Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
I'd bet that any potential MP wouldn't get past the selection stage these days. Independent, intellectual thought isn't on the political agenda anymore.
But that’s just glib nonsense that you have to believe to help you explain how everyone else like experts and scientists and politicians etc all seem duped by AGW science. Because you’ve decided it’s “all b
ks” you’ve then had to create these increasingly unlikely scenarios to explain the fact that you’re in a tiny minority with no real expertise of your own.Scientists disagree with you = they’re wrong or lying
Politicians disagree with you = they’re not independent thinkers or are lying to get elected
Governments = wealth redistribution? Lying to get elected?
Isn’t it more likely that you’re the one that’s wrong?
Politicians are just following the herd. Do you believe anyone would get selected as an MP candidate at the moment who didn't believe we're in a 'climate emergency?
Aren't governments mandated to distribute/apportion wealth then? Thought that's what all the economics stuff they spout is about. You know, taxes, benefits, VAT, etc. etc,
Gadgetmac said:
The NIPCC.
AKA The Heartland Institute and 2 buddies.
They promote literature published by climate contrarians and likewise pay them to contribute their findings to the NIPCC.
This is the same organisation that contested second hand smoke, ozone depletion, acid rain amongst other things. It's now been so damaged by it's backers pulling out it's had to discontinue it's yearly climate conference.
And you highlighted then as if they have some sort of gravitas in the scientific community.
And you said I have no appreciation of the subject
Same question as above. Can YOU disprove his work?AKA The Heartland Institute and 2 buddies.
They promote literature published by climate contrarians and likewise pay them to contribute their findings to the NIPCC.
This is the same organisation that contested second hand smoke, ozone depletion, acid rain amongst other things. It's now been so damaged by it's backers pulling out it's had to discontinue it's yearly climate conference.
And you highlighted then as if they have some sort of gravitas in the scientific community.
And you said I have no appreciation of the subject
Extinction Rebellion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4
These are the idiots trying to influence governments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4
These are the idiots trying to influence governments
jshell said:
How do his bona fides and credentials compare to yours? Just asking, as you can destroy his life's work with some cut'n'paste. Can you disprove his work? After all, he's not disagreeing with GHG theory, only the ramping and hysteria...
The whole debate isn't about GHG theory...it is about the climate science generated/supported alarmism.So if he disagrees with the hysteria then he is on the denier side.
Is there actually still even a debate about this, in 2019? Despite all the scientific evidence that's been accumulated that supports climate change and indeed anthropogenic global warming? There appears to be a political consensus on this, there is no meaningful debate.
We know that human activity has caused and is causing large greenhouse gas emissions, we know these activities have coincided with a sharp rise in greenhouse gases measured in the earths atmosphere, we know these greenhouse gases have a warming effect in the lab and in the earths atmosphere.
We know that human activity has caused and is causing large greenhouse gas emissions, we know these activities have coincided with a sharp rise in greenhouse gases measured in the earths atmosphere, we know these greenhouse gases have a warming effect in the lab and in the earths atmosphere.
MX6 said:
Is there actually still even a debate about this, in 2019? Despite all the scientific evidence that's been accumulated that supports climate change and indeed anthropogenic global warming? There appears to be a political consensus on this, there is no meaningful debate.
We know that human activity has caused and is causing large greenhouse gas emissions, we know these activities have coincided with a sharp rise in greenhouse gases measured in the earths atmosphere, we know these greenhouse gases have a warming effect in the lab and in the earths atmosphere.
Yep, still ongoing. Isn't debate great!We know that human activity has caused and is causing large greenhouse gas emissions, we know these activities have coincided with a sharp rise in greenhouse gases measured in the earths atmosphere, we know these greenhouse gases have a warming effect in the lab and in the earths atmosphere.
Kawasicki said:
jshell said:
How do his bona fides and credentials compare to yours? Just asking, as you can destroy his life's work with some cut'n'paste. Can you disprove his work? After all, he's not disagreeing with GHG theory, only the ramping and hysteria...
The whole debate isn't about GHG theory...it is about the climate science generated/supported alarmism.So if he disagrees with the hysteria then he is on the denier side.
Singer is a real, old school, properly qualified climate scientist who believes in global warming, but cautions against the hysteria. The 'true believers' have a problem with real climate scientists as they cannot attack them for 'denying', but they hate them for not being 'on the team'.
I've watched the same thing in engineering for years. A new breed of clean hands, 'I'm a a manager, listen to me' style of engineering has become prevalent in many disciplines. They all want to tell everyone else what to do without doing, or even understanding the work themselves. What they are is useless...
MX6 said:
Is there actually still even a debate about this, in 2019? Despite all the scientific evidence that's been accumulated that supports climate change and indeed anthropogenic global warming? There appears to be a political consensus on this, there is no meaningful debate.
We know that human activity has caused and is causing large greenhouse gas emissions, we know these activities have coincided with a sharp rise in greenhouse gases measured in the earths atmosphere, we know these greenhouse gases have a warming effect in the lab and in the earths atmosphere.
The only debate is deciphering the effect of man's contribution to CO2 levels and warming. It's left the hysterical side of the subject frothing whilst realists caution against that hysteria rather than science.We know that human activity has caused and is causing large greenhouse gas emissions, we know these activities have coincided with a sharp rise in greenhouse gases measured in the earths atmosphere, we know these greenhouse gases have a warming effect in the lab and in the earths atmosphere.
I believe that the science no longer matters though. We, in the West, cannot dent the output of developing countries who will not change their aspirations. Politics, huh?
jshell said:
El stovey said:
How do his bona fides and credentials compare to yours? Just asking, as you can destroy his life's work with some cut'n'paste. Can you disprove his work? After all, he's not disagreeing with GHG theory, only the ramping and hysteria...jshell said:
Your post deserves more note. This is actually the 'crux'. Denialism is now anyone who doesn't follow the Doomsday scenario.
Singer is a real, old school, properly qualified climate scientist who believes in global warming, but cautions against the hysteria. The 'true believers' have a problem with real climate scientists as they cannot attack them for 'denying', but they hate them for not being 'on the team'.
I've watched the same thing in engineering for years. A new breed of clean hands, 'I'm a a manager, listen to me' style of engineering has become prevalent in many disciplines. They all want to tell everyone else what to do without doing, or even understanding the work themselves. What they are is useless...
The Team think that the only way to get people to live in a more environmentally friendly way is to scare them into submission. The problem they have is that they need to keep upping the alarmist ante to keep the fear level high, and that the disconnect between the doom laden forecasts and the actual relatively benign behaviour of the climate is growing all the time.Singer is a real, old school, properly qualified climate scientist who believes in global warming, but cautions against the hysteria. The 'true believers' have a problem with real climate scientists as they cannot attack them for 'denying', but they hate them for not being 'on the team'.
I've watched the same thing in engineering for years. A new breed of clean hands, 'I'm a a manager, listen to me' style of engineering has become prevalent in many disciplines. They all want to tell everyone else what to do without doing, or even understanding the work themselves. What they are is useless...
Climate science....where it is tricky to find the balance between being honest and being effective.
El stovey said:
jshell said:
Sorry, perhaps I’m missing something but didn’t you post his credentials and highlight his involvement in the NIPCC? Kawasicki said:
jshell said:
Your post deserves more note. This is actually the 'crux'. Denialism is now anyone who doesn't follow the Doomsday scenario.
Singer is a real, old school, properly qualified climate scientist who believes in global warming, but cautions against the hysteria. The 'true believers' have a problem with real climate scientists as they cannot attack them for 'denying', but they hate them for not being 'on the team'.
I've watched the same thing in engineering for years. A new breed of clean hands, 'I'm a a manager, listen to me' style of engineering has become prevalent in many disciplines. They all want to tell everyone else what to do without doing, or even understanding the work themselves. What they are is useless...
The Team think that the only way to get people to live in a more environmentally friendly way is to scare them into submission. The problem they have is that they need to keep upping the alarmist ante to keep the fear level high, and that the disconnect between the doom laden forecasts and the actual relatively benign behaviour of the climate is growing all the time.Singer is a real, old school, properly qualified climate scientist who believes in global warming, but cautions against the hysteria. The 'true believers' have a problem with real climate scientists as they cannot attack them for 'denying', but they hate them for not being 'on the team'.
I've watched the same thing in engineering for years. A new breed of clean hands, 'I'm a a manager, listen to me' style of engineering has become prevalent in many disciplines. They all want to tell everyone else what to do without doing, or even understanding the work themselves. What they are is useless...
Climate science....where it is tricky to find the balance between being honest and being effective.
robinessex said:
Climate change: Major emitters accused of blocking progress at UN talks
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Delegates from developing countries have reacted angrily to what they see as attempts to block progress at the COP25 meeting in Madrid.
One negotiator told the BBC that the talks had failed to find agreement on a range of issues because of the blocking actions of some large emitters.
Carlos Fuller from Belize said that Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and China were "part of the problem".
Other observers said there was a serious risk of failure at the talks.
Ministers from all over the world have arrived in Madrid for the high-end negotiations that will determine the final outcome of this conference.
Despite a huge climate demonstration on the streets of the Spanish capital last Friday, hopes of an ambitious declaration at COP25 have smacked straight into the realities of politics and entrenched positions.......continues
Oh dear, more squabbling among the children at the party. The poor don't like the rich. No surprise there then. I can see this all going down the pan eventually.
The chances of getting a jamboree with 26k attendees to agree are small.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-507...
Delegates from developing countries have reacted angrily to what they see as attempts to block progress at the COP25 meeting in Madrid.
One negotiator told the BBC that the talks had failed to find agreement on a range of issues because of the blocking actions of some large emitters.
Carlos Fuller from Belize said that Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and China were "part of the problem".
Other observers said there was a serious risk of failure at the talks.
Ministers from all over the world have arrived in Madrid for the high-end negotiations that will determine the final outcome of this conference.
Despite a huge climate demonstration on the streets of the Spanish capital last Friday, hopes of an ambitious declaration at COP25 have smacked straight into the realities of politics and entrenched positions.......continues
Oh dear, more squabbling among the children at the party. The poor don't like the rich. No surprise there then. I can see this all going down the pan eventually.
What we need is a global dictator.
robinessex said:
Extinction Rebellion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4
These are the idiots trying to influence governments
Jesus Wept! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4
These are the idiots trying to influence governments
Incidentally, ER are not idiots - they are anarchists (simply look up the backgrounds of these d
heads!)As for Dr Rupert Read.
What a f
king fruitcake! He should not be allowed in the same room as impressionable children under 12.His crackpot book is not subtle, nor or his crackpot lectures. No question marks from this d
head, it's the end, full stop. He tells these young children that they might not live much longer.
The utter s
te from this cult, and it is a cult, and full of prophets of doom amazingly gets attention from so-called 'intelligent' people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAaWY3h0uc
Addressing young kids with 'You're gonna die young...!!'
You couldn't make this highly wicked and irresponsible brainwashing s
te up. But they do! It would be laughable, if it was not so worrying. Unf
king believable. The lunatic asylum needs its doors re-opening.
dandarez said:
robinessex said:
Extinction Rebellion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4
These are the idiots trying to influence governments
Jesus Wept! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NSkQyQLvW4
These are the idiots trying to influence governments
Incidentally, ER are not idiots - they are anarchists (simply look up the backgrounds of these d
heads!)As for Dr Rupert Read.
What a f
king fruitcake! He should not be allowed in the same room as impressionable children under 12.His crackpot book is not subtle, nor or his crackpot lectures. No question marks from this d
head, it's the end, full stop. He tells these young children that they might not live much longer.
The utter s
te from this cult, and it is a cult, and full of prophets of doom amazingly gets attention from so-called 'intelligent' people. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAaWY3h0uc
Addressing young kids with 'You're gonna die young...!!'
You couldn't make this highly wicked and irresponsible brainwashing s
te up. But they do! It would be laughable, if it was not so worrying. Unf
king believable. The lunatic asylum needs its doors re-opening.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff