs and the necessary destruction involved in obtaining the more natural resources.

The world is a big place, but does anyone really think that growth of this order has not affected the natural balance of things? Surely it is wise to explore that changing balance and assume climate change is part of it? Particularly since it seems unlikely that this almost exponential growth can be stopped - let alone reversed .

Hi Jon,
Just wanted to say that I agree with everything you say here. However, the key point that Sig' and I have been making - at least latterly in the thread - is a very specific one to do with how and why one side of the argument about climate change has been - and continues to be - completely sidelined. That's very distinct and separate from the other environmental issues resulting from massive population growth and all that stems from it. I subscribe fully to the view that collectively we (humans) have a massive impact on the planet and that, for the most part, it's not a positive one.
Tim.

 

[barjon]

Hi Jon,
Just wanted to say that I agree with everything you say here. However, the key point that Sig' and I have been making - at least latterly in the thread - is a very specific one to do with how and why one side of the argument about climate change has been - and continues to be - completely sidelined. That's very distinct and separate from the other environmental issues resulting from massive population growth and all that stems from it. I subscribe fully to the view that collectively we (humans) have a massive impact on the planet and that, for the most part, it's not a positive one.
Tim.

tim,

canty’s brexit comment is maybe quite apposite. Look at how those on the side of the remainer argument are vilified and sidelined. This is not because of some evil brexiteer conspiracy, but because of a majority (slight) view and a deep conviction on the majority side that brexit is absolutely right.

I simply don’t buy a world wide climate change conspiracy - particularly since the strongest political lobbies (eg: oil companies) are on the other side.

 

[cantagril]

No cant', that was 52 : 48 - so completely different!

I stand corrected....but otoh I would like to know what percentage of Brexiteers believe that it's going to usher in a new dawn of something or other..and also the percentage that are informed enough to have some rational basis for that belief - and we mustn't forgot the differential stats for the Remainer herd, either - presumably they also believe in something? Or have I got that wrong too? If they would only put their faith in some Swedish child then maybe at least there'd be some real debate.

 

[timsk]

. . . canty’s brexit comment is maybe quite apposite. Look at how those on the side of the remainer argument are vilified and sidelined. This is not because of some evil brexiteer conspiracy, but because of a majority (slight) view and a deep conviction on the majority side that brexit is absolutely right.

I simply don’t buy a world wide climate change conspiracy - particularly since the strongest political lobbies (eg: oil companies) are on the other side.

I stand corrected....but otoh I would like to know what percentage of Brexiteers believe that it's going to usher in a new dawn of something or other..and also the percentage that are informed enough to have some rational basis for that belief - and we mustn't forgot the differential stats for the Remainer herd, either - presumably they also believe in something? Or have I got that wrong too? If they would only put their faith in some Swedish child then maybe at least there'd be some real debate.

Hi both,
Apologies, I assumed cant's "....like the Brexit referendum you mean?" post was a joke and treated it as such, hence my quip. Other than the similarity in numbers, there's no comparison to be made between my 51 liars and 49 truth tellers question to Tom - and the referendum. Obviously, all those that voted leave aren't liars and all those that voted remain aren't truth tellers - and visa versa. Tom's position appears to be that he goes with the majority view - any majority view - he doesn't much care what it is. If we apply this to the markets, would he go long an index or stock simply because the majority view is that it will rise? I very much doubt it! I imagine he would look at the respective cases for going long and short and then arrive at his own decision which, likely as not, will be the opposite of the majority view. For reasons I don't understand, he's unwilling to apply the same critical process to climate change - and it's that that I was challenging.

cant' - I don't want to go off topic about brexit on a climate change thread but, very briefly, I seriously doubt that brexit will 'usher in a new dawn'. Indeed, I doubt anything will change very much - regardless of whether we're in or out of the EU. What will change - and what I care about deeply - is the state our parliamentary democracy will find itself in if brexit isn't perceived to have been delivered by the majority of those that voted for it. (Please note emphasis - very important.) Whether or not it's actually delivered is largely neither here nor there. If you wish to pursue this topic - may I suggest we do so on the brexit thread?
Tim.

 

[cantagril]

Apologies, I assumed cant's "....like the Brexit referendum you mean?" post was a joke and treated it as such,
It was... but many a true word etc etc
........ if brexit isn't perceived to have been delivered by the majority of those that voted for it. (Please note emphasis - very important.)
Emphasis noted. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder
Whether or not it's actually actually delivered is largely neither here nor there. If you wish to pursue this debate - may I suggest we do so on the brexit thread?
Tim.

Please God...Nooooooooooooo!

 

[timsk]

. . . Look at how those on the side of the remainer argument are vilified and sidelined . . .

Jon - surely you mean the leave side of the argument!
After all, remainers are all good, 'right' thinking people. On the other hand, leavers are all racists, bigots and pea brained xenophobes that are too thick to understand how wonderful the EU is and simply hadn't got a clue what they were voting for.

 

[cantagril]

Jon - surely you mean the leave side of the argument!
After all, remainers are all good, 'right' thinking people. On the other hand, leavers are all racists, bigots and pea brained xenophobes that are too thick to understand how wonderful the EU is and simply hadn't got a clue what they were voting for.

Absolutely, they are. As are the climate Remainers...or do I mean Leavers?

 

[counter_violent]

Amazing isn't it that even after all our digging and exposing, some still believe in the EU.

Hang on, i'm on the wrong thread.

 

[tomorton]

Hi both,
Apologies, I assumed cant's "....like the Brexit referendum you mean?" post was a joke and treated it as such, hence my quip. Other than the similarity in numbers, there's no comparison to be made between my 51 liars and 49 truth tellers question to Tom - and the referendum. Obviously, all those that voted leave aren't liars and all those that voted remain aren't truth tellers - and visa versa. Tom's position appears to be that he goes with the majority view - any majority view - he doesn't much care what it is. If we apply this to the markets, would he go long an index or stock simply because the majority view is that it will rise? I very much doubt it! I imagine he would look at the respective cases for going long and short and then arrive at his own decision which, likely as not, will be the opposite of the majority view. For reasons I don't understand, he's unwilling to apply the same critical process to climate change - and it's that that I was challenging.

cant' - I don't want to go off topic about brexit on a climate change thread but, very briefly, I seriously doubt that brexit will 'usher in a new dawn'. Indeed, I doubt anything will change very much - regardless of whether we're in or out of the EU. What will change - and what I care about deeply - is the state our parliamentary democracy will find itself in if brexit isn't perceived to have been delivered by the majority of those that voted for it. (Please note emphasis - very important.) Whether or not it's actually delivered is largely neither here nor there. If you wish to pursue this topic - may I suggest we do so on the brexit thread?
Tim.

Hi Tim.

The Brexit referendum was a vote on political / conscience lines, not economic (and certainly not scientific). If the deciding criteria re EU membership had been purely economic, there would have been no referendum. It wasn't a matter of lies and truth, it was matter of beliefs, a question of conscience if you like. On such matters, the man in the street's opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

When it comes to specialist subject issues, the unqualified public should have no vote.

Of course, the public should have a vote on what measures the politicians put in place to respond to the issue.

In a sense, I do always follow the majority in trading. I take only trend-following trades. I assume that in forex the people who can move price are those with most money. And that they can afford better computers and better analysts and have more information than I do. Why would I think I understand the GBP/USD better than Barclays? And of course if more banks put more money into buying GBP/USD than selling it, price will rise and I will be long: a difference of 51% buyers to 49% sellers will in theory do it for me. I don't see any conflict in my approaches to the two different issues.

Tom

 

[barjon]

Hey, ho - back to climate change.

Had some logs delivered yesterday, but no time to get them stacked. Met office reckoned it would come on to rain overnight, but my retired meteorologist pal reckoned it would miss us. Dilemma: should I bugger about getting the tarp out to cover them up or not. Better safe than sorry won so I struggled with the tarp in the wind.

As it turned out I’m glad I did and the met turned out to be right. They may not have been, though, but so what. The risk of having a load of wet logs was high enough to be worth the tarp effort anyway.

 

[Signalcalc]

Hey, ho - back to climate change.

Had some logs delivered yesterday, but no time to get them stacked. Met office reckoned it would come on to rain overnight, but my retired meteorologist pal reckoned it would miss us. Dilemma: should I bugger about getting the tarp out to cover them up or not. Better safe than sorry won so I struggled with the tarp in the wind.

As it turned out I’m glad I did and the met turned out to be right. They may not have been, though, but so what. The risk of having a load of wet logs was high enough to be worth the tarp effort anyway.

If you chop them smaller, they burn quicker, provide heat faster and don't smoke as much (depending on the size of the fire), much better for the environment (according to science).

 

[tomorton]

Hey, ho - back to climate change.

Had some logs delivered yesterday, but no time to get them stacked. Met office reckoned it would come on to rain overnight, but my retired meteorologist pal reckoned it would miss us. Dilemma: should I bugger about getting the tarp out to cover them up or not. Better safe than sorry won so I struggled with the tarp in the wind.

As it turned out I’m glad I did and the met turned out to be right. They may not have been, though, but so what. The risk of having a load of wet logs was high enough to be worth the tarp effort anyway.

Jon, the life you lead. Its just a constantly spinning whirl of glitz, glamour and sheer hedonism isn't it?

 

[Signalcalc]

Hi Tim.

The Brexit referendum was a vote on political / conscience lines, not economic (and certainly not scientific). If the deciding criteria re EU membership had been purely economic, there would have been no referendum. It wasn't a matter of lies and truth, it was matter of beliefs, a question of conscience if you like. On such matters, the man in the street's opinion is as valid as anyone else's.

When it comes to specialist subject issues, the unqualified public should have no vote.

Of course, the public should have a vote on what measures the politicians put in place to respond to the issue.

In a sense, I do always follow the majority in trading. I take only trend-following trades. I assume that in forex the people who can move price are those with most money. And that they can afford better computers and better analysts and have more information than I do. Why would I think I understand the GBP/USD better than Barclays? And of course if more banks put more money into buying GBP/USD than selling it, price will rise and I will be long: a difference of 51% buyers to 49% sellers will in theory do it for me. I don't see any conflict in my approaches to the two different issues.

Tom

The climate emergency is a full-on political issue, the scientists do not run the agenda, therefore, using the logic of Brexit, the public should have a referendum on the climate hoax.

 

[tomorton]

F*ck it. I'm going to turn the boiler up.