Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
More common sense prevailing... on Friday a federal appeals court dismissed a kiddies' lawsuit which claimed USA government climate policy put their future in jeopardy. The court decided their futures had not been stolen? How dare they!
In other climate poltiics news, not long after the Shellenberger testimony to congress:
Ocasio-Cortez last year "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
AOC now says “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."
That begs the question, just how many unintelligent sea sponges does AOC believe there are in the world of climate politics and the USA / UK / Sweden in general?
Climate muppetry and the swallowing of information pollution, truly TAOS.
What do you expect in trumps America you racist gammon.In other climate poltiics news, not long after the Shellenberger testimony to congress:
Shellenberger said:
I am an energy analyst and environmentalist dedicated to the goals of universal prosperity, peace, and environmental protection. Between 2003 and 2009 I advocated for a large federal investment in renewables, many of which were made as part of the 2009 stimulus. And since 2013 I have advocated for the continued operation of nuclear plants around the world and thus helped prevent emissions from increasing the equivalent of adding 24 million cars to the road.
I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns.
No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.
The sheer nonsense of a climate emergency and imminent extinction is being backtracked in surprising places. I also care about getting the facts and science right. I believe that scientists, journalists, and advocates have an obligation to represent climate science accurately, even if doing so reduces the saliency of our concerns.
No credible scientific body has claimed climate change threatens the collapse of civilization, much less the extinction of the human species. And yet some activists, scientists, and journalists make such apocalyptic assertions, which I believe contribute to rising levels of anxiety, including among adolescents, and worsening political polarization.
Ocasio-Cortez last year "the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change”
AOC now says “Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal."
That begs the question, just how many unintelligent sea sponges does AOC believe there are in the world of climate politics and the USA / UK / Sweden in general?
Climate muppetry and the swallowing of information pollution, truly TAOS.
El stovey said:
chrispmartha said:
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.
How much effect?Is it that unless one says 100%, they are a denier? Because that's how it appears. And that's what a lot of us are arguing with you over and have called you out on. Fall in line with the alarmist rhetoric or be cast out.
Of course people will disagree on the severity of the predictions or what ought to be or can be done but it’s very odd behaviour, most of them aren’t deniers at all.
Perhaps their positions have changed over time as they’ve gained more understanding but they’re still ideologically attached to the denier side or something.
Let me try to understand your position. Any or all changes to the 1850 baseline is caused by human activity? A 100% stance. Am I right?
And a denier is someone with a 0% stance?
And anyone lingering in the other 98% is also a denier?
stew-STR160 said:
Ok, sheep.
Let me try to understand your position. Any or all changes to the 1850 baseline is caused by human activity? A 100% stance. Am I right?
And a denier is someone with a 0% stance?
And anyone lingering in the other 98% is also a denier?
No that’s completely wrong. Are you like rob unable to see nuance? Nobody is talking about absolutes except you guys trying to rubbish the scientific community who obviously can’t be 100% sure about the extent of human influence or the future outcomes,Let me try to understand your position. Any or all changes to the 1850 baseline is caused by human activity? A 100% stance. Am I right?
And a denier is someone with a 0% stance?
And anyone lingering in the other 98% is also a denier?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/empowering-the-plan...
Roger Hallam the not at all unhinged chap is off on his latest bile spreading crapisode
Roger Hallam the not at all unhinged chap is off on his latest bile spreading crapisode
techiedave said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/empowering-the-plan...
Roger Hallam the not at all unhinged chap is off on his latest bile spreading crapisode
Sounds like he’s inciting violence and should get arrested (again). Roger Hallam the not at all unhinged chap is off on his latest bile spreading crapisode
stew-STR160 said:
chrispmartha said:
stew-STR160 said:
durbster said:
Kawasicki said:
I‘m also a “some effect“er aka a denier.
How much effect?Is it that unless one says 100%, they are a denier? Because that's how it appears. And that's what a lot of us are arguing with you over and have called you out on. Fall in line with the alarmist rhetoric or be cast out.
Climate change is real. However, how much of an effect humanity has had on it and will be in the future though is yet to be determined. The baseline used is not sufficient to provide an accurate enough picture without significant bias.
The entire climate system has been simplified down to focus solely on CO2 as the culprit of ANY changes to that baseline.
What's your position?
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Ok, sheep.
Let me try to understand your position. Any or all changes to the 1850 baseline is caused by human activity? A 100% stance. Am I right?
And a denier is someone with a 0% stance?
And anyone lingering in the other 98% is also a denier?
No that’s completely wrong. Are you like rob unable to see nuance? Nobody is talking about absolutes except you guys trying to rubbish the scientific community who obviously can’t be 100% sure about the extent of human influence or the future outcomes,Let me try to understand your position. Any or all changes to the 1850 baseline is caused by human activity? A 100% stance. Am I right?
And a denier is someone with a 0% stance?
And anyone lingering in the other 98% is also a denier?
We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
stew-STR160 said:
Nuance is the whole point. You label people who don't agree with the mainstream as deniers. The mainstream position is that humans are to blame for the changes seen since the industrial revolution. The last decade being warmest etc etc.
We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
Didn’t you just say you agreed that AGW was real? The mainstream position is that humans are contributing to changes not 100% responsible. You’re not a denier. You’re a believer. We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
The IPCC fifth report said
You agree with these findings don’t you?
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Nuance is the whole point. You label people who don't agree with the mainstream as deniers. The mainstream position is that humans are to blame for the changes seen since the industrial revolution. The last decade being warmest etc etc.
We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
Didn’t you just say you agreed that AGW was real? The mainstream position is that humans are contributing to changes not 100% responsible. You’re not a denier. You’re a believer. We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
The IPCC fifth report said
You agree with these findings don’t you?
In principle I agree with the comments in the 5th report. However, the interpretation is where we clearly diverge.
So I'm a believer in climate change(not specifically anthropogenic) who doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus...probably quite a few like me on this forum who have been labelled various things by you and others because we won't submit to the pathetic unsubstantiated alarmist viewpoint.
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Nuance is the whole point. You label people who don't agree with the mainstream as deniers. The mainstream position is that humans are to blame for the changes seen since the industrial revolution. The last decade being warmest etc etc.
We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
Didn’t you just say you agreed that AGW was real? The mainstream position is that humans are contributing to changes not 100% responsible. You’re not a denier. You’re a believer. We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
The IPCC fifth report said
You agree with these findings don’t you?
Is there other warming or cooling going on at places where we don't we have thermometers?
JuniorD said:
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
Nuance is the whole point. You label people who don't agree with the mainstream as deniers. The mainstream position is that humans are to blame for the changes seen since the industrial revolution. The last decade being warmest etc etc.
We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
Didn’t you just say you agreed that AGW was real? The mainstream position is that humans are contributing to changes not 100% responsible. You’re not a denier. You’re a believer. We question those claims as the majority of it all is purely based on models. The rest is conjecture and anecdotes.
The IPCC fifth report said
You agree with these findings don’t you?
Is there other warming or cooling going on at places where we don't we have thermometers?
stew-STR160 said:
So I'm a believer in climate change(not specifically anthropogenic) who doesn't agree with the mainstream consensus...probably quite a few like me on this forum who have been labelled various things by you and others because we won't submit to the pathetic unsubstantiated alarmist viewpoint.
That's one thing, claiming it's all a big conspiracy and all the Scientist are lying for money is another (I'm not saying you do believe that but a few on here do)As for labelling, the more prominent deniers on here are quite happy to throw out labels as pejoratives
stew-STR160 said:
El stovey said:
stew-STR160 said:
because we won't submit to the pathetic unsubstantiated alarmist viewpoint.
You sound a bit unhinged tbh. I obviously don’t know if you are actually unhinged or not I’m just saying that you look a bit too into it.
Hopefully you’ll get around to actually proving the IPCC and scientific community wrong about AGW and changing the consensus, as that might be more useful than just ranting about it on a car forum.
El stovey said:
The fact that you’re now taking in dogma and the pages of angry multi quote arguments on this and the climate science thread makes you look a bit unhinged.
I obviously don’t know if you are actually unhinged or not I’m just saying that you look a bit too into it.
Hopefully you’ll get around to actually proving the IPCC and scientific community wrong about AGW and changing the consensus, as that might be more useful than just ranting about it on a car forum.
So I'm an unhinged, believer/denier...wonderful. That'll be a talking point with friends.I obviously don’t know if you are actually unhinged or not I’m just saying that you look a bit too into it.
Hopefully you’ll get around to actually proving the IPCC and scientific community wrong about AGW and changing the consensus, as that might be more useful than just ranting about it on a car forum.
Taking in dogma?
Six years on (UN pdf report at the link) how many insects are agw supporters eating as a matter of daily planet-saving routine?
http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e.pdf
as though it wasn't complete without turning it into socialist word salad with shades of Bill Gates, Obama, Swampy and Farage nattering over a pint of freeze dried crickets.
http://www.fao.org/3/i3253e/i3253e.pdf
Sensei has not said:
Don't bend with the wind grasshopper kohai, fly with it, or you'll be eaten by middle class hippies
UN gospel tract said:
The case needs to be made to consumers that eating insects is not only good for their health, it's good for the planet. Additionally, insect rearing should be promoted and encouraged as a socially inclusive activity
Socially inclusive activity as though it wasn't complete without turning it into socialist word salad with shades of Bill Gates, Obama, Swampy and Farage nattering over a pint of freeze dried crickets.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff