Greta Thunberg is Simpal Cindy?
Discussion
Nickgnome said:
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
What are your thoughts on the points the young German girl brings to light Nick?
Irrespective of what some of her message conveys, she has managed to get the ear of some significant politicians, which in my opinion is a good thing. One way or another you will pay for the consequences of man’s impact on the climate and the relatively small amount of additional taxation now, will pale into insignificance as the worldwide impact increases year on year.
You may already be paying for it with increased insurance premiums and council tax, income tax to pay for current events.
I’m sure you will be more than happy by the mass migration caused when areas of the globe become inhospitable for habitation.
I take a risk averse approach and listen to a consensus of scientists in a similar manner to consultants over a medical issue.
Regarding the highlighted section, this is where I have the problem. How is the proportion of natural variation vs MM calculated? If you could just explain this to me, I may be convinced but as it stands I feel the whole idea of AGW a bit of a hoax to tax us to oblivion. As I mentioned earlier, there are some serious issues caused by man having a devastating effect on the environment but very limited resources are used to combat and resolve those issues. Whereas the whole establishment across the western world is fixated with doing something about CC where there is little to no verifiable evidence as to what proportion, if any, is attributable to man.
Nickgnome said:
Cold said:
Nickgnome said:
I take a risk averse approach and listen to a consensus of scientists in a similar manner to consultants over a medical issue.
Is Greta a scientist? So what exactly are you trying to say?
Langweilig said:
Filming will start from the open topped bus parade from Manchester to London, thousands of worshippers will line the streets self flagellating as Greta passes by............Langweilig said:
Well, we don’t have to watch and I, for one, won’t. I still resent taxpayers’ money being wasted in this way.
WCZ said:
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
I doubt many in power will be brave enough to take her sideCold said:
Nickgnome said:
Cold said:
Nickgnome said:
I take a risk averse approach and listen to a consensus of scientists in a similar manner to consultants over a medical issue.
Is Greta a scientist? So what exactly are you trying to say?
The question is, are you really willing to take the risk that the overwhelming opinion of the experts in the field are wrong and a relatively few, often biased through funding or other vested interests and motives are correct?
Cancers are better diagnosed by expert clinicians rather than a few snake oil salesmen.
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
The idea that there is a consensus in science I find totally baffling as it defies the whole premise of scientific protocol.
Pointless trying to explain this to people. I’ve given up. If someone is claiming that “the science is settled” then they clearly do not understand science. It’s impossible to reason with people who have no grasp of the subject. As the saying goes, it’s much easier to fool people than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.CarreraLightweightRacing said:
Thanks for your detailed response Nick
Regarding the highlighted section, this is where I have the problem. How is the proportion of natural variation vs MM calculated? If you could just explain this to me, I may be convinced but as it stands I feel the whole idea of AGW a bit of a hoax to tax us to oblivion. As I mentioned earlier, there are some serious issues caused by man having a devastating effect on the environment but very limited resources are used to combat and resolve those issues. Whereas the whole establishment across the western world is fixated with doing something about CC where there is little to no verifiable evidence as to what proportion, if any, is attributable to man.
I studied engineering and then moved into a slightly different field. Regarding the highlighted section, this is where I have the problem. How is the proportion of natural variation vs MM calculated? If you could just explain this to me, I may be convinced but as it stands I feel the whole idea of AGW a bit of a hoax to tax us to oblivion. As I mentioned earlier, there are some serious issues caused by man having a devastating effect on the environment but very limited resources are used to combat and resolve those issues. Whereas the whole establishment across the western world is fixated with doing something about CC where there is little to no verifiable evidence as to what proportion, if any, is attributable to man.
You are not taxed to oblivion or even close. It’s so trifling small to have no impact on most lifestyle.
I take a pragmatic approach and I tend on balance to listen to experts in their field whether it be scientists, the guys from Intel with whom I once had the privilege to be involved, other consultants etc.etc. On balance they come up with the correct analysis of the data they have collected.
The question is, are you willing to take the chance with your children’s and grandchildren’s future? Personally I’m not and fortunately my adult daughter and her husband agree with me, on behalf of my granddaughter.
Kenny Powers said:
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
The idea that there is a consensus in science I find totally baffling as it defies the whole premise of scientific protocol.
Pointless trying to explain this to people. I’ve given up. If someone is claiming that “the science is settled” then they clearly do not understand science. It’s impossible to reason with people who have no grasp of the subject. As the saying goes, it’s much easier to fool people than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled.Surely the question is that presumably you are content to go to the doctor or consultant and optician. You probably use experts in the field of engineering if you like your cars. Yet climate science is seen as an inconvenience as it flies in the face of your wants.
Nickgnome said:
You do not need to listen to Greta, but please listen to the consensus of the vast majority of qualified scientist in the field of climate science.
The question is, are you really willing to take the risk that the overwhelming opinion of the experts in the field are wrong and a relatively few, often biased through funding or other vested interests and motives are correct?
Cancers are better diagnosed by expert clinicians rather than a few snake oil salesmen.
Cancer is a great analogy Nick, big pharma being the equivalent of the IPCC and other vested interest groups promoting chemo and other expensive treatments. The reality is naturally occurring cancer vitamin B17 "Laetrile" is banned in many countries including the UK, Europe and the USA and that no further clinical trials should be done using this option declared in 1977. Strange world, you would imagine all avenues should be considered in order to find the best solution, but a bit like CC, a consensus has been declared so I guess the science is settled...The question is, are you really willing to take the risk that the overwhelming opinion of the experts in the field are wrong and a relatively few, often biased through funding or other vested interests and motives are correct?
Cancers are better diagnosed by expert clinicians rather than a few snake oil salesmen.
Nickgnome said:
CarreraLightweightRacing said:
What are your thoughts on the points the young German girl brings to light Nick?
Irrespective of what some of her message conveys, she has managed to get the ear of some significant politicians, which in my opinion is a good thing. One way or another you will pay for the consequences of man’s impact on the climate and the relatively small amount of additional taxation now, will pale into insignificance as the worldwide impact increases year on year.
You may already be paying for it with increased insurance premiums and council tax, income tax to pay for current events.
I’m sure you will be more than happy by the mass migration caused when areas of the globe become inhospitable for habitation.
I take a risk averse approach and listen to a consensus of scientists in a similar manner to consultants over a medical issue.
Edited by Nickgnome on Monday 10th February 18:57
Nickgnome said:
One way or another you will pay for the consequences of man’s impact on the climate and the relatively small amount of additional taxation now, will pale into insignificance as the worldwide impact increases year on year.
What are these impacts? And can we revisit your predictions each year to quantify them? Will you retract them when they’re proven to be false? Langweilig said:
The new voice of Pingu?Diderot said:
Nickgnome said:
One way or another you will pay for the consequences of man’s impact on the climate and the relatively small amount of additional taxation now, will pale into insignificance as the worldwide impact increases year on year.
What are these impacts? And can we revisit your predictions each year to quantify them? Will you retract them when they’re proven to be false? When New York went under water in 2015 as predicted
When the arctic ocean was summer sea ice-free in 2008/2013/2016 (etc), recalling how that came about first time with no need for all the other false predictions
When the polar bear population declined by 67% as predicted
When the continental USA warmed by 6 deg F between 1990 and 2020
When Glacier National Park held a Press Conference in front of signs that said "the glaciers will all be gone by the year 2020" because the last ice crystal vanished on 31 Dec 2019 as predicted, previously they thought they might have to remove the signs due to being embarrassingly wrong
Each of those memories would of course be fake - figments of a feverishly hot imagination.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff