Climate Change

[Signalcalc]

Whether climate change is real or not is being hotly debated. The issue is so serious imho that a lot should be done to combat it now even if it turns out to be an exaggerated alarm.. The debate will no doubt continue until the increased damage escalates until such a degree that something must be done.
Russia. China and the USA are so fixated on wasting their resources on the arms race that their present leaderships are just not engaging enough on more important issues.

Experience tells us that rushing into solutions that may or may not work whilst simultaneously ignoring the opposite side of the debate tends to lead to disaster. If the climate scientists are incorrect/biased/corrupted and it turns out their theories and solutions are wrong and we have spent all the money on the wrong technological solutions, then we could find ourselves with muddled thinking at best and a human disaster at worst.

Surely the best approach is to look at at ALL the evidence and then appropriate tax payers cash for potential solutions proportionately? There may be several solutions we can be spending the money on, however those solutions aren't being discussed or even presented for discussion because we are told that the science is settled when it is clearly not.

A main contention on this thread is that not ALL the evidence has been examined and we are being led down a course of action that suspiciously looks like it is designed only to make smart/wealthy investors rich with very little evidence that the end result will result in any form of reduction of CO2 or warming temperatures, if indeed these two latter items are a problem in the first place (which is also a cointentious area of debate on this thread).

It's good that we have a mix of views here, at least on this thread, we are making history by debating the subject, we may not be experts, but as the 'experts' are promoting the idea that laypeople should provide solutions to their proposed problem of the climate then this thread is as good as any people's assembly that may be formed by state sponsored money.

 

[timsk]

Hi Jon,

. . . The debate and research continues amongst scientists who are the one’s that matter. . .

Err, except that it doesn't - that's my main point. When did you last see or hear a climate change sceptic being interviewed on the BBC? Charles Moore guest editing Radio 4's Today programme last Saturday is very much the exception that proves the rule. And if you heard it, you'll remember the resistance he encountered just to be able to say the rather mild things that he did.

Funny how different topics garner different responses to the same thing. I seem to recall that brexit “deniers” were very quickly told to belt up, accept the position and stop moaning by the very same people who are now shouting loudly for climate change deniers to be heard. Such is life.

Chalk and cheese Jon - too funny!
Hard facts were ascertained courtesy of a referendum which delivered a clear and finite result. The losers then wasted three years attempting to undo democracy; so yes, they were rightly told to stop moaning. This is in no way comparable to the (virtually non-existant) debate on climate change where sceptics are denied a voice and many of the scientists that question the alarmists are retired. (The inference being that there are likely many more scientists who question climate change but keep schtum because they fear losing their jobs if they 'come out'.) Conversely, brexit deniers were actively encouraged and, far from being de-platformed and ignored, were given any amount of support, encouragement and MSM bandwidth. What happened to brexit deniers is the exact polar opposite to what's happening to climate change sceptics!
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

I wish the MP's who opposed Brexit in 2016 could have been excluded from Parliamentary debates and votes on the Brexit deal. Letting them keep voting on this was kind of like asking the vegetarians at the barbecue how well the steak should be done.

 

[Signalcalc]

Hi Jon,

Err, except that it doesn't - that's my main point. When did you last see or hear a climate change sceptic being interviewed on the BBC? Charles Moore guest editing Radio 4's Today programme last Saturday is very much the exception that proves the rule. And if you heard it, you'll remember the resistance he encountered just to be able to say the rather mild things that he did.

Chalk and cheese Jon - too funny!
Hard facts were ascertained courtesy of a referendum which delivered a clear and finite result. The losers then wasted three years attempting to undo democracy; so yes, they were rightly told to stop moaning. This is in no way comparable to the (virtually non-existant) debate on climate change where sceptics are denied a voice and many of the scientists that question the alarmists are retired. (The inference being that there are likely many more scientists who question climate change but keep schtum because they fear losing their jobs if they 'come out'.) Conversely, brexit deniers were actively encouraged and, far from being de-platformed and ignored, were given any amount of support, encouragement and MSM bandwidth. What happened to brexit deniers is the exact polar opposite to what's happening to climate change sceptics!
Tim.

The argument that the majority of scientists agree that the science is settled is very weak, but if that is what people wish to believe then the government sponsored MSM machine and the Globalists running the show are winning the media war, despite MSM being the minority view.

I have no doubt that the majority view of the 'sceptics' will be able to force a debate at some point in the future, but as the banksters and rich investors have to make a return on their investments then it will require a lot of protest to come from the silent majority at some point to get opposing views to the table.

This is where I see the parallel with Brexit, the remoaner minority view incessantly promoted by MSM, turns out to be just the minority view, the same is true for the climate alarmists, they are the minority view along with the scientists, but it is incessantly promoted by MSM to make it look like the majority view and people fall for it, MSM works (and it works because it is run by powerful state sponsored globalists, banksters, elite, rich etc).

A major difference with Brexit however is that MSM didn't use children in the Brexit debate as a main focus/guilt trip.

 

[tomorton]

Whether climate change is real or not is being hotly debated. The issue is so serious imho that a lot should be done to combat it now even if it turns out to be an exaggerated alarm.. The debate will no doubt continue until the increased damage escalates until such a degree that something must be done.
Russia. China and the USA are so fixated on wasting their resources on the arms race that their present leaderships are just not engaging enough on more important issues.

Thing is, if we're going to make any serious and urgent in-roads into fossil fuel consumption, we're going to need nuclear power. And the green lobby can't face this.

 

[0007]

The BBC and climate change lobby have done well with their brainwashing of the younger generation. I happened to mention to one of their "converted" that I believed there is considerable doubt about cause and effect et cetera of climate change. Their response was "Oh! So you're a climate change denier then?" The definite intoned inference was that I was wrong, that I had a closed mind and needed to be "properly educated". You then start to realise the power of the BBC and the education system.

 

[0007]

My position is that at any point along the course of the debate I side with the majority view of the experts (a dirty word these days I know).

I think it's right to be wary of the "experts". Once upon a time they thought the earth was flat. And throughout history, despite being right many times they have also been many times wrong also.

 

[tomorton]

I think it's right to be wary of the "experts". Once upon a time they thought the earth was flat. And throughout history, despite being right many times they have also been many times wrong also.

This is rather different. The medieval flat earth belief really was pre-science and was based on religious faith. Different to now, observations, enquiry and debate by scientists were prohibited by the Church, backed up by the law.

If something needs to be done right now, and experts in the subject have the best available evidence and conclusions, the decision must be made on what they say. This is with full awareness that what they know now is more than what they knew 20 years ago, and what they will know in 20 years will be more than what they know now. This does not make them stupid or evil or lacking in integrity. Its just that experts cannot know today what they don't know. And who else would you ask for advice on a scientific issue? - private retail traders? Do me a favour!

 

[barjon]

Hi Jon,

Err, except that it doesn't - that's my main point. When did you last see or hear a climate change sceptic being interviewed on the BBC? Charles Moore guest editing Radio 4's Today programme last Saturday is very much the exception that proves the rule. And if you heard it, you'll remember the resistance he encountered just to be able to say the rather mild things that he did.

Chalk and cheese Jon - too funny!
Hard facts were ascertained courtesy of a referendum which delivered a clear and finite result. The losers then wasted three years attempting to undo democracy; so yes, they were rightly told to stop moaning. This is in no way comparable to the (virtually non-existant) debate on climate change where sceptics are denied a voice and many of the scientists that question the alarmists are retired. (The inference being that there are likely many more scientists who question climate change but keep schtum because they fear losing their jobs if they 'come out'.) Conversely, brexit deniers were actively encouraged and, far from being de-platformed and ignored, were given any amount of support, encouragement and MSM bandwidth. What happened to brexit deniers is the exact polar opposite to what's happening to climate change sceptics!
Tim.

thought that might get your tail wagging, Tim and that of “open minded” Signal (coo! Who’d have thunk it in the words of the prophet).

Back to climate change I think you will find that the research and debate is still very much alive between scientists who, as I said before, are the ones that matter, not the scribes or media jockeys. So the position is by no means finalised scientifically but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t act on the current view “just in case”. After all, we won’t really know who is right or wrong for hundreds if not thousands of years - same as brexit although those chickens will come home to roost a lot quicker than that.

 

[Signalcalc]

This is rather different. The medieval flat earth belief really was pre-science and was based on religious faith. Different to now, observations, enquiry and debate by scientists were prohibited by the Church, backed up by the law.

And now, opposing views are prohibited by MSM.

If something needs to be done right now, and experts in the subject have the best available evidence and conclusions, the decision must be made on what they say. This is with full awareness that what they know now is more than what they knew 20 years ago, and what they will know in 20 years will be more than what they know now. This does not make them stupid or evil or lacking in integrity. Its just that experts cannot know today what they don't know. And who else would you ask for advice on a scientific issue? - private retail traders? Do me a favour!

Except that none of the predictions made by the 'experts' over the last 50 years have come true.

 

[tomorton]

The worst thing about the climate change theorists is their faith that virtue-signalling affects the earth's climate.

 

[tomorton]

And now, opposing views are prohibited by MSM.



Except that none of the predictions made by the 'experts' over the last 50 years have come true.

MSM doesn't prohibit climate change denial, it just ignores it. Like they ignore the flat earth theory. MSM doesn't bother to report the on-going scientific work on climate change because it doesn't report on-going scientific work.

As for predictions by experts, I'm not sure what you mean. But when experts said in 1979 and 89 and 99 and 09 that this is what we know NOW about climate change, I'm sure they were telling the truth. When they said, based on what we know now this is what might happen, I'm sure that was also the truth. And we all have seen the disarmingly honest predictions on climate change, e.g. charts showing the range of global temperature rise in 5 or 10 or 50 years - these make it very clear that scientists do not know exactly what's going to happen, but what's more they're freely admitting they don't know.

 

[counter_violent]

The argument that the majority of scientists agree that the science is settled is very weak, but if that is what people wish to believe then the government sponsored MSM machine and the Globalists running the show are winning the media war, despite MSM being the minority view.

I have no doubt that the majority view of the 'sceptics' will be able to force a debate at some point in the future, but as the banksters and rich investors have to make a return on their investments then it will require a lot of protest to come from the silent majority at some point to get opposing views to the table.

This is where I see the parallel with Brexit, the remoaner minority view incessantly promoted by MSM, turns out to be just the minority view, the same is true for the climate alarmists, they are the minority view along with the scientists, but it is incessantly promoted by MSM to make it look like the majority view and people fall for it, MSM works (and it works because it is run by powerful state sponsored globalists, banksters, elite, rich etc).

A major difference with Brexit however is that MSM didn't use children in the Brexit debate as a main focus/guilt trip.

Hmm, actually they did focus on the kids and their "loss of opportunity" not being part of the wider EU. Academic activists, MSM, Celebrities (LOL), Illiberal Elite, Remoaner MP's, were falling over themselves to enlighten us to the "fact" (LOL) that we were condemning them to a life without a future.

Enjoy !

 

[Signalcalc]

MSM doesn't prohibit climate change denial, it just ignores it. Like they ignore the flat earth theory. MSM doesn't bother to report the on-going scientific work on climate change because it doesn't report on-going scientific work.

MSM prohibition includes no-platforming as Timsk has highlighted, prohibition includes opposing view scientists losing their role/job as David Bellamy did amongst others, MSM actively prohibits or censors the dissenting view not just ignores it, as it does with anything else that doesn't meet the MSM agenda.

As for predictions by experts, I'm not sure what you mean. But when experts said in 1979 and 89 and 99 and 09 that this is what we know NOW about climate change, I'm sure they were telling the truth. When they said, based on what we know now this is what might happen, I'm sure that was also the truth. And we all have seen the disarmingly honest predictions on climate change, e.g. charts showing the range of global temperature rise in 5 or 10 or 50 years - these make it very clear that scientists do not know exactly what's going to happen, but what's more they're freely admitting they don't know.

Alarmingly clear that scientists haven't a clue, yes, well highlighted

 

[tomorton]

........
Alarmingly clear that scientists haven't a clue, yes, well highlighted

Yes, that is the nature of science. You start off knowing a little and you expand it until you know more. This is usually by observation, experiment and hypothesis. So it stands to reason that at any static point on the continuum of knowledge on a scientific subject, scientific opinion will be better informed than 10 years ago but not as well informed as in 10 years' time. This does not demonstrate that experts are stupid and haven't a clue, it is an inevitable fact which is just a feature or side-issue of scientific progress.

 

[Signalcalc]

Yes, that is the nature of science. You start off knowing a little and you expand it until you know more. This is usually by observation, experiment and hypothesis. So it stands to reason that at any static point on the continuum of knowledge on a scientific subject, scientific opinion will be better informed than 10 years ago but not as well informed as in 10 years' time. This does not demonstrate that experts are stupid and haven't a clue, it is an inevitable fact which is just a feature or side-issue of scientific progress.

No problem with this, until the clueless position is adopted and used as a weapon to make us pay additional tax so that investors can make more money and does nothing to solve the problems that the alarmists are telling us exist.

 

[0007]

This is rather different. The medieval flat earth belief really was pre-science and was based on religious faith. Different to now, observations, enquiry and debate by scientists were prohibited by the Church, backed up by the law.

If something needs to be done right now, and experts in the subject have the best available evidence and conclusions, the decision must be made on what they say. This is with full awareness that what they know now is more than what they knew 20 years ago, and what they will know in 20 years will be more than what they know now. This does not make them stupid or evil or lacking in integrity. Its just that experts cannot know today what they don't know. And who else would you ask for advice on a scientific issue? - private retail traders? Do me a favour!

Religion or not, Experts have always had a following regardless of the eventual outcome of their "expertise". You only have to look at the history of medicine and medical procedures to see all the wrong ideas of experts. Remember the cases in Scotland where parents were deprived of their children due to the "medical experts"?

Private retail traders? – I would suggest that successful ones possess a healthy streak of scepticism and look very carefully at anything said by experts. It's a myth that climate change is too much akin to rocket science for us ordinary mortals to understand – anyone with half a brain cell and a bit of determination can get themselves wised-up. I am very much against the argument that we are unable to understand what it's all about – had far too much of that with Brexit.

 

[Signalcalc]

I've not paid any attention to what reason the BBC are ascribing for the wildfires in Oz, my guess is they are blaming global warming, if so, then here is an interesting scientific article that provides a natural reason.

Now if only we hadn't built homes in those pesky wildfire risk areas in the first place.............or floodplanes, or low lying coastal areas, or near volcanoes.......etc

Australia has had megadroughts for the last thousand years says ice core study « JoNova

joannenova.com.au

 

[counter_violent]

I've not paid any attention to what reason the BBC are ascribing for the wildfires in Oz, my guess is they are blaming global warming, if so, then here is an interesting scientific article that provides a natural reason.

Now if only we hadn't built homes in those pesky wildfire risk areas in the first place.............or floodplanes, or low lying coastal areas, or near volcanoes.......etc

Australia has had megadroughts for the last thousand years says ice core study « JoNova

joannenova.com.au

Saw this report yesterday. Combination of Natural cycles which are particularly unfavourable to Australia. At the end of the report she can't help but put the climate change spin on things

What is driving Australia's intense heat? - BBC Weather

Unusual sea temperatures help explain the intense heat fuelling Australia's bushfires

www.bbc.co.uk

.

 

[tomorton]

No problem with this, until the clueless position is adopted and used as a weapon to make us pay additional tax so that investors can make more money and does nothing to solve the problems that the alarmists are telling us exist.

Taxation is down to politicians and governance, not scientists and science.