Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
number 46 said:
Jon Snow is having an enormous w
k fest live at the climate bs conference!! on C4 news now! How have we ended up with such a large group of bell ends running the world!
Having caught the start of that fest, I switched to C5 while finishing off some work and was treated not long ago to Obama's nasal whining about how we should make no mistake because the eyes of the next generation were on COP21.k fest live at the climate bs conference!! on C4 news now! How have we ended up with such a large group of bell ends running the world!Doubtful - and even if so, given they're educated rather than indoctrinated, with an ounce of informed independent thought unmolested, they must be wondering wtf fools like Obama are blithering on about.
chris watton said:
Weary of internet morons said:
turbobloke said:
"whatever happened to Guam?"
Spending more time with his family, business interests and indulging sundry peccadilloes.
But clearly not forgotten
Thanks for that. I suddenly realised that I'd not seen him post anywhere for a while and worried he might be banned or that his business might have been hit by activists targeting him for expressing the heresy, I know they do work that way, so and been forced to retreat.Spending more time with his family, business interests and indulging sundry peccadilloes.
But clearly not forgotten
Edited by chris watton on Monday 30th November 18:57
I didn't have BSR down as a bully... but there you go.
currybum said:
LongQ said:
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.
Personally...what evidence would it take for you to hold your hands up and say that you are wrong? Something like, maybe, 12 years ago and for at least 10 years before that it was entirely obvious to me me that humanity was trashing the planet, peak oil meant that civilisation would be on its way out within 10 years and that limited resources of all sorts, once used, would mean the end of human life as we know it.
Clearly all people who could not see that were idiots and whether it was the cooling I recalled from newspaper articles in the 70s or the claimed warming from around a similar period that for some reason never registered with me at the time .... really didn't matter. Humanity was doomed and and another few million people on earth would prove the point.
Then it struck me that similar forecasts from way back in time had come to nothing, humanity was nothing (and would not be anywhere near stable as a society) without "progress", that the forecasts may look scientific but were based on guesswork and strong beliefs often influenced (to put it politely) by personal biases.
Having had some direct exposure to the ways modern academia operate d via embedded friends it struck me that all might not be at all as we plebs thought it might be and to look around and question things might be wise.
It also became obvious that those pushing the agenda, whether scientists, politicians, business people looking for unwarranted competitive advantages, the Enrons of this world or "climate activists", had no way of proving their claims. Ever. Indeed they were not interested in doing so, frankly, as to be able to do so would reduce their powers.
The entire concept of using ever present "Climate Change" with an early buzz phrase "AGW" attached to it to make the entire thing associate squarely and solely with human activities AND be disastrous has the potential to be a never ending bandwagon for oppression with no likelihood of a true "scientific" experiment to prove or disprove it. How could there be an experiment? No one understands the eco system fully (or even slightly as they admit) and there is no way to create a "control" comparison.
In other words there is no possible "Scientific" proof as we currently understand the concept. Yet, apparently, "97%" of "Climate Scientists" know that carbon consumption is a long term terminal problem "for the planet". They use the inability to prove anything as an argument that something "should be done" whether the is "proof" or not.
That makes the entire subject a perfect political football. And a classic example of an influential belief system into which we humans get sucked from time to time. The timing was quite perfect for a number of global "leaders" in the "west" to replace the "Cold War" that, mostly, melted when Russia changed tack and suddenly produce a glut of billionaires out of nothing.
The concept of generalised "carbon tax" on everything and for ever (or at least for as far ahead as anyone cares to project some numbers) must be so enticing that it's difficult to ignore. Maybe if one could pass a law making weekly trips to a government owned betting organisation compulsory whilst introducing a betting levy to discourage the practise the "lawmakers" would find it more attractive ..... but otherwise the suggested "controls" around CC, none of which can be proven as useful before being implemented, are as close as one can get. Perhaps even better as a means of financial power shifters reaping the rewards of the efforts involved.
I can see no other reason for arguing that the unprovable consequences are to become evident so far into the future (by which time few people alive and able to assess the matters today will be alive and most of those possibly likely to be affected will not be conceived for another generation or more) yet have to be taken into account immediately. That position should make no sense at all to the masses. I suspect the masses know that.
They also know that the politicians can fund the scientists to do their bidding and give them reasons to pontificate on the world stage for the benefit of their egos. Which seems to be exactly where we are now - politics in Paris.
This thread was started because it became evident that Politics had to take over the meme since Science was never ever going to be able to "prove" anything here and any "balance of probability" would require a longer period of geological time than humans in need of coercive influences can relate to.
So the possibility of full proof scientific proof, either way, is unlikely for many reasons. Thus we are dealing mainly with social politics. So the question becomes "What political direction would be satisfactory in terms of likely short term effect and long term outcome to make it attractive to participate in its proposals"?
At the moment I have no idea - but certainly nothing I have seen or heard so far. Indeed almost everything touted seems likely to create more problems than they could possibly solve. We humans are, according to the campaigners, very good at that. Burning fossils fuels is a prime example. Surely the "precautionary principle" should therefore guide as against doing anything at all.
So. That's my answer to your question as things stand today.
What would be your answer to the same question?
Excellent summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=silfiTY32xo
Scuffers said:
He's probably down to his last $500 million and needs a hand-out.I was listening to Sir David Attenborough no slough when it comes to knowledge regarding our planet and nature.
Is he bought off? To have a strong opinion the way we humans effect nature.With our pollution destroying wildlive and ourself with our antiquated fossil fuel policies.David Attenborough doesn't come across to me to suffer fools easily.
He talks about the power of the sun and to harnass some of it for our needs.If this is a political debate there is to much vested interest to keep the status quo.
Is he bought off? To have a strong opinion the way we humans effect nature.With our pollution destroying wildlive and ourself with our antiquated fossil fuel policies.David Attenborough doesn't come across to me to suffer fools easily.
He talks about the power of the sun and to harnass some of it for our needs.If this is a political debate there is to much vested interest to keep the status quo.
Foppo said:
I was listening to Sir David Attenborough no slough when it comes to knowledge regarding our planet and nature.
Is he bought off? To have a strong opinion the way we humans effect nature.With our pollution destroying wildlive and ourself with our antiquated fossil fuel policies.David Attenborough doesn't come across to me to suffer fools easily.
He talks about the power of the sun and to harnass some of it for our needs.If this is a political debate there is to much vested interest to keep the status quo.
I don't think he is bought off.Is he bought off? To have a strong opinion the way we humans effect nature.With our pollution destroying wildlive and ourself with our antiquated fossil fuel policies.David Attenborough doesn't come across to me to suffer fools easily.
He talks about the power of the sun and to harnass some of it for our needs.If this is a political debate there is to much vested interest to keep the status quo.
I do think that if he had an opinion that differed from the mainstream, his services would no longer be required. He would lose his income and become ostracised.
I doubt Sir David has enough marbles left to do anything except read direct from a script these days.
Although he seems more interested in a population cull that global warming anyway.
Here's another classic contradiction, despite the widely claimed rising sea levels and drowning islands, the Vanuatu National Advisory Board website contains a peer reviewed report on Kiribati saying it is nothing to do with climate change. Just natural and bad management and the islands are actually growing (although some sand banks are naturally moving/lost).
The data also actually shows that there has been no dramatic sea level rise in the capital of Vanuatu over the last few decades either, just the natural cycling.
And if sea levels are rising so rapidly, why would the Maldives build airports and resorts on such shallow reclaimed land!
Patently these island nations don't actually believe in climate change. But this doesn't stop them claiming all sorts of rubbish.... But who can blame them for stuffing their faces if the IPCC invites them to a feast laid out on silver platters, and the only price is to declare that they are victims of CO2.
Although he seems more interested in a population cull that global warming anyway.
Here's another classic contradiction, despite the widely claimed rising sea levels and drowning islands, the Vanuatu National Advisory Board website contains a peer reviewed report on Kiribati saying it is nothing to do with climate change. Just natural and bad management and the islands are actually growing (although some sand banks are naturally moving/lost).
The data also actually shows that there has been no dramatic sea level rise in the capital of Vanuatu over the last few decades either, just the natural cycling.
And if sea levels are rising so rapidly, why would the Maldives build airports and resorts on such shallow reclaimed land!
Patently these island nations don't actually believe in climate change. But this doesn't stop them claiming all sorts of rubbish.... But who can blame them for stuffing their faces if the IPCC invites them to a feast laid out on silver platters, and the only price is to declare that they are victims of CO2.
Mr GrimNasty said:
Although he seems more interested in a population cull that global warming anyway.
So a bit like Jonathon Porritt then? And I suppose like him he won't be booking a family trip to Dignitas or a bulk sterilisation of his younger relatives but expects other people will be the ones reducing their numbers? Funny how advocates of population reduction never lead by example...The Paris Climate Talks Will Emit 300,000 Tons of CO2 - According to Wired.com
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-paris-talks-could...
Also - Climate March Turns Violent As Protesters Throw Memorial Candles At Police - Lovely caring folks most days, upset by the issue, I'm sure
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/29/paris-c...
http://www.wired.com/2015/11/the-paris-talks-could...
Also - Climate March Turns Violent As Protesters Throw Memorial Candles At Police - Lovely caring folks most days, upset by the issue, I'm sure
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/29/paris-c...
Edited by Silver Smudger on Tuesday 1st December 02:15
Mr GrimNasty said:
...And if sea levels are rising so rapidly, why would the Maldives build airports and resorts on such shallow reclaimed land!
...
Naughty Mr Staw Man....
All the reporting I've seen have suggested that the Maldives will be underwater by the end of this century.
85 years is enough time to screw many billions out of tourism and then up sticks. Jobs a good 'en.
zygalski said:
Naughty Mr Staw Man.
All the reporting I've seen have suggested that the Maldives will be underwater by the end of this century.
85 years is enough time to screw many billions out of tourism and then up sticks. Jobs a good 'en.
Ah, 'suggested'. By a computer model perchance? Followed by a few 'perhaps' and leavened by some 'maybe'.All the reporting I've seen have suggested that the Maldives will be underwater by the end of this century.
85 years is enough time to screw many billions out of tourism and then up sticks. Jobs a good 'en.
Kawasicki said:
Foppo said:
I was listening to Sir David Attenborough no slough when it comes to knowledge regarding our planet and nature.
Is he bought off? To have a strong opinion the way we humans effect nature.With our pollution destroying wildlive and ourself with our antiquated fossil fuel policies.David Attenborough doesn't come across to me to suffer fools easily.
He talks about the power of the sun and to harnass some of it for our needs.If this is a political debate there is to much vested interest to keep the status quo.
I don't think he is bought off.Is he bought off? To have a strong opinion the way we humans effect nature.With our pollution destroying wildlive and ourself with our antiquated fossil fuel policies.David Attenborough doesn't come across to me to suffer fools easily.
He talks about the power of the sun and to harnass some of it for our needs.If this is a political debate there is to much vested interest to keep the status quo.
I do think that if he had an opinion that differed from the mainstream, his services would no longer be required. He would lose his income and become ostracised.
Edited by powerstroke on Tuesday 1st December 08:14
rovermorris999 said:
Ah, 'suggested'. By a computer model perchance? Followed by a few 'perhaps' and leavened by some 'maybe'.
Well quite.Most times it's deniers that misquote supposed absolute certainty from the scientific community with regards to climate change.
A community of straw men, if you like.
Tonga facing up to rising sea levels
Another BEEB make believe story with no basis in fact
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34738408
Another BEEB make believe story with no basis in fact
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34738408
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff