ChatterBank4 mins ago
Today Thousands Of School Children Across The World Go On A One Days Climate Change Strike.
229 Answers
https:/
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
They have had the whole of the summer holidays to protest, or is this just another exercise brought on by their left-wing teachers?
All seems reminiscent to the Nazi teachers in 1930's Germany.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
In that case, Naomi, you now know who said it: the answer is loads of people (and certainly Togo, at any rate).
It certainly is true that you have said that humans can only do something about the present crisis if they revert, in essence, to pre-industrial levels of development. This simply isn't true, and is completely baseless.
And I'm still left wondering why you never apply the same rigorous scrutiny to Togo's posts, which are, to put not too fine a point on it, misinformed and based on the dodgiest of unreliable, biased sources. This asymmetry of scrutiny is I would argue quite troubling. It allows what is clear rot to pass unchallenged except from those who "would say that, wouldn't they".
It certainly is true that you have said that humans can only do something about the present crisis if they revert, in essence, to pre-industrial levels of development. This simply isn't true, and is completely baseless.
And I'm still left wondering why you never apply the same rigorous scrutiny to Togo's posts, which are, to put not too fine a point on it, misinformed and based on the dodgiest of unreliable, biased sources. This asymmetry of scrutiny is I would argue quite troubling. It allows what is clear rot to pass unchallenged except from those who "would say that, wouldn't they".
Leave me out of your childish squabbles if you don't mind Jim, and stop projecting. As in all things, the more we provide evidence that your beliefs are based on doubtful facts and wishful thinking the more petulant and churlish you become. You are all welcome to scrutinise my posts and sources, there is nothing to hide. Unlike the "research" and results that are being presented by Mann and his acolytes. Grow up.
You've provided no such evidence at all, Togo, only links to dubious and pseudoscientific sites that have a clear inability to distinguish between science and speculation.
As regards the Ball v Mann case, for example, as far as I can tell, everything that the site you linked to earlier is based on a misapprehension. The case was settled, partially, out of court; no ruling was made on the claims of either party (because of course it could not: courts do not decide science); and, if anything, the claims made by Ball that he "won" are simply false. The case was dismissed, as far as I can tell, because the claims Ball made are so ridiculous that the judge felt they couldn't possibly be taken seriously enough to be libellous.
I am tetchy, yes, but only because we shouldn't be having this argument. There's no need for it, there's no sense in it. Even if you set aside the climate change issue it's manifestly obvious that human activity is unsustainable and destructive, but sceptics are determined to bend over backwards, nitpick, misrepresent data, ignore scientific consensus -- anything, in other words, to avoid taking responsibility as a collective for the harm that humans are undoubtedly doing to the environment; and, yes, to the Climate as well.
We see it in a different form here, too. Rather than address the truth of the matters, some strange and utterly bizarre questions such as "would you rather see the planet cooler", or "is there an ideal temperature", are given credence when they clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental issue at hand.
As regards the Ball v Mann case, for example, as far as I can tell, everything that the site you linked to earlier is based on a misapprehension. The case was settled, partially, out of court; no ruling was made on the claims of either party (because of course it could not: courts do not decide science); and, if anything, the claims made by Ball that he "won" are simply false. The case was dismissed, as far as I can tell, because the claims Ball made are so ridiculous that the judge felt they couldn't possibly be taken seriously enough to be libellous.
I am tetchy, yes, but only because we shouldn't be having this argument. There's no need for it, there's no sense in it. Even if you set aside the climate change issue it's manifestly obvious that human activity is unsustainable and destructive, but sceptics are determined to bend over backwards, nitpick, misrepresent data, ignore scientific consensus -- anything, in other words, to avoid taking responsibility as a collective for the harm that humans are undoubtedly doing to the environment; and, yes, to the Climate as well.
We see it in a different form here, too. Rather than address the truth of the matters, some strange and utterly bizarre questions such as "would you rather see the planet cooler", or "is there an ideal temperature", are given credence when they clearly have nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental issue at hand.
For example, re Ball, a related case Weaver v. Ball was dismissed because Ball's claims were "too ludicrous" to be libel:
http://
Hence, Dr. Weaver's claim was dismissed not because Ball was right, but because he was too wrong to be taken seriously. It's a bad look for your favourite sceptic: and, of course, exposes your own sources as completely fraudulent.
http://
Hence, Dr. Weaver's claim was dismissed not because Ball was right, but because he was too wrong to be taken seriously. It's a bad look for your favourite sceptic: and, of course, exposes your own sources as completely fraudulent.
the labour party seem to be embracing this, and their "green new deal" is likely to be voted official policy at the current conference. see the top item in this link -
https:/
it commits a labour government to zero carbon by 2030 - a target that is only 11 years away. is such a timescale realistic?
bearing in mind, of a total of 32 million private cars in the UK, less than a 10th of 1% are electric vehicles, there is no credible replacement for the diesel HGV (because any contemporary solutions use too much payload weight) and government policy of cancelling rail electrification in favour of hybrids has committed (or condemned, depending on your outlook) the rail industry to diesel fuel for the next 40 years?
https:/
it commits a labour government to zero carbon by 2030 - a target that is only 11 years away. is such a timescale realistic?
bearing in mind, of a total of 32 million private cars in the UK, less than a 10th of 1% are electric vehicles, there is no credible replacement for the diesel HGV (because any contemporary solutions use too much payload weight) and government policy of cancelling rail electrification in favour of hybrids has committed (or condemned, depending on your outlook) the rail industry to diesel fuel for the next 40 years?
Just to add my voice to Jim360's
The 'evidence' proposed by the climate-change denialists is no evidence. Mostly it is pseudo-science; none of it is reported in the accepted scientific literature
On the other handm the evidence to suggest that human actios are changing the climate are many and varued and tested according to the rules accpeted by scientists in many disciplines the world over.
What I see of the climate denialists on this site and others is a combination of two things
1. Preconceptions, reinforced by websites funded by energy companies; right-wing activists and the ill-informed, that climate change is not happening.
That view is factually wrong. You cannot escape that FACT. You can deny it, but that is to ignore hard and overwhelming evidence that supports climate change due to human activity.
2. Highly selective choice of stories that appear to support the case that the climate is not changing. No reference to any story or incident that might support the case for anhropogenic climate change.
When any of the stories suggested by the denialists is examined in detail, it demonstrates the highly selective nature of the denialists' position, and the story is usually revealed to be false, or at best pseudo-science.
Ihave referred before to the links between climate-change denialists and far-right politics.
The BBC and similar institutions are classed as unbiassed by the vast majority of independent assessments. The very fact that people on this site and elsewhere refer to the BBC as Marxist or similar, demonstrates that the world view of those individuals has shifted so far to the extreme right that they can no longer distinguish truth from their fantasies.
The evidence dempnstrates that our climate is changing. The evidence further demonstrates that the predominant cause of that change is human activity, notably over the last 100 years.
At least some people in this world are calling for action. At least some people are raising awareness of the challenges we all face.
The people who will face the biggest challenges due to the effects of changing climate are those at school today - and they are the ones calling for change.
The 'evidence' proposed by the climate-change denialists is no evidence. Mostly it is pseudo-science; none of it is reported in the accepted scientific literature
On the other handm the evidence to suggest that human actios are changing the climate are many and varued and tested according to the rules accpeted by scientists in many disciplines the world over.
What I see of the climate denialists on this site and others is a combination of two things
1. Preconceptions, reinforced by websites funded by energy companies; right-wing activists and the ill-informed, that climate change is not happening.
That view is factually wrong. You cannot escape that FACT. You can deny it, but that is to ignore hard and overwhelming evidence that supports climate change due to human activity.
2. Highly selective choice of stories that appear to support the case that the climate is not changing. No reference to any story or incident that might support the case for anhropogenic climate change.
When any of the stories suggested by the denialists is examined in detail, it demonstrates the highly selective nature of the denialists' position, and the story is usually revealed to be false, or at best pseudo-science.
Ihave referred before to the links between climate-change denialists and far-right politics.
The BBC and similar institutions are classed as unbiassed by the vast majority of independent assessments. The very fact that people on this site and elsewhere refer to the BBC as Marxist or similar, demonstrates that the world view of those individuals has shifted so far to the extreme right that they can no longer distinguish truth from their fantasies.
The evidence dempnstrates that our climate is changing. The evidence further demonstrates that the predominant cause of that change is human activity, notably over the last 100 years.
At least some people in this world are calling for action. At least some people are raising awareness of the challenges we all face.
The people who will face the biggest challenges due to the effects of changing climate are those at school today - and they are the ones calling for change.
Jim you are getting two different law suits brought against Ball mixed up. Is that deliberate or are you genuinely "confused". The libel case brought by Mann has been thrown out and full costs have been awarded to Ball. The weaver case was over in February 2018 and again the lawsuit against Ball was dismissed. We realise that this in inconvenient for you when you appear to have invested so much emotional energy into the scam(just like the children recently) but you really need to ask yourself .......what is Mann hiding? Why are agencies that are tasked with keeping records of weather data destroying "certain" records? I understand that it is difficult to find mention of the lawsuit on the msm sites.......do you ever wonder why? I can tell you if you can't work it out.
Using the United Nations own calculations it appears that if every country in the world sticks to the “decarbonisation” promises it made at the Paris Climate Summit then the resultant reduction, by the end of the century, in global warming may be 0.048°C (0.086°F).
For kids who can understand fractions – again, unlikely these days – that’s less than one twentieth of one degree centigrade. Up to four years ago the cost of this was $1.5 trillion. Probably treble that by now. The hysterical fantasists are calling this "doing nothing" by the way. Follow the money and find the liars. I haven't got it. Did you ever do any paid research in this field Jim? I must assume that you are doing precious little of it now if so. You spend more time on here than I do, and I retired 6 years ago.
Using the United Nations own calculations it appears that if every country in the world sticks to the “decarbonisation” promises it made at the Paris Climate Summit then the resultant reduction, by the end of the century, in global warming may be 0.048°C (0.086°F).
For kids who can understand fractions – again, unlikely these days – that’s less than one twentieth of one degree centigrade. Up to four years ago the cost of this was $1.5 trillion. Probably treble that by now. The hysterical fantasists are calling this "doing nothing" by the way. Follow the money and find the liars. I haven't got it. Did you ever do any paid research in this field Jim? I must assume that you are doing precious little of it now if so. You spend more time on here than I do, and I retired 6 years ago.
Thanks rationalist for the support. The sad fact is that this is no longer a battle about the scientific picture, which is clear, but about the politics, which allows people to muddy the waters.
The sources Togo are using are obviously flawed. It's a shame that people swallow it wholesale rather than examine, critically, what else is said there to see just how incapable they are of distinguished fact from bull.
The sources Togo are using are obviously flawed. It's a shame that people swallow it wholesale rather than examine, critically, what else is said there to see just how incapable they are of distinguished fact from bull.
//climate change is not happening.
That view is factually wrong. You cannot escape that FACT. //
We know that the climate is changing......we always knew that the climate was changing.....it always has, it always will. What we also know is that the carbon link is a total fabrication. The only way to eliminate any possible chance that yoo man activity is bending the World weather patterns is to eliminate all humans from the planet. That is not to big a price for the glow bull maniacs to consider either.
That view is factually wrong. You cannot escape that FACT. //
We know that the climate is changing......we always knew that the climate was changing.....it always has, it always will. What we also know is that the carbon link is a total fabrication. The only way to eliminate any possible chance that yoo man activity is bending the World weather patterns is to eliminate all humans from the planet. That is not to big a price for the glow bull maniacs to consider either.
Spicerack lying and changing position again
//Oh, sorry, I forgot about that, rat. You totally convinced me. //
from https:/
Says one thing, means another. Basically you can't believe anything that user writes.
//Oh, sorry, I forgot about that, rat. You totally convinced me. //
from https:/
Says one thing, means another. Basically you can't believe anything that user writes.
Latest Posts
More Snooker Oddities....15 Red...
Sport4 mins ago
Crosswords9 mins ago
Film, Media & TV9 mins ago
Fao Buenchico / Barmaid Re Wills
Law21 mins ago
Twitching & Birdwatching23 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.