Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)
Discussion
Digga said:
Not at all different. They are facets of the same political thrust.
Scientists should not have to sing a particular tune to justify their funding, but rather the funding should be there, intrinsically to promote research rather than to source data with which back up policy. Climate research is extremely important.
I use the automotive issue because it crystalises the types of unintended consequences that government meddling can produce. Right now, since 2017 to be accurate, manufacturers are producing and selling diesel vehicles which are more complex and will almost certainly be shorter lived than their predecessors. This is an utter waste of the CO2 expended in their production.
In a capitalist system funds are rarely given from central government to the level that would be required. Then of course detractors will shout undue political influence.Scientists should not have to sing a particular tune to justify their funding, but rather the funding should be there, intrinsically to promote research rather than to source data with which back up policy. Climate research is extremely important.
I use the automotive issue because it crystalises the types of unintended consequences that government meddling can produce. Right now, since 2017 to be accurate, manufacturers are producing and selling diesel vehicles which are more complex and will almost certainly be shorter lived than their predecessors. This is an utter waste of the CO2 expended in their production.
Is there any evidence than newer vehicles lifespan is less due to some inherent design failures? Whether people keep them as long through choice is a different issue.
Hopefully it won’t matter in a few years as we move away from fossil fuels completely.
To be labelled a 'climate change denier' is 'ludicrous and disturbing'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_4EnZRMHsY
Youtuber and climate realist, Naomi Seibt says she became “passionate” about the topic of climate change after she “looked into the science of both sides of the spectrum” and realised “what climate skeptics say” made “a lot of sense scientifically."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_4EnZRMHsY
Youtuber and climate realist, Naomi Seibt says she became “passionate” about the topic of climate change after she “looked into the science of both sides of the spectrum” and realised “what climate skeptics say” made “a lot of sense scientifically."
Digga said:
GroundZero said:
So I currently live a life not in desperate fear that we only have 12 years left, but comfortable that the global climate is changing as it always has done and in a manner that humans are not in any more risk than than a 100 or so years ago. In fact with modern technology and weather event forecasts, humans are safer than any time in modern history.
Likewise.I would like to add that much good has come of the increased climate awareness:
- I have long been disgusted by the amount of rubbish tipped into our oceans.
- It been a source of dismay to me how blithely people jet about the planet, ignorant of the very significant 'cost'.
- I'm a die hard, make-do-and-mend, waste-not-want-notter; buying clothing on a whim, seeing fashion as transactional, is something that has seemed wasteful to me for years.
robinessex said:
I wish we still had 'Yes Prime Minister' on TV. Be funny to see how they would handle CC.
Exactly as it is being handled; with incompetence and ignorance resulting in knee jerk reactions to a non existent problem.Nickgnome said:
In a capitalist system funds are rarely given from central government to the level that would be required. Then of course detractors will shout undue political influence.
Is there any evidence than newer vehicles lifespan is less due to some inherent design failures? Whether people keep them as long through choice is a different issue.
Hopefully it won’t matter in a few years as we move away from fossil fuels completely.
I'm not sure their design lifespan will be less...probably quite the opposite. But I suspect the used market for them will be less as the tax requirements ramp up. People will hang on to the lower tax versions of vehicles rather than trade up on the used market I reckon.Is there any evidence than newer vehicles lifespan is less due to some inherent design failures? Whether people keep them as long through choice is a different issue.
Hopefully it won’t matter in a few years as we move away from fossil fuels completely.
The whole way we use and buy cars will change I reckon. For better and for worse - Digga is right, unintended consequences will shine through soon enough. Just as they did with diesel.
turbobloke said:
This reflects unscientific and shameful behaviour - stand over thuggery in effect - from adults around the world claiming to be 'scientists'.
Acting the way they are shows their consensus to be exceptionally fragile, why else cant it be openly questioned and debated without the threat of retribution or insult?
Its rather reminiscent of the way children interact, taking their ball home because they didnt win the game.
Id love to agree with climate change promoters but if I did we'd both be wrong.
Im still waiting on directions to the climate emergency/crisis thing that keeps being wheeled out, Id have thought if things were that bad disciples to the cause of Mann et al would have been literally falling over themselves by now to point out its massive bulk, but alas, no, it must therefore all be in their heads.
Ill see if I can find it on ye olde TomTom....
If it really really was a climate emergency, then Madrid and Davos would've delivered something concrete, not kicked the can down the road again.
Why do the emergencistas not support nuclear or fracking as the route to low-carbon? Why are they trying to ban the use of gas for heating and cooking? Why are they determined to destroy manufacturing through excessive power costs in the west?
Why do the emergencistas not support nuclear or fracking as the route to low-carbon? Why are they trying to ban the use of gas for heating and cooking? Why are they determined to destroy manufacturing through excessive power costs in the west?
mondeoman said:
If it really really was a climate emergency, then Madrid and Davos would've delivered something concrete, not kicked the can down the road again.
Why do the emergencistas not support nuclear or fracking as the route to low-carbon? Why are they trying to ban the use of gas for heating and cooking? Why are they determined to destroy manufacturing through excessive power costs in the west?
On a similar note, and I’ve said it before, when they stop the carbonisation of soft drinks I’ll believe they are serious about this. Why do the emergencistas not support nuclear or fracking as the route to low-carbon? Why are they trying to ban the use of gas for heating and cooking? Why are they determined to destroy manufacturing through excessive power costs in the west?
Wet wood and bagged coal? Well that’s picking low lying fruit.
The Don of Croy said:
mondeoman said:
If it really really was a climate emergency, then Madrid and Davos would've delivered something concrete, not kicked the can down the road again.
Why do the emergencistas not support nuclear or fracking as the route to low-carbon? Why are they trying to ban the use of gas for heating and cooking? Why are they determined to destroy manufacturing through excessive power costs in the west?
On a similar note, and I’ve said it before, when they stop the carbonisation of soft drinks I’ll believe they are serious about this. Why do the emergencistas not support nuclear or fracking as the route to low-carbon? Why are they trying to ban the use of gas for heating and cooking? Why are they determined to destroy manufacturing through excessive power costs in the west?
Wet wood and bagged coal? Well that’s picking low lying fruit.
Further to Turboblokes comments, maybe those on the warming side of the divide can comment on the following.
Is it justifiable in any circumstances to violate the scientific method in order to promote a consensus view?
For example, are pro agw scientists (im using the word scientist in its broadest terms here because I dont believe real scientists act they way many of these do) justified in shutting down views and works that are non supportive of their own?
How about selective inclusion/exclusion of data, such as removal of cold station data, cherry picking start dates, including hearsay evidence, or just plain distortion of fact?
Is it really ok to now threaten other scientists with violence, threats to remove funding and removal of rights to peer review data?
How about attempting to redefine what the peer review process is in order to ensure only supportive works are promoted and adopted in government policy?
Since when has it ever been right to apply labels such as the despicable "denier" branding to those who dont or wont bend to the miserable and coercive consensus viewpoint?
Id suggest that those using such cattle brands are have far more in common to the plainly fascist moniker they clearly are attempting to smear others with.
Isnt it high time that ALL views are heard equally whether supportive or not?
Or is "The Cause" so important to those on the pro side that truth, honesty, openess and civility can go hang?
Is it justifiable in any circumstances to violate the scientific method in order to promote a consensus view?
For example, are pro agw scientists (im using the word scientist in its broadest terms here because I dont believe real scientists act they way many of these do) justified in shutting down views and works that are non supportive of their own?
How about selective inclusion/exclusion of data, such as removal of cold station data, cherry picking start dates, including hearsay evidence, or just plain distortion of fact?
Is it really ok to now threaten other scientists with violence, threats to remove funding and removal of rights to peer review data?
How about attempting to redefine what the peer review process is in order to ensure only supportive works are promoted and adopted in government policy?
Since when has it ever been right to apply labels such as the despicable "denier" branding to those who dont or wont bend to the miserable and coercive consensus viewpoint?
Id suggest that those using such cattle brands are have far more in common to the plainly fascist moniker they clearly are attempting to smear others with.
Isnt it high time that ALL views are heard equally whether supportive or not?
Or is "The Cause" so important to those on the pro side that truth, honesty, openess and civility can go hang?
Greta Thunberg to join school strike in Bristol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-5159...
Climate change activist Greta Thunberg is to join a school strike in Bristol.
She tweeted she was "heading for the UK" and was "looking forward" to joining strikers on College Green in the city centre on Friday morning.
Bristol Youth Strike for Climate (BYS4C) said it was "honoured to be welcoming" the 17-year-old.
Ms Thunberg, who is expected to travel by train, is due to make a speech before joining a samba band-accompanied march.
Izzy Smitheson, from BYS4C, said Ms Thunberg had contacted the group because she "wanted to strike with us"............conyinues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-5159...
Climate change activist Greta Thunberg is to join a school strike in Bristol.
She tweeted she was "heading for the UK" and was "looking forward" to joining strikers on College Green in the city centre on Friday morning.
Bristol Youth Strike for Climate (BYS4C) said it was "honoured to be welcoming" the 17-year-old.
Ms Thunberg, who is expected to travel by train, is due to make a speech before joining a samba band-accompanied march.
Izzy Smitheson, from BYS4C, said Ms Thunberg had contacted the group because she "wanted to strike with us"............conyinues
robinessex said:
Greta Thunberg to join school strike in Bristol
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-5159...
Climate change activist Greta Thunberg is to join a school strike in Bristol.
She tweeted she was "heading for the UK" and was "looking forward" to joining strikers on College Green in the city centre on Friday morning.
Bristol Youth Strike for Climate (BYS4C) said it was "honoured to be welcoming" the 17-year-old.
Ms Thunberg, who is expected to travel by train, is due to make a speech before joining a samba band-accompanied march.
Izzy Smitheson, from BYS4C, said Ms Thunberg had contacted the group because she "wanted to strike with us"............conyinues
Perhaps she intends to walk to Scotland - she'll make it by November https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-5159...
Climate change activist Greta Thunberg is to join a school strike in Bristol.
She tweeted she was "heading for the UK" and was "looking forward" to joining strikers on College Green in the city centre on Friday morning.
Bristol Youth Strike for Climate (BYS4C) said it was "honoured to be welcoming" the 17-year-old.
Ms Thunberg, who is expected to travel by train, is due to make a speech before joining a samba band-accompanied march.
Izzy Smitheson, from BYS4C, said Ms Thunberg had contacted the group because she "wanted to strike with us"............conyinues
Dont Panic said:
Further to Turboblokes comments, maybe those on the warming side of the divide can comment on the following.
Is it justifiable in any circumstances to violate the scientific method in order to promote a consensus view?
For example, are pro agw scientists (im using the word scientist in its broadest terms here because I dont believe real scientists act they way many of these do) justified in shutting down views and works that are non supportive of their own?
How about selective inclusion/exclusion of data, such as removal of cold station data, cherry picking start dates, including hearsay evidence, or just plain distortion of fact?
Is it really ok to now threaten other scientists with violence, threats to remove funding and removal of rights to peer review data?
How about attempting to redefine what the peer review process is in order to ensure only supportive works are promoted and adopted in government policy?
Since when has it ever been right to apply labels such as the despicable "denier" branding to those who dont or wont bend to the miserable and coercive consensus viewpoint?
Id suggest that those using such cattle brands are have far more in common to the plainly fascist moniker they clearly are attempting to smear others with.
Isnt it high time that ALL views are heard equally whether supportive or not?
Or is "The Cause" so important to those on the pro side that truth, honesty, openess and civility can go hang?
when you will stop beating your wife?Is it justifiable in any circumstances to violate the scientific method in order to promote a consensus view?
For example, are pro agw scientists (im using the word scientist in its broadest terms here because I dont believe real scientists act they way many of these do) justified in shutting down views and works that are non supportive of their own?
How about selective inclusion/exclusion of data, such as removal of cold station data, cherry picking start dates, including hearsay evidence, or just plain distortion of fact?
Is it really ok to now threaten other scientists with violence, threats to remove funding and removal of rights to peer review data?
How about attempting to redefine what the peer review process is in order to ensure only supportive works are promoted and adopted in government policy?
Since when has it ever been right to apply labels such as the despicable "denier" branding to those who dont or wont bend to the miserable and coercive consensus viewpoint?
Id suggest that those using such cattle brands are have far more in common to the plainly fascist moniker they clearly are attempting to smear others with.
Isnt it high time that ALL views are heard equally whether supportive or not?
Or is "The Cause" so important to those on the pro side that truth, honesty, openess and civility can go hang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
kerplunk said:
Dont Panic said:
Further to Turboblokes comments, maybe those on the warming side of the divide can comment on the following.
Is it justifiable in any circumstances to violate the scientific method in order to promote a consensus view?
For example, are pro agw scientists (im using the word scientist in its broadest terms here because I dont believe real scientists act they way many of these do) justified in shutting down views and works that are non supportive of their own?
How about selective inclusion/exclusion of data, such as removal of cold station data, cherry picking start dates, including hearsay evidence, or just plain distortion of fact?
Is it really ok to now threaten other scientists with violence, threats to remove funding and removal of rights to peer review data?
How about attempting to redefine what the peer review process is in order to ensure only supportive works are promoted and adopted in government policy?
Since when has it ever been right to apply labels such as the despicable "denier" branding to those who dont or wont bend to the miserable and coercive consensus viewpoint?
Id suggest that those using such cattle brands are have far more in common to the plainly fascist moniker they clearly are attempting to smear others with.
Isnt it high time that ALL views are heard equally whether supportive or not?
Or is "The Cause" so important to those on the pro side that truth, honesty, openess and civility can go hang?
when you will stop beating your wife?Is it justifiable in any circumstances to violate the scientific method in order to promote a consensus view?
For example, are pro agw scientists (im using the word scientist in its broadest terms here because I dont believe real scientists act they way many of these do) justified in shutting down views and works that are non supportive of their own?
How about selective inclusion/exclusion of data, such as removal of cold station data, cherry picking start dates, including hearsay evidence, or just plain distortion of fact?
Is it really ok to now threaten other scientists with violence, threats to remove funding and removal of rights to peer review data?
How about attempting to redefine what the peer review process is in order to ensure only supportive works are promoted and adopted in government policy?
Since when has it ever been right to apply labels such as the despicable "denier" branding to those who dont or wont bend to the miserable and coercive consensus viewpoint?
Id suggest that those using such cattle brands are have far more in common to the plainly fascist moniker they clearly are attempting to smear others with.
Isnt it high time that ALL views are heard equally whether supportive or not?
Or is "The Cause" so important to those on the pro side that truth, honesty, openess and civility can go hang?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
Plan (B) Find and train the next Greta Thunberg.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/v-a-wants-to-fi...
If the link doesn't work google Greta thunberg and V&A
It's acting more like a religion than a science with trained foot soldiers.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/v-a-wants-to-fi...
If the link doesn't work google Greta thunberg and V&A
It's acting more like a religion than a science with trained foot soldiers.
kerplunk said:
A predictably Platitudinous response and reference to non peer reviewed data, no surprise and about what I expected when it comes to any questioning of "The Cause".Wiki isnt a reliable source of unbiased intel which is why I dont give it the time of day, William Connolly gatekeeping ringing any bells with you?
Alarmist silence regarding the questions posed is somewhat telling, but kerplunk doesnt seem to grasp the post I made anyway in that the questions were directed towards such as he.
Have another go at them and lets see whether youre for or against the behaviours highlighted.
Thats all I was interested in, Fair play or foul, whats your pleasure?
Edited by Dont Panic on Sunday 23 February 09:46
Dont Panic said:
kerplunk said:
A predictably Platitudinous response and reference to non peer reviewed data, no surprise and about what I expected when it comes to any questioning of "The Cause".Wiki isnt a reliable source of unbiased intel which is why I dont give it the time of day, William Connolly gatekeeping ringing any bells with you?
Alarmist silence regarding the questions posed is somewhat telling, but kerplunk doesnt seem to grasp the post I made anyway in that the questions were directed towards such as he.
Have another go at them and lets see whether youre for or against the behaviours highlighted.
Thats all I was interested in, Fair play or foul, whats your pleasure?
Edited by Dont Panic on Sunday 23 February 09:46
kerplunk said:
So your answer to my pointing you are asking loaded questions at a gallop is 'William Connelley' - shows you're just chucking jelly at the wall and any effort to engage with you would be met by more of the same. I've been around this long enough to see you coming a mile away.
So you agree with the negative behaviours ive commented on? Or dont you?
Whys it a problem to call it out?
I suspect youlll be treated in the same manner as sceptics if you espouse that the types of behaviours displayed by alarmists arent desirable and shouldnt be tolerated.
Anything less than showing your hand lays you open to the charge of condoning such tactics.
Be a man.
Wobble on that for a while.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff