Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Diderot said:
Diderot said:
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. 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
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
Heres just one of them
Edited by chrispmartha on Saturday 25th January 15:58
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
chrispmartha said:
PRTVR said:
chrispmartha said:
PRTVR said:
Everyone should be sceptical.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Grants are available for scientists to study the climate.https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Why not apply for one?
From 2008 ed Miliband started the ball rolling with the climate change act, go look at his views on Marxism and climate change, I remember reading an article he had written, basically climate change was a means to an end.
Have you tried to get some funding or a grant?
Go look at how people who do not follow the script are treated, google Peter Ridd.
PRTVR said:
chrispmartha said:
PRTVR said:
chrispmartha said:
PRTVR said:
Everyone should be sceptical.
https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Grants are available for scientists to study the climate.https://youtu.be/CijE6QvQClI
Yes I know its YouTube but until Grant's are available for sceptics that's all there is.
Why not apply for one?
From 2008 ed Miliband started the ball rolling with the climate change act, go look at his views on Marxism and climate change, I remember reading an article he had written, basically climate change was a means to an end.
Have you tried to get some funding or a grant?
Go look at how people who do not follow the script are treated, google Peter Ridd.
El stovey said:
durbster said:
Smiler. said:
Why do you bother to engage with people who, in your opinion, are trolling (and not in the fun way)?
The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
Is it better to ignore misinformation or challenge it?The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
I don't know the answer.
At least I tried.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
The headline to the newspaper article said that but he didn't say that himself anywhere in the copy. Waste of time.Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 25th January 16:11
Smiler. said:
El stovey said:
durbster said:
Smiler. said:
Why do you bother to engage with people who, in your opinion, are trolling (and not in the fun way)?
The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
Is it better to ignore misinformation or challenge it?The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
I don't know the answer.
At least I tried.
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Pesty said:
I think that image has so many issues from a picture editor's POV.
Absent making St. Great disappear (did not one have something for her to stand on?) the lass on the left is too near the camera and has a rather nasty concrete structure behind her rather than some nice snow dusted mountains and the pine tree.
If you want to make a half attractive image in that sort of format to suite the smart phone screen generation and have ST. G in the middle you don't have many options.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/whit...
the excuse the AP snapper cropped the photo for composition purposes has some merit imo (it is a better shot) but maybe they should've considered how it would look in other ways? I dunno
An editor beck in an office somewhere will have taken the decisions about format, probably based in some visual composition rules.
No one would know there might be "issues" unless someone decided to publish the full image and make an issue of it.
It's really a question of whether the main subject, St. G. appears to be the main subject. Perhaps better for everyone if it had not been published at all. After all it's not very good really. Adequate as a news shot but nothing special. Just someone doing what they can in a media scrum.
Still, this is the Politics thread so at least the content seems apt for discussion.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
Again you’re not very sceptical for a so called sceptic
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co....
El stovey said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
https://youtu.be/MsioIw4bvzI
Gore didn’t predict anything or say it ‘would’ be.
Edited by chrispmartha on Saturday 25th January 16:28
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Pesty said:
I think that image has so many issues from a picture editor's POV.Absent making St. Great disappear (did not one have something for her to stand on?) the lass on the left is too near the camera and has a rather nasty concrete structure behind her rather than some nice snow dusted mountains and the pine tree.
If you want to make a half attractive image in that sort of format to suite the smart phone screen generation and have ST. G in the middle you don't have many options.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/whit...
the excuse the AP snapper cropped the photo for composition purposes has some merit imo (it is a better shot) but maybe they should've considered how it would look in other ways? I dunno
An editor beck in an office somewhere will have taken the decisions about format, probably based in some visual composition rules.
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
https://youtu.be/MsioIw4bvzI
Gore didn’t predict anything or say it ‘would’ be.
Edited by chrispmartha on Saturday 25th January 16:28
The other nuance to this, which is never clarified, is that when people like Gore say ice free, the science isn’t even suggesting completely ice free during the summer. Sounds more dramatic though.
Diderot said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
chrispmartha said:
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
kerplunk said:
It's quite pathetic to copy and paste a sourceless list and demand others refute it, but you've done as you were told at wattsup like a good little propaganda bot.
"Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
Sourceless? You either have a very short memory (for a good number of claims on that list) re too lazy to look them up. "Have you ever wanted a nice, compact image you could share on social media whenever you need to put some eco-worrier in his/her/its place?"
The comments section even points out some of the made up claims on the list that can actually be checked. I.e. where the statements were actually attributed to anyone specific.
Maybe it’s more deep(s) fake news “to highlight” something.
https://youtu.be/MsioIw4bvzI
Gore didn’t predict anything or say it ‘would’ be.
Edited by chrispmartha on Saturday 25th January 16:28
The other nuance to this, which is never clarified, is that when people like Gore say ice free, the science isn’t even suggesting completely ice free during the summer. Sounds more dramatic though.
Your little copy and paste image was incorrect
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
LongQ said:
Pesty said:
I think that image has so many issues from a picture editor's POV.Absent making St. Great disappear (did not one have something for her to stand on?) the lass on the left is too near the camera and has a rather nasty concrete structure behind her rather than some nice snow dusted mountains and the pine tree.
If you want to make a half attractive image in that sort of format to suite the smart phone screen generation and have ST. G in the middle you don't have many options.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jan/24/whit...
the excuse the AP snapper cropped the photo for composition purposes has some merit imo (it is a better shot) but maybe they should've considered how it would look in other ways? I dunno
An editor beck in an office somewhere will have taken the decisions about format, probably based in some visual composition rules.
AP comment at the end.
I note there were no males of any ethnicity included in that photo. Should we complain?
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/24/we-ha...
kerplunk said:
hmm that doesn't chime with the press rooms/tents full of snappers working on their pics that I've been in, but whatever.
https://swiss-image.ch/en/event/Scroll down to the WEF section if you feel like it.
One of the software providers to this event (some years back now, probably around 10 years ago) created a promotional piece about how the latest technology was allowing them to shift huge numbers of photos to the Press agencies within seconds of when they were taken. Their back end systems, used by the agencies, were where the incoming images were assessed and edited. The in-agency photographers just needed to provide some basic background information that described who, what and where in the original file sent out.
Freelancers may need to do a little more to get their work noticed and accepted but in the primary media any significant editing of an original file has been frowned upon for years, officially. Of course there is no reason to expect that all media worldwide operate to the same principles.
LongQ said:
kerplunk said:
hmm that doesn't chime with the press rooms/tents full of snappers working on their pics that I've been in, but whatever.
https://swiss-image.ch/en/event/Scroll down to the WEF section if you feel like it.
One of the software providers to this event (some years back now, probably around 10 years ago) created a promotional piece about how the latest technology was allowing them to shift huge numbers of photos to the Press agencies within seconds of when they were taken. Their back end systems, used by the agencies, were where the incoming images were assessed and edited. The in-agency photographers just needed to provide some basic background information that described who, what and where in the original file sent out.
Freelancers may need to do a little more to get their work noticed and accepted but in the primary media any significant editing of an original file has been frowned upon for years, officially. Of course there is no reason to expect that all media worldwide operate to the same principles.
Cropping does not appear to be on the verbotten list https://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/goffs/135%20photojour...
El stovey said:
Smiler. said:
El stovey said:
durbster said:
Smiler. said:
Why do you bother to engage with people who, in your opinion, are trolling (and not in the fun way)?
The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
Is it better to ignore misinformation or challenge it?The aggressive aggrandising does nothing for the casual reader & frequently cancels out any valid points being made as they tend to get lost in the tit for tat.
I don't know the answer.
At least I tried.
If your mind is made up, it's made up, not much more I can say.
Bowing out.
Ian Geary said:
Whilst not wanting to get drawn into where I sit on the AGW spectrum, I think there are a couple of obvious rebuttals to make to the view that the UK should be doing nothing because it's all China's fault:
- since 19th century we have just outsourced mass production to the developing world, esp China. We still consume the stuff
- ditto food and Africa/ Asia
- indeed, the massive improvements in uk air quality speaks for itself in terms of the impact of economic activity (albeit a local scale, not a global scale)
- we have the ability to lead by example on more efficient tech
- indeed, as a supposedly developed country with a supposedly top rate education system, there should be a new generation of uk workers who can move into this area, now they have been freed from their forefathers roles of working down the pit, in the mill, factory, or all the other hazardous and polluting work China now does for us
Whatever your views on agw, I think waste of resources should be avoided as a default.
I don't think the free market can solve environmental issues effectively...
I do think global population is still an elephant XR et al don't want to talk about...they'd much rather smash up a Chelsea tractor.
So I can sympathize with a moderately successful businessperson taking umbrage with being gouged a £4k tax premium on a high emission car which in the scheme of things is negligible.
Maybe if politicians could be brave enough to decouple the revenue raising aspect, and squash the anti capitalists operating under a false flag of green, it would clear a political space to discuss climate in the broader sense?
But if you ask most local people what being "green" means, you'd get answers ranging from not building on the local green space, through to animal rights, through to the price of train tickets.
It's very hard for politicians to handle the local, national and global issues together (and still raise revenue of course, because people want more spent than they contribute each year)
Then the same argument can be made at an individual level. - since 19th century we have just outsourced mass production to the developing world, esp China. We still consume the stuff
- ditto food and Africa/ Asia
- indeed, the massive improvements in uk air quality speaks for itself in terms of the impact of economic activity (albeit a local scale, not a global scale)
- we have the ability to lead by example on more efficient tech
- indeed, as a supposedly developed country with a supposedly top rate education system, there should be a new generation of uk workers who can move into this area, now they have been freed from their forefathers roles of working down the pit, in the mill, factory, or all the other hazardous and polluting work China now does for us
Whatever your views on agw, I think waste of resources should be avoided as a default.
I don't think the free market can solve environmental issues effectively...
I do think global population is still an elephant XR et al don't want to talk about...they'd much rather smash up a Chelsea tractor.
So I can sympathize with a moderately successful businessperson taking umbrage with being gouged a £4k tax premium on a high emission car which in the scheme of things is negligible.
Maybe if politicians could be brave enough to decouple the revenue raising aspect, and squash the anti capitalists operating under a false flag of green, it would clear a political space to discuss climate in the broader sense?
But if you ask most local people what being "green" means, you'd get answers ranging from not building on the local green space, through to animal rights, through to the price of train tickets.
It's very hard for politicians to handle the local, national and global issues together (and still raise revenue of course, because people want more spent than they contribute each year)
So can I ask how you at the individual level are leading by example? Have you given up all air travel, got rid of all your fossil fuel cars, disconnected your gas supply and installed a heat pump and so on?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff