Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
don4l said:
durbster said:
This is very amusing. Watching you lot get rabid about the Paris summit is far more entertaining than the coverage itself.
Don't you know that this summit is our last chance to save the planet?
In 2009 we only had fifty days, now we only have 10.
es uttered any ridiculous deadlines yet? Each of these bunfights usually produces at least one willing hostage to fortune; it's the kind of thing that deserves to be assembled into a youtube mash-up, an endless stream of self-important gufftraps predicting the end of the world in x days/weeks/years if we don't save the polar bear/pay more tax/drive less/produce fewer rugrats/vote for them/erect more windmills.hidetheelephants said:
don4l said:
durbster said:
This is very amusing. Watching you lot get rabid about the Paris summit is far more entertaining than the coverage itself.
Don't you know that this summit is our last chance to save the planet?
In 2009 we only had fifty days, now we only have 10.
es uttered any ridiculous deadlines yet? Each of these bunfights usually produces at least one willing hostage to fortune; it's the kind of thing that deserves to be assembled into a youtube mash-up, an endless stream of self-important gufftraps predicting the end of the world in x days/weeks/years if we don't save the polar bear/pay more tax/drive less/produce fewer rugrats/vote for them/erect more windmills.http://www.theguardian.com/discussion/p/4ejbp
http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2015/11/30/Par...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id...
don4l said:
durbster said:
This is very amusing. Watching you lot get rabid about the Paris summit is far more entertaining than the coverage itself.
Don't you know that this summit is our last chance to save the planet?
In 2009 we only had fifty days, now we only have 10.
sa_20v said:
I think a sizeable majority of the public aren't buying it, despite the best propaganda efforts of the news media.You have to wonder if they ever look at their own comments section. Always full of utterly scathing stuff.
sa_20v said:
article said:
"2015 is on course for being the warmest year on record. The current average global temperature is around 15C, 1C warmer than before the industrial revolution."
So we're all going to die in a fiery hell, but it would still be wise to bring a jumper 
currybum said:
It like those polls in the US where only 50% of the population accept evolution....the results are an interesting social marker but do not reflect on the science.
We're in the politics thread, not the science thread. What the population thinks is very important when it comes to election manifestos and who gets into power next.
Camoradi said:
sa_20v said:
article said:
"2015 is on course for being the warmest year on record. The current average global temperature is around 15C, 1C warmer than before the industrial revolution."
So we're all going to die in a fiery hell, but it would still be wise to bring a jumper Buy Damart and candles.
currybum said:
Beati Dogu said:
The science. 
I suspect that neither you, I nor anyone else on this forum has the time or inclination to dedicate a whole modest paying career to the study of the subject…so much like other scientific subjects I look to the weight of scientific consensus and base my stand point on those.Also if you abide by consensus do you still think there's an invisible atmosphere on Mercury? What about gastric ulcers? And bat sonar? Why? All of the above are areas of scientific investigation, a few illustrations from many, where consensus was claptrap.
Having read the climate science literature for 30 years, there's nothing in there from the believer side that comes anywhere close to the politics in terms of explaining what's going on.
LongQ's thread sewed up the stitch-up.
currybum said:
sa_20v said:
So they asked a whole load of laymen to express yes/no on a complex specialized subject...that they have not the skills or knowledge to answer with anything other than a "I recon"...It like those polls in the US where only 50% of the population accept evolution....the results are an interesting social marker but do not reflect on the science.
The "leaders" of the crowds know full well that science detail will be greatly disinteresting to most of them yet they need to carry the majority and find a crowd leader or two to do that. Thus they simplify the message at every opportunity and reduce the understanding for the masses to what they think as suitable sound bites.
It seems they are failing more than succeeding.
The US polls you allude to are, presumably, clear examples of the strength of belief systems. The "World leaders" gathered in Paris are being represented (at least those we are hearing about in the UK media) as firm believers in the guilt of humanity related to climate change but they say nothing of why they believe that - it would be far too constraining for them later and they know they they would lose the listeners almost immediately.
Likewise they say nothing about the results they expect to deliver keeping things deliberately vague so it can mean more things to more people and they are left unfettered by promises they have no hope of keeping. It's a cult. A club. Somewhere that feels safe to them as part of a group of like-minded people where they are less exposed, they believe, to being found to be wrong and taking a hit to their egos and vanity. Safety in numbers when they understand nothing.
They perceive they have more to gain short term than to lose long term. History, we have seen, can be re-written. In any case it is never remembered well.
Keep things simple. Appeal to the imagination of the masses using the apparent prestige of some individuals. Classic social and political thinking. The trick, for them, is to make is a long lasting widespread unquestioned mass belief. I don't think they have yet achieved that. If they had this conference would not require so much propaganda output. It would not really need to exist at all although it probably would as a vehicle for exhibitions of vanity and attempts at prestige building.
That the French had to deploy riot police to deal with "demonstrators" such a short time after the shootings and bombings says something about the sort of people the entire fools errand attracts to its core.
currybum said:
turbobloke said:
There is no consensus as claimed on global warming, claims to the contrary are weightless.
NASA has a list of the scientific organisations that agree, I suspect neither of us have the skills to robustly refute the evidence they make that assessment on....otherwise I would be making millions working for an oil company ;-)I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why they are wrong...but I can't assess them all, so for the time being I'll go with NASA and their list over the consensus of a sub forum of a motoring website.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
When I think I 'believe' something is true, I like to test myself as to what evidence would convince me that I'm wrong....As its not dogmatic of me I know the bar I have set for changing my mind..and its not all that high.
The various iteration of the Science thread on the subject will have a lot of references to sources outside this "sub forum of a motoring web site". Have a browse and see what you find.
But a question.
The forum has, from memory, been around as long as, if not longer than, your membership of PH.
Why the sudden interest now?
What kept you away before?
I'm genuinely interested to understand where you stand.
One of the things I am confused about is rising sea levels. I live alongside an Estuary 25yards from it. We have kept records on a post noting notable high tides for about 15 years there is no evidence of "rising" seas levels if anything tides seem lower now than 15 years ago they are certainly not higher.
What we have noticed is the increase in wind over the last 6 or 7 years throughout the summer and the warmer wetter winters.
What we have noticed is the increase in wind over the last 6 or 7 years throughout the summer and the warmer wetter winters.
currybum said:
sa_20v said:
So they asked a whole load of laymen to express yes/no on a complex specialized subject...that they have not the skills or knowledge to answer with anything other than a "I recon"...It like those polls in the US where only 50% of the population accept evolution....the results are an interesting social marker but do not reflect on the science.
I'd trust NASA with my life.
Unless I were an astronaut.
currybum said:
turbobloke said:
There is no consensus as claimed on global warming, claims to the contrary are weightless.
NASA has a list of the scientific organisations that agree, I suspect neither of us have the skills to robustly refute the evidence they make that assessment on....otherwise I would be making millions working for an oil company ;-)I'm sure you have a thousand reasons why they are wrong...but I can't assess them all, so for the time being I'll go with NASA and their list over the consensus of a sub forum of a motoring website.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
When I think I 'believe' something is true, I like to test myself as to what evidence would convince me that I'm wrong....As its not a dogmatic subject for me, I know the bar I have set for changing my mind..and its not all that high.
Edited by currybum on Monday 30th November 16:42
Planet earth had been in existance for circa 4.5 billion years. In that time, it's gone through a mulitude of climate changes, NONE of them due to hummans, because we weren't here. Now, all of a sudden, in the last, lets see, wow, 150 yrs, man had dished out 0.00585% extra CO2, and that's goint to tip the planet into a path of self destruction ? When there is no proof CO2 raises planet temperatures anyway. When dinosaurs roamed around, the CO2 levels were 2-5 times higher. And they lived for circa 50,000,00 years ok. Go figure
currybum said:
Personally...what evidence would it take for you to hold your hands up and say that you are wrong?
For me if there was any evidence that temperatures didn't stop rising 19 years ago, then I would take a fresh look.If new evidence came to light that Michael Mann hadn't fiddled the data for his ho
If the Met Office, NASA or GISS could show me raw data that showed any warming it is possible that I would be convinced.
The reason that none of these things have happened is glaringly obvious. Some people just do not want to see the truth.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff