Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Murph7355

37,651 posts

255 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
durbster said:
This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
You are failing to see that you are part of this problem.

You are doing the climate change equivalent of speaking more loudly and slowly to someone who doesn't speak your language. And the results you are getting are the same.

Logically, man will impact his environment. I don't think there's much logical issue with that. We are part of the ecosystem. Ditto man should try not to be wasteful of resources.

However... I do not believe that man is the sole or even primary cause of issues. The climate has been ever changing and more drastically than now before we started really messing with things.

Moreover, the arguments of what should be done even if you believe we are the predominant cause make little logical sense. They don't tackle the problem in the areas that would need tackling first by logical follow on, are hypocritical in the extreme and expect things of people that fight against human nature.

A better argument, and better solutions need to be posited. Not just calling people with opposing views stupid (which is what you are doing). That approach has been proven many times in recent years and is proven to fail. What is the definition of insanity again...?

smile

chrispmartha

15,360 posts

128 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
chrispmartha said:
TB quoting Trump now, a new low?
Shooting the messenger(s) is an ad hominem logial fallacy. You ought to know by now!

In the climate politics thread, was a politician mentioned in the context of climate and politics? Heavens above.

In any case it's not a new record low until the WMO says so, and Australia is deleting record lows so the non-consensus won't be 100% (maybe 97%).

Having looked for some climate politics in the above post and having found none, here's some from me. It's over at the climate politics blog Climate Depot and covers 'protecting children from climate fraud' with failed agw predictions to go.

www.climatedepot.com/2020/01/23/watch-protecting-c...

It mentions the 12-year claim which socialist politician Ocasio-Cortez says will only be believed by those with the intelligence of a sea sponge, and which (together with other time limited hysteria) hotshot NASA GISS climate modeller Dr Gavin Schmidt says is "bullst".
Climatedepot.com

Don’t you always say ‘follow the money’? Who funds climatedepot.com...

“ ClimateDepot.com is being financed by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit in Washington that advocates for free-market solutions to environmental issues. Public tax filings for 2003-7 (the last five years for which documents are available) show that the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the ExxonMobil Foundation”


https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depo...

As always sceptics aren’t so sceptical about sources that confirm their own bias

Is that sufficiently political for you?



Edited by chrispmartha on Friday 24th January 08:46

zygalski

7,759 posts

144 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
Ouch!
Turbospam only relies on the very bestest sources.
rofl

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
durbster said:
This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
You are failing to see that you are part of this problem.

You are doing the climate change equivalent of speaking more loudly and slowly to someone who doesn't speak your language. And the results you are getting are the same.

Logically, man will impact his environment. I don't think there's much logical issue with that. We are part of the ecosystem. Ditto man should try not to be wasteful of resources.

However... I do not believe that man is the sole or even primary cause of issues. The climate has been ever changing and more drastically than now before we started really messing with things.

Moreover, the arguments of what should be done even if you believe we are the predominant cause make little logical sense. They don't tackle the problem in the areas that would need tackling first by logical follow on, are hypocritical in the extreme and expect things of people that fight against human nature.

A better argument, and better solutions need to be posited. Not just calling people with opposing views stupid (which is what you are doing). That approach has been proven many times in recent years and is proven to fail. What is the definition of insanity again...?

smile
How has it failed? Your post is like saying calling anti vaxers idiots doesn’t work. Sure it doesn’t convince anti vaxers but TBH that doesn’t matter. They’re always going to be anti vaxers, it’s not about facts for them.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and none of your own, you still dispute the scientific community, nothing’s actually going to convince you. Check out TBs posts this morning they’re all about socialists and stopping socialism. It’s nothing to do with science and facts at all.

People above getting their facts from YouTube and advocacy blogs but being ultra sceptical about mainstream science. What’s the point in trying to convince them of anything?

The world has moved on, it doesn’t matter if a handful of people with no evidence don’t agree. If they had any evidence they could disprove the consensus and that would be the new consensus.

The reason the scientific consensus disagrees with you isn’t because of socialism or wealth redistribution or some other nefarious global plot, it’s simply because it’s the considered collective judgement of the scientific community based on data and facts and nobody can disprove it.

Diderot

7,263 posts

191 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
durbster said:
A44RON said:
durbster said:
Whatever this debate is about, it's absolutely not about objectivity or rational thinking. The evidence is overwhelming to the point where we can see even the most ardent deniers carefully re-positioning. This is about ideology, and tribal thinking. It's about the curious human trait that we will cling to what are, objectively speaking, totally irrational views if it means we can stay in the gang.
The thing is though, the evidence is not overwhelming. For starters, that 97% myth was debunked.
The 97% figure has been arrived at in various ways by various studies, including a study of the other studies. They all arrived at the same conclusion. It hasn't been debunked at all, you've just been led to believe that because seeding doubt is the aim. Look at it closer.

There's an objective way of proving it too. Simply look for these thousands of scientists studying climate related fields that dispute AGW. If there are tens of thousands of scientists out there with research that disproves AGW, where are they? Where are they working? Where's their research? Where's their Twitter account?

But the 97% figure is only to illustrate to the public how accepted the science is, it's not really useful for anything beyond that.

You won't find them because they don't exist beyond a handful of people linked to the propaganda machine. So then the story goes that these people exist, they're just too frightened to say anything. And the evidence for that amusing claim is non-existent.

A44RON said:
There's just as much evidence out there from scientists stating the other side.
There really isn't any evidence that disproves AGW, let alone "just as much".

Edited by durbster on Friday 24th January 07:27
Go on then Durbster. Enlighten us. Show us empirical evidence, facts and data obtained through real world observation. Start with AR5. Or the 1.5 degree IPCC report.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary and none of your own, you still dispute the scientific community, nothing’s actually going to convince you. Check out TBs posts this morning they’re all about socialists and stopping socialism.
This is a climate politics thread. Climate is a cloak for socialism/marxism as per the utterings of XR and the risible USA Green New Deal.

There's nothing wrong with not letting socialism destroy a vibrant economy thus reducing the quality of life for citizens (anywhere) and when it's predicated on climate myths it's very much on-topic for this thread..

El stovey said:
It’s nothing to do with science and facts at all.
Climate politics is like that, nothing to do with science and facts at all.

As mentioned previously, this is the climate politics thread, what were you expecting?

Surely not science and facts such as those listed below? You may have missed this science/facts collection previously so HTH.

Varotsos and Efstathiou in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics (2019) "it is not possible to reliably support the view of the presence of global warming in the sense of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human activities"

McKitrick and Christy in Earth & Space Science (2018) showing that the difference between actual data and agw climate model predictions is significant such that the agw null hypothesis must be rejected "the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models...is incorrect".

Fleming in Environmental Earth Sciences (2018) "The results of this review point to the extreme value of CO2 to all life forms, but no role of CO2 in any significant change of the Earth’s climate."


anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
So when our Conservative government (and most other governments) continues to make(s) ambitious emissions targets and commitments they’re doing it because they’ve been fooled by “climate myths” or are they part of this socialist plot to destroy a vibrant economy?


turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
Our esteemed broadsheet The Times quotes Trump on their front page regarding climate politics, a new on-topic high?


ZeroGroundZero

2,085 posts

53 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Climate is a cloak for socialism/marxism as per the utterings of XR and the risible USA Green New Deal.
This seems to be very true.
And the hard left aren't even trying to argue otherwise.

I think many more people these days are fully aware of the climate politics and its real aims. The likes of Trump and the recent 'fall' of the hard left in the UK is demonstrating that people are tired of the marxist agendas.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
ZeroGroundZero said:
turbobloke said:
Climate is a cloak for socialism/marxism as per the utterings of XR and the risible USA Green New Deal.
This seems to be very true.
And the hard left aren't even trying to argue otherwise.

I think many more people these days are fully aware of the climate politics and its real aims. The likes of Trump and the recent 'fall' of the hard left in the UK is demonstrating that people are tired of the marxist agendas.
But the U.K. conservative government is making and renewing ambitious emissions targets, are they part of the Marxist agenda? Is every scientific institution and national body Marxist?

jagnet

4,095 posts

201 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
It's not even just the hard left Marxists at it:

"This vision immediately changes the way we think about climate change – no longer just an environmental issue but an economic and social justice issue."
Ed Miliband MP, 23rd Sept 2019
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/environment/g...

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
ZeroGroundZero said:
turbobloke said:
Climate is a cloak for socialism/marxism as per the utterings of XR and the risible USA Green New Deal.
This seems to be very true.
And the hard left aren't even trying to argue otherwise.

I think many more people these days are fully aware of the climate politics and its real aims. The likes of Trump and the recent 'fall' of the hard left in the UK is demonstrating that people are tired of the marxist agendas.
yes

And seeing straight through the transparent agenda of extremist climate activists, particularly when these extremists tell everyone quite openly exactly what the score is! It's about overthrowing capitalism by circumventing democracy.

Apparently citizens need to 'overthrow capitalism' to prevent climate breakdown, according to XR.
https://theecologist.org/2019/apr/25/extinction-re...

Not a hope, but worse is to come before it gets better as we haven't reached peak climate politics wibble as yet. Even socialist politician Ocasio-Cortez is distancing herself from the hype with recent comments about imminent extinction cliams (12 years to save ourselves!) being believed only by those with the intelligence of a sea sponge - her words.


ZeroGroundZero

2,085 posts

53 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
But the U.K. conservative government is making and renewing ambitious emissions targets, are they part of the Marxist agenda? Is every scientific institution and national body Marxist?
The tory policy on climate is very left leaning.
Well at least Trump has the 'balls' to stand up against it all, but just look at the backlash he gets for it.

With the likes of the left wing EU threatening repercussions for not being "on message" with them.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/13/europe-ca...

Maybe the torys are not confident enough with upcoming needed trade deals? Forcing their hand to be more tied with the EU rather than the US?

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Apparently citizens need to 'overthrow capitalism' to prevent climate breakdown, according to XR.
Howabout preventing climate breakdown and keeping capitalism? Just an idea.

Or is a problem like climate change incompatible with capitalism?



turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
But the U.K. conservative government is making and renewing ambitious emissions targets, are they part of the Marxist agenda? Is every scientific institution and national body Marxist?
Tory climate policy isn't marxist, it's not about overthrowing capitalism, and not every scientific body is either, however...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2017/03/02/e...

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
Davos 2020: Can Formula 1 really go 'carbon neutral' by 2030?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51226066

An extract:-

"Then there is the huge amount of C02 emissions generated by F1's 500 million fans globally who will travel far and wide to see the sport."

So why target F1's supporters and not all the other sports that have a far bigger supporter base than F1?

PS. Durbster, if you can't see the 97% b*******s, then I suggest you enroll in some adult mathematics education lessons. You are desperately in need of them.

Diderot

7,263 posts

191 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
El stovey said:
So when our Conservative government (and most other governments) continues to make(s) ambitious emissions targets and commitments they’re doing it because they’ve been fooled by “climate myths” or are they part of this socialist plot to destroy a vibrant economy?
A variety of reasons. Main one is geo-political of course. Then there’s the huge tax take - imagine being able to tax people for breathing out. And then there’s the placating of ecotards and other guileless voters who believe the alarmism.

Diderot

7,263 posts

191 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Apparently citizens need to 'overthrow capitalism' to prevent climate breakdown, according to XR.
Howabout preventing climate breakdown and keeping capitalism? Just an idea.

Or is a problem like climate change incompatible with capitalism?
Yeah but you don’t seriously think the climate is breaking down do you? Whatever climate breakdown is supposed to mean anyway.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Apparently citizens need to 'overthrow capitalism' to prevent climate breakdown, according to XR.
Howabout preventing climate breakdown and keeping capitalism? Just an idea.

Or is a problem like climate change incompatible with capitalism?
Climate isn't emotive as a scientific concept - politically it's different - unlike the alarmists promoting extreme politics, it doesn't and won't 'breakdown'. It will of course change as it has naturally for billions of years.

Climate change isn't a problem, it may be at some point (ice age) though as we haven't caused permanent dangerous global warming, the abstract incompatibility alluded to involves nothing more than the usual climate cloak for attempts to overthrow capitalism by sidestepping democracy via a fake emergency.

kerplunk

7,052 posts

205 months

Friday 24th January 2020
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
kerplunk said:
turbobloke said:
Apparently citizens need to 'overthrow capitalism' to prevent climate breakdown, according to XR.
Howabout preventing climate breakdown and keeping capitalism? Just an idea.

Or is a problem like climate change incompatible with capitalism?
Climate isn't emotive as a scientific concept - politically it's different - unlike the alarmists promoting extreme politics, it doesn't and won't 'breakdown'. It will of course change as it has naturally for billions of years.

Climate change isn't a problem, it may be at some point (ice age) though as we haven't caused permanent dangerous global warming, the abstract incompatibility alluded to involves nothing more than the usual climate cloak for attempts to overthrow capitalism by sidestepping democracy via a fake emergency.
Obviously I asked the wrong person - you're incapable of suspending your denial and answering the question. Silly me

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED