ChatterBank1 min ago
How Are These Idiots Proposing That We "stop Climate Change" ?
61 Answers
http://
The climate is controlled by nature, how do they propose we override that?
The climate is controlled by nature, how do they propose we override that?
Answers
All their own hot air won't have helped . Only God can turn the tide, King Canute cannot!
05:51 Mon 30th Nov 2015
The eco mentalists who have nailed their colours to the 'Were doomed I tell you' mast will not be easily moved to realise their collective hysterical gullibility. Better we sceptics understand the extent of their fervour. What do you think was the reaction to the horrific slaughter in Paris a couple of weeks ago by Asa Romson? Green Party member and Swedish Environment Minister. After watching the events unfold with mounting horror and disgust, she eventually logged into twitter and unable to contain her dismay any longer raged. 'This might hamper the climate summit'. This is the woman who declared that Western Governments were turning the Mediterranean Sea into the new Auschwitz. Their career choice our bill.
The problem Climate Science seems to face is that it's become so wrapped up in politics. That is massively detrimental to any hope of progress or change because, well, politics has a tendency to be like that. We hear all sorts of utter crap spouted about it -- from both sides, I expect, if some of NJ's horror stories he's posted on this are even half true. Donald Trump full of some rubbish about how it was all invented by China (??), and then various developing countries staring daggers at the West for telling them "no, you can't build your growing economies on oil, sorry".
I can accept, anyway, that political arguments will interfere with any sort of change. I can also accept that it's frustrating to see that people are prepared, apparently, to exaggerate, massage figures, and perhaps even downright lie in order to push forward their suggestions for change. What I can't really accept is how some opponents and sceptics are busy rubbishing the science in some of the most facile ways possible. "The climate is controlled by nature", TTT's opening salvo, sold as if somehow it's a startling revelation that hasn't occurred to the hundreds and thousands of scientists who have made careers out of studying the subject, refining our understanding of how the world works along the way. It's just fundamentally awful to perpetuate basic ignorance, when by now the debate has long since moved on from "do humans affect the environment?" to "how much do we impact on things?", and "what are these effects likely to be in future?"
Returning to where I started, that Climate Science has become political also means that whenever the field changes, improving its predictions, revising or even discarding older interpretations, everyone notices in a way that just doesn't happen in most other scientific disciplines. God only knows what the public would think of, say, the various at times hilariously wrong predictions for something as basic as the mass of a particular particle called the top quark, expected to be something like 5 mass units at the beginning, then about 10 -- or maybe 20. No, 30. 50. 100?? Oh my god, it's about 170-odd. We got it wrong by a factor of well over 30. And there's worse than that in the field (there's one theoretical result that is so wrong it's worse even than trying to count how many atoms there are in the Universe and getting the answer 0, rather than about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
That rant over, the point is that I can get the hesitation with basing long-term public policy on a field that is still evolving. Perhaps the Climate lobby does need to adapt its rhetoric from "we're all gonna die!" to something closer to "we should take steps to minimise the risk that we might". On the other hand, would anyone listen to that either? Communicating science to a general audience is always difficult, and while I would never advocate lying, for something as serious as the risk of *** up the planet it doesn't seem unreasonable to stress the worst-case scenarios.
I can accept, anyway, that political arguments will interfere with any sort of change. I can also accept that it's frustrating to see that people are prepared, apparently, to exaggerate, massage figures, and perhaps even downright lie in order to push forward their suggestions for change. What I can't really accept is how some opponents and sceptics are busy rubbishing the science in some of the most facile ways possible. "The climate is controlled by nature", TTT's opening salvo, sold as if somehow it's a startling revelation that hasn't occurred to the hundreds and thousands of scientists who have made careers out of studying the subject, refining our understanding of how the world works along the way. It's just fundamentally awful to perpetuate basic ignorance, when by now the debate has long since moved on from "do humans affect the environment?" to "how much do we impact on things?", and "what are these effects likely to be in future?"
Returning to where I started, that Climate Science has become political also means that whenever the field changes, improving its predictions, revising or even discarding older interpretations, everyone notices in a way that just doesn't happen in most other scientific disciplines. God only knows what the public would think of, say, the various at times hilariously wrong predictions for something as basic as the mass of a particular particle called the top quark, expected to be something like 5 mass units at the beginning, then about 10 -- or maybe 20. No, 30. 50. 100?? Oh my god, it's about 170-odd. We got it wrong by a factor of well over 30. And there's worse than that in the field (there's one theoretical result that is so wrong it's worse even than trying to count how many atoms there are in the Universe and getting the answer 0, rather than about 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000).
That rant over, the point is that I can get the hesitation with basing long-term public policy on a field that is still evolving. Perhaps the Climate lobby does need to adapt its rhetoric from "we're all gonna die!" to something closer to "we should take steps to minimise the risk that we might". On the other hand, would anyone listen to that either? Communicating science to a general audience is always difficult, and while I would never advocate lying, for something as serious as the risk of *** up the planet it doesn't seem unreasonable to stress the worst-case scenarios.
well thank you all for a great debate, my own thoughts are in there mostly with the judge with a characteristic masterful dissection of the issue, another BA for your ever growing collection judge. Although I think the emperor is thoroughly exposed I do not think we should kerb pollution control, we should aim to keep the air ever cleaner, this is not about me thinking any emission is fine it is about stopping the worlds leaders using "climate change" as an excuse for increasing taxes and shackling developing nations.
NJ's BA is full of utter crap. A "masterful dissection" it was not. I enjoy debating with him at times but that post was eloquent while being utterly devoid of any content. Still, I suppose I should expect that from someone starting off a thread with "idiots" in the title.
Sorry TTT, I don't like falling out, but the "debate" such as it was, makes me angry. Particularly the position of Andy Hughes that shows a staggering level of misinformation about AIDS, Climate Change and indeed pretty much everything else he touched on.
Sorry TTT, I don't like falling out, but the "debate" such as it was, makes me angry. Particularly the position of Andy Hughes that shows a staggering level of misinformation about AIDS, Climate Change and indeed pretty much everything else he touched on.
Sigh...
Why is it that the reverse argument never seems to occur to people? For most of the last couple of centuries, some of the richest and most powerful men and companies have made their money in fossil fuels. Why not apply the same sort of funding scrutiny to them that you are so eager, with very little justification, to throw in the direction of climate scientists? And there is a lot of dirty money floating around in the sceptics' side of the argument. Probably more. Despite which, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the consensus on this issue.
Still, I suppose if they disagree with you, they're probably corrupt. Funny, that.
And, for the record, I have no financial connections whatsoever to any climate-based funding or research..
Why is it that the reverse argument never seems to occur to people? For most of the last couple of centuries, some of the richest and most powerful men and companies have made their money in fossil fuels. Why not apply the same sort of funding scrutiny to them that you are so eager, with very little justification, to throw in the direction of climate scientists? And there is a lot of dirty money floating around in the sceptics' side of the argument. Probably more. Despite which, the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the consensus on this issue.
Still, I suppose if they disagree with you, they're probably corrupt. Funny, that.
And, for the record, I have no financial connections whatsoever to any climate-based funding or research..
If you want evidence of the way in which oil lobbies have tried to corrupt scientific research and health issues for their own grubby financial interests, you need look no further than the story of the fight to remove lead from petrol. Or, for a more recent example, why not cast your eyes over all the car manufacturers who made software to deliberately lie about various emissions from diesel engines? An honest lot they are not.
This from someone who started their thread with the word "idiots" in the title for people who disagreed with him, and then threw out the most obvious "I don't know what I'm talking about but I'm going to pretend I'm an expert from five minutes of internet browing" line of "the climate is controlled by nature"? And who keeps insisting that I'm brainwashed based on no evidence whatsoever.
I can accept that I'm failing to persuade people, despite my best efforts. But you can surely appreciate my frustration. Scientists, including those I'd consider among my friends and even colleagues, are being denounced as ignorant or even money-grubbing liars in it for cynical interests. People who give off the impression of intelligence and credibility are coming out with arguments demonstrating all sorts of basic misunderstandings, of scientific methodology, statistical analysis, and even for that matter the incredible assertions that action taken to resolve previous problems in the past was somehow wasted because the dire predictions that prompted the action didn't come true. Well, obviously, as you'd expect since action was taken in the interim.
Yes, calling NJ's post "full of utter crap" doesn't look good, but I can't help but feel frustrated because it's also somehow considered more credible than the opinion of an actual scientist. This is pretty much exactly the reason we're in the mess we are in at the moment.
I don't expect -- as I have made clear many times before -- that the worst of the doomsday predictions around climate change are anything like true. But this constant resistance among humanity to take any responsibility for our actions, and that we can go on without some level of, possibly serious, consequence, is frustrating and counterproductive.
And for the umpteenth time, please do me the respect of treating my opinions, post and arguments as borne of my own mind, my own reasoning and my own free analysis, and not spout this brainwashing bull all the time. It's wrong, it's disrespectful -- and, I might add, it damages your credibility.
I can accept that I'm failing to persuade people, despite my best efforts. But you can surely appreciate my frustration. Scientists, including those I'd consider among my friends and even colleagues, are being denounced as ignorant or even money-grubbing liars in it for cynical interests. People who give off the impression of intelligence and credibility are coming out with arguments demonstrating all sorts of basic misunderstandings, of scientific methodology, statistical analysis, and even for that matter the incredible assertions that action taken to resolve previous problems in the past was somehow wasted because the dire predictions that prompted the action didn't come true. Well, obviously, as you'd expect since action was taken in the interim.
Yes, calling NJ's post "full of utter crap" doesn't look good, but I can't help but feel frustrated because it's also somehow considered more credible than the opinion of an actual scientist. This is pretty much exactly the reason we're in the mess we are in at the moment.
I don't expect -- as I have made clear many times before -- that the worst of the doomsday predictions around climate change are anything like true. But this constant resistance among humanity to take any responsibility for our actions, and that we can go on without some level of, possibly serious, consequence, is frustrating and counterproductive.
And for the umpteenth time, please do me the respect of treating my opinions, post and arguments as borne of my own mind, my own reasoning and my own free analysis, and not spout this brainwashing bull all the time. It's wrong, it's disrespectful -- and, I might add, it damages your credibility.
"this from someone who started their thread with the word "idiots" in the title for people who disagreed with him" - oh dear, read a little deeper, idiots? not because they disagree with me, they are idiots for believing that climate change can be stopped, it goes on all the time regardless of human activities, that's why they are idiots.
Whatever. I'd argue that the BBC article you are quoting from is misrepresenting the position of the demonstrators for the sake of brevity. In the first place, a sizeable number in the community feel that it's too late to "stop" the present climate change effects from happening, because they already have started, it's more about damage limitation than it is about stopping.
In the second place, it's hardly a revelation to climate scientists that climate change is also a natural process. The aim is, again, to limit the extent to which the present climate trends are being impacted by human activity. Supposing, for the sake of argument, all human activity stopped tomorrow, this would hardly go un-noticed. Yes, natural processes would still continue as normal, at least given enough time for everything to reset, and so longer-term climate change would remain. Atop this background there is a clear signal of excess effects being driven by human activity, which is the point -- and the target.
In simplifying the position to something so curt and inaccurate as "stopping" climate change, the BBC has done the argument no favours. Not least because the sceptics have something to seize on as an apparently glaring flaw, when really it's just sloppy journalism.
I'm hoping that you'll take the time to address the rest of my posts. In particular I would be very grateful if you -- and others, for that matter -- would stop this "brainwashing nonsense". OK?
In the second place, it's hardly a revelation to climate scientists that climate change is also a natural process. The aim is, again, to limit the extent to which the present climate trends are being impacted by human activity. Supposing, for the sake of argument, all human activity stopped tomorrow, this would hardly go un-noticed. Yes, natural processes would still continue as normal, at least given enough time for everything to reset, and so longer-term climate change would remain. Atop this background there is a clear signal of excess effects being driven by human activity, which is the point -- and the target.
In simplifying the position to something so curt and inaccurate as "stopping" climate change, the BBC has done the argument no favours. Not least because the sceptics have something to seize on as an apparently glaring flaw, when really it's just sloppy journalism.
I'm hoping that you'll take the time to address the rest of my posts. In particular I would be very grateful if you -- and others, for that matter -- would stop this "brainwashing nonsense". OK?
So far as I can determine, the traits would appear to be "whenever I disagree with you", though. I mean, I've never known you to accuse me of being brainwashed when I write something that you agree with.
Simple fact is that I've never been brainwashed. Although I would say that, wouldn't I? Still, there's no sense in making the argument because it's essentially irrefutable. I suppose it will have to be enough that I know my own mind, and know that you're utterly wrong to make that accusation.
Simple fact is that I've never been brainwashed. Although I would say that, wouldn't I? Still, there's no sense in making the argument because it's essentially irrefutable. I suppose it will have to be enough that I know my own mind, and know that you're utterly wrong to make that accusation.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Europe To Send Immigrants To Rwanda?
News15 mins ago
Connections # 323- Mon 29 April
Quizzes & Puzzles19 mins ago
Family & Relationships30 mins ago
Crosswords34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.