Climate change

[yorkie1999]

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Validity of both of those sources aside (and tbh I'd question them), right now I honestly don't think there is a tangible future energy plan at present or increased consumption levels that can run on renewable sources only, so unless you want to keep relying on oil, coal and gas, fission and fusion need to be part of the equation.

 

And, quite frankly, given a choice between the two, though nuclear has tended towards the spectacular in terms of things going wrong, oil, gas and coal power have been responsible for the death and suffering of many, many more humans and animals both.

Have you watched Chernobyl? Who wants to die from your skin peeling off from the outside or radiation burning through from the inside. Fvck that, They’re still spraying concrete on Fukushima! Nuclear energy is too dangerous and the perceived cleanliness of it will eventually become the end of the planet and everything that lives on it, but hey ho, the governments that okayed it won’t be around to see the consequences of their actions.

[leicsmac]

29 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Have you watched Chernobyl? Who wants to die from your skin peeling off from the outside or radiation burning through from the inside. Fvck that, They’re still spraying concrete on Fukushima! Nuclear energy is too dangerous and the perceived cleanliness of it will eventually become the end of the planet and everything that lives on it, but hey ho, the governments that okayed it won’t be around to see the consequences of their actions.

TBF I can see why you'd think that (and Chernobyl is a bloody good show depicting a harrowing event), but for me dead is dead, whether it's through horrifying radiation poisoning, coughing your black lungs up after working coal most of your life, or starving to death because climate change from increased use of coal, oil and gas has rendered your land unfarmable.

 

Nuclear power has some serious issues, no doubt, and I share the misgivings - but I'm honestly not sure if there's a way to abandon coal, oil and gas power (which we must do) and not turn to it while maintaining the same or better standard of living across the board, at least for the time being. If there is a way forward that can be seen there, I'd love to hear it.

[Grebfromgrebland]

On 31/05/2019 at 01:54, leicsmac said:

TBF I can see why you'd think that (and Chernobyl is a bloody good show depicting a harrowing event), but for me dead is dead, whether it's through horrifying radiation poisoning, coughing your black lungs up after working coal most of your life, or starving to death because climate change from increased use of coal, oil and gas has rendered your land unfarmable.

 

Nuclear power has some serious issues, no doubt, and I share the misgivings - but I'm honestly not sure if there's a way to abandon coal, oil and gas power (which we must do) and not turn to it while maintaining the same or better standard of living across the board, at least for the time being. If there is a way forward that can be seen there, I'd love to hear it.

This reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons where ginger gives a lecture an nuclear power station alternatives. 

[MC Prussian]

On 29/05/2019 at 15:42, leicsmac said:

Splendid. Thank you for taking the time to be so comprehensive in your thoughts and those are all legitimate concerns.

 

Each point to be addressed in turn  - read at your leisure, the citations are within each page. I would have addressed each point myself but I'd be here all evening and as much as I do enjoy talking to you, Prussian, I do have other things to do. Of course, you might be skeptical yourself of the sources I have used, but then I could just as easily say the same of yours, we could both ask for unrealistic burdens of proof and just go round and round so...

Thanks for the extensive reply of yours, too. Appreciate it.

 

However, I'm a bit disappointed because it seems to me you're evading a debate by simply using skepticalscience links en masse to speak on your behalf.

I know you're pointing to the lack of time, but then I think it's even more important to articulate your thoughts on your own, especially with a subject allegedly so important and critical as Climate Change.

 

Because reading through your reply, you come across as somebody who believes the climate scare narrative pretty deeply. At least that's the picture that I get. No skepticism of what the population is told whatsoever? No critique of the IPCC, for instance? The way data is collected? How stats and graphs are interpreted?

 

On the whole, my own impression that I get is that climate science is deeply flawed, overly politicized, too young still in comparison to other science fields (lack of extensive/reliable data in the grand scheme of things), unreliable, biased, prone to big business influence.

 

I grew up and was schooled based on the concept of global warming that in itself was based on the temperature and carbon dioxide rise in the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies, a relatively intense period. A public and educational opinion vastly formed by the findings of the Club of Rome in the 1980ies, if I remember correctly.

I think we as humans tend to see ourselves as some sort of big influence, when we're but a part of nature. I'd rather we put the alarming numbers of recent years and decades into context, take a step back and realize where our decade, century, millennium or how big our influence on the climate on the whole ever since we came to this planet really is or has been.

 

Activists such as Greta Thunberg with her youthful ignorance and "holier than thou" attitude have little to offer apart from polemics and generalizations. She cannot provide much data, all she does is making claims, citing some questionable sources and making demands, insinuating that her doubters aren't smart enough, lulling her followers with her age. How does she back it all up? How does she make a difference? By skipping school for an entire year? Can you be any more erratic?  Education is one of the most important goods our society has on offer.

Also worth mentioning that she suffers from Asperger's, so she is in fact ill, her brain functions differently. She's probably very intelligent, but she's also populist and can abuse her intelligence in order to sway the public opinion in her favour. Part of me thinks she can be (very) manipulative, as demonstrated partially by her selective use of sources and facts.

 

I think she stands as a figurehead for the hysteria surrounding the climate change debate. We need a more reasonable debate, away from politicians and activists. We need to take sensible, small steps in order to improve our way of living whilst reducing our ecological footprint on this planet. We need to improve technology, in particular the effectiveness of wind and solar energy technology. We need a debate between scientists in order to show the different interpretations, how split opinions are, we need criticism of the IPCC, we need an improvement in the climate change measurements, we need an open public debate, we need consensus. And not activist claptrap.

Edited 3 June 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Thanks for the extensive reply of yours, too. Appreciate it.

 

However, I'm a bit disappointed because it seems to me you're evading a debate by simply using skepticalscience links en masse to speak on your behalf.

I know you're pointing to the lack of time, but then I think it's even more important to articulate your thoughts on your own, especially with a subject allegedly so important and critical as Climate Change.

 

Because reading through your reply, you come across as somebody who believes the climate scare narrative pretty deeply. At least that's the picture that I get. No skepticism of what the population is told whatsoever? No critique of the IPCC, for instance? The way data is collected? How stats and graphs are interpreted?

 

On the whole, my own impression that I get is that climate science is deeply flawed, overly politicized, too young still in comparison to other science fields (lack of extensive/reliable data in the grand scheme of things), unreliable, biased, prone to big business influence.

 

I grew up and was schooled based on the concept of global warming that in itself was based on the temperature and carbon dioxide rise in the 60ies, 70ies and 80ies, a relatively intense period. A public and educational opinion vastly formed by the findings of the Club of Rome in the 1980ies, if I remember correctly.

I think we as humans tend to see ourselves as some sort of big influence, when we're but a part of nature. I'd rather we put the alarming numbers of recent years and decades into context, take a step back and realize where our decade, century, millennium or how big our influence on the climate on the whole ever since we came to this planet really is or has been.

 

Activists such as Greta Thunberg with her youthful ignorance and "holier than thou" attitude have little to offer apart from polemics and generalizations. She cannot provide much data, all she does is making claims, citing some questionable sources and making demands, insinuating that her doubters aren't smart enough, lulling her followers with her age. How does she back it all up? How does she make a difference? By skipping school for an entire year? Can you be any more erratic?  Education is one of the most important goods our society has on offer.

Also worth mentioning that she suffers from Asperger's, so she is in fact ill, her brain functions differently. She's probably very intelligent, but she's also populist and can abuse her intelligence in order to sway the public opinion in her favour. Part of me thinks she can be (very) manipulative, as demonstrated partially by her selective use of sources and facts.

 

I think she stands as a figurehead for the hysteria surrounding the climate change debate. We need a more reasonable debate, away from politicians and activists. We need to take sensible, small steps in order to improve our way of living whilst reducing our ecological footprint on this planet. We need to improve technology, in particular the effectiveness of wind and solar energy technology. We need a debate between scientists in order to show the different interpretations, how split opinions are, we need criticism of the IPCC, we need an improvement in the climate change measurements, we need an open public debate, we need consensus. And not activist claptrap.

I'm using that website because it shows, rather clearly, that every question you ask has been answered by folks much better-versed on the topic than I, and I have no reason to doubt their viewpoints and agree with them pretty much wholeheartedly. As such, quoting them and putting down my own viewpoint would yield exactly the same result.

 

..which leads rather nicely into an answer to your next question - one, in fact, I have answered before on this thread - which is no, I have absolutely zero or minimal skepticism wrt the current findings and projections regarding climate change. Why? Because (and again, I've said this before) to doubt the information is to imply that the scientific community in this area are involved in a conspiracy of some sort for their own gain, and while I think that conspiracies can and do happen rather a lot I believe them to be based on the idea of maximum personal gain. The scientific community, by pushing the idea the world is going to change, is not, truly not, getting that.

 

I think that if Miss Thunberg, if the scientists involved, if anyone involved with this campaign really wanted to make it big, they would simply sit back and say that everything is fine. Because that's the comfortable view. That's the one people want to hear. That's the one where the money from the oil, gas and coal companies - who have financial resources the "other side" can only dream of - is.

 

So...no. I don't doubt anyone involved, simply because if they were looking to play a political and manipulative game, they chose by far the hardest way to attempt it and I don't think that everyone involved has suddenly become an irrational actor driven by pushing a difficult-to-convince false narrative for their own gain.

 

Give me a reason (or several) where lying about the future in this way is in fact the path of least resistance, and I might reconsider.

 

NB. Another reason why I trust these viewpoints is because of the Pascals Wager of sorts above, and I quote: "....as far as I can see the most extreme downside to a change to renewable energy sources would be a temporary economic downturn caused by over-expenditure - not exactly brilliant, but rather tamer than the alternative outcome of maintaining the status quo and the worst case scenario there. If one can think of more dire consequences caused directly by this policy, I'd be happy to talk about them (one that might be mentioned is it being used as a tool for greater authoritarian control and walking into a beautifully environmental 1984-esque dystopia, which is a legitimate concern but hardly limited to climate change policy alone)."

[MC Prussian]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm using that website because it shows, rather clearly, that every question you ask has been answered by folks much better-versed on the topic than I, and I have no reason to doubt their viewpoints and agree with them pretty much wholeheartedly. As such, quoting them and putting down my own viewpoint would yield exactly the same result.

Which means you simply believe because they say so. From what I can gather, climate scientists aren't all on the same side and opinions are split. Buying solely into the IPCC narrative is a bit naïve, don't you think?

 

..which leads rather nicely into an answer to your next question - one, in fact, I have answered before on this thread - which is no, I have absolutely zero or minimal skepticism wrt the current findings and projections regarding climate change. Why? Because (and again, I've said this before) to doubt the information is to imply that the scientific community in this area are involved in a conspiracy of some sort for their own gain, and while I think that conspiracies can and do happen rather a lot I believe them to be based on the idea of maximum personal gain. The scientific community, by pushing the idea the world is going to change, is not, truly not, getting that.

The world is changing with or without scientists. The question that needs to be asked is whether we actually have such a big influence on climate change (for the worse), whether we can actually do something about it (nobody can see into the future), how we go on about it and whether media campaigns as well as activists actually have anything productive to add with their hysteria/populism/word salad or whether it's just pointless time-wasting.

 

I think that if Miss Thunberg, if the scientists involved, if anyone involved with this campaign really wanted to make it big, they would simply sit back and say that everything is fine. Because that's the comfortable view. That's the one people want to hear. That's the one where the money from the oil, gas and coal companies - who have financial resources the "other side" can only dream of - is.

If the other side were as financially capable, don't you think we'd be hearing endless regurgitations of climate change denial in the media day in, day out? Climate change hysteria adherers dominate the media, the antithesis barely gets a mention. You think that it's fair? Where's the conspiracy here? And again, we don't know how "fine" or "bad" the current situation really is or will be. This is a very one-sided debate based on dubious scientific research, coupled with a lot of assumptions.

 

So...no. I don't doubt anyone involved, simply because if they were looking to play a political and manipulative game, they chose by far the hardest way to attempt it and I don't think that everyone involved has suddenly become an irrational actor driven by pushing a difficult-to-convince false narrative for their own gain.

Well, I didn't say that. But it is feasible that SOME actors do choose or have chosen denial or the persistence with bias for personal financial gain or status. That counts for both sides, btw.

 

Give me a reason (or several) where lying about the future in this way is in fact the path of least resistance, and I might reconsider.

It isn't lying by default, it is (accidentally or purposefully) lying based on not knowing enough, by falsely interpreting data, by being exclusive in the debate (see the IPCC and their policies on dissenting voices), by not being able to see into the future.

Based on historical data, climate changes all the time. We get hot periods, we get ice ages. Yes, subjectively and looking at past years and decades, it is getting warmer. But overall, this is but a tiny fraction, a very short window, and we might as well be on the cusp of another mini ice age, and all this hysteria is uncalled for and merely exaggerated.

 

NB. Another reason why I trust these viewpoints is because of the Pascals Wager of sorts above, and I quote: "....as far as I can see the most extreme downside to a change to renewable energy sources would be a temporary economic downturn caused by over-expenditure - not exactly brilliant, but rather tamer than the alternative outcome of maintaining the status quo and the worst case scenario there. If one can think of more dire consequences caused directly by this policy, I'd be happy to talk about them (one that might be mentioned is it being used as a tool for greater authoritarian control and walking into a beautifully environmental 1984-esque dystopia, which is a legitimate concern but hardly limited to climate change policy alone)."

Again you're letting somebody else speak for you than speaking for yourself.

No one denies the potential or future usability of renewable energy sources, the main question mark here is with regards to their current efficiency/power conversion. As of right now, renewable energy sources are sparse and/or fluctuating and the technology linked to them at present is resource- and finance-heavy and rather expensive, be it in terms of initial construction, followed by setting up and maintenance.

 

Edited 3 June 2019 by MC Prussian

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Greta Thunberg has mental illnesses, her parents happily push her into the limelight on this like showbiz parents and claim that she can actually see carbon in the atmosphere

 

Worth a mention

[Buce]

43 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Greta Thunberg has mental illnesses, her parents happily push her into the limelight on this like showbiz parents and claim that she can actually see carbon in the atmosphere

 

Worth a mention

 

What mental illness are you suggesting she has?

Edited 3 June 2019 by Buce

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

What mental illness are you suggesting she has?

I saw a report saying she has several, criticising her parents for pushing her into the limelight like stage mums or pageant moms

 

That her parents would try and build a myth that she can see an invisible component in the air is a bit troubling

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Which means you simply believe because they say so. From what I can gather, climate scientists aren't all on the same side and opinions are split. Buying solely into the IPCC narrative is a bit naïve, don't you think?

 

There is a consensus. I believe that, I can supply sources to prove my belief, however I am reasonably sure that will be fruitless as you will come back with sources of your own saying there isn't, and, again, we'd go round and round. I'm not going to labour that entrenched point any further.

 

The world is changing with or without scientists. The question that needs to be asked is whether we actually have such a big influence on climate change (for the worse), whether we can actually do something about it (nobody can see into the future), how we go on about it and whether media campaigns as well as activists actually do some good with their hysteria/populism/word salad.

 

Yes, we do. We might not be able to do anything about it, but if that's the case we may as well fold our hands, give thanks to whatever deity is up there (if any) and roll up civilisation right now, because that's just plain giving in. Again, I have reason to doubt authorities on the matter, given my reasons above.

 

If the other side were as financially capable, don't you think we'd be hearing endless regurgitations of climate change denial in the media day in, day out. Climate change hysteria adherers dominate the media, the antithesis barely gets a mention. You think that it's fair? Where's the conspiracy here? And again, we don't know how "fine" or "bad" the current situation really is or will be. This is a very one-sided debate based on dubious scientific research and a lot of assumptions.

 

We do hear endless regurgitation of climate change denial in various places, but for me that's irrelevant anyway. The only area that matters in terms of actual meaningful change is political policy in the major nations - and that is, heavily, in favour of maintaining the status quo or making purely cosmetic changes for economic gain. Consider the policies of China, India, Russia and the US at the present time, among others - they certainly aren't listening to any kind of narrative. My point is that there is no conspiracy among scientists about this, unlike some allege. WRT how much we know...well, I think we know enough, and those with more credible track records than I do too, and I still haven't heard a convincing reason for them to lie.

 

Well, I didn't say that. But it is feasible that SOME actors do choose or have chosen denial or the persistence with bias for personal financial gain or status. That counts for both sides, btw.

 

Why, when it's clear that advocating in favour of the status quo would net them more materially?

 

It isn't lying by default, it is (accidentally or purposefully) lying based on not knowing enough, by falsely interpreting data, by being exclusive in the debate (see the IPCC and their policies on dissenting voices), by not being able to see into the future.

Based on historical data, climate changes all the time. We get hot periods, we get ice ages. Yes, subjectively and looking at past years and decades, it is getting warmer. But overall, this is but a tiny fraction and we might as well be on the cusp of another mini ice age, and all this hysteria is uncalled and exaggerated.

 

Now we might actually be getting somewhere. The idea that we don't know enough is valid - despite what I said above - and I can see why some people would seek to err on the side of caution and say we need to know more before acting. However, there is a vast difference between hesitating because of legitimate concern and wilful ignorance, wishing the world to stay as it is because it suits you better. There is much too much of the latter in the corridors of power right now.

 

Again you're letting somebody else speak for you than speaking for yourself.

No one denies the potential or future usability of renewable energy sources, the main question mark here is with regards to their current efficiency/power conversion. As of right now, renewable energy sources are sparse and/or fluctuating and the technology linked to them at present is resource- and finance-heavy.

 

Those words are entirely my own. However, even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter - I don't get your seeming interest in "original" arguments, as if an incorrect viewpoint entirely of ones own was somehow more morally pure than a correct one based on someone else's idea. As for the matter itself...I don't see an answer to the idea that there is much less to lose from adapting these changes and being wrong than not doing so and being wrong, so I'm sticking with that, thank you.

 

Not sure why we went for quoting in-post here, but fair enough.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I saw a report saying she has several, criticising her parents for pushing her into the limelight like stage mums or pageant moms

 

That her parents would try and build a myth that she can see an invisible component in the air is a bit troubling

It is troubling.

 

It is also irrelevant to the scientific arguments being stated and an ad hominem.

[WigstonWanderer]

Always amuses me in these sort of discussions when every Joe Bloggs gets his “well I think...” in with equal weighting against those who have studied a highly technical subject all their lives.

 

Anyone offering their own opinion as opposed to that of an an actual researcher in the field should state what scientific training they have had.

[leicsmac]

Just now, WigstonWanderer said:

Always amuses me in these sort of discussions when every Joe Bloggs gets his “well I think...” in with equal weighting against those who have studied a highly technical subject all their lives.

 

Anyone offering their own opinion as opposed to that of an an actual researcher in the field should state what scientific training they have had.

Arguments from authority don't matter any more, didn't you hear?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It is troubling.

 

It is also irrelevant to the scientific arguments being stated and an ad hominem.

You always say there is no benefit to makin these claims, as if one os a pariah for making these claims. The opposite is true, this girl is now famous, but i dont think her situation reflects well on the effect of the politics on this subject.

 

Still, only 11 years left to live on this earth, guess not much matters

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

You always say there is no benefit to makin these claims, as if one os a pariah for making these claims. The opposite is true, this girl is now famous, but i dont think her situation reflects well on the effect of the politics on this subject.

 

Still, only 11 years left to live on this earth, guess not much matters

From the point of view that a lot of folks place greater stock in the image of the messenger than the veracity of the message, you're absolutely right - you can probably tell I hold that view in contempt but I also know that what people believe about it is important because we do live in a democracy. So yes, such things are important overall, even if I don't think they matter much at a fundamental level personally.

 

It's annoying that the whole 12 year claim (as in we have that long to begin to turn things around to stop things going bad further down the line, not 12 years til things actually go bad) has been misinterpreted by pretty much everyone on all sides of the debate.

[Buce]

30 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I saw a report saying she has several, criticising her parents for pushing her into the limelight like stage mums or pageant moms

 

That her parents would try and build a myth that she can see an invisible component in the air is a bit troubling

 

As far as I can determine, she has Asperger's Syndrome - which is a developmental disorder, not a mental illness - and selective mutism, an anxiety disorder almost certainly a facet of her autism. Like Mac, I fail to see the relevance.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

45 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

As far as I can determine, she has Asperger's Syndrome - which is a developmental disorder, not a mental illness - and selective mutism, an anxiety disorder almost certainly a facet of her autism. Like Mac, I fail to see the relevance.

Just feel like she's being a tad exploited. Maybe the disorders are not relevant at all

 

Its pretty cool that she can sense C02 though

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

From the point of view that a lot of folks place greater stock in the image of the messenger than the veracity of the message, you're absolutely right - you can probably tell I hold that view in contempt but I also know that what people believe about it is important because we do live in a democracy. So yes, such things are important overall, even if I don't think they matter much at a fundamental level personally.

 

It's annoying that the whole 12 year claim (as in we have that long to begin to turn things around to stop things going bad further down the line, not 12 years til things actually go bad) has been misinterpreted by pretty much everyone on all sides of the debate.

12 years to turn things around is surely not much less bogus. 

[leicsmac]

13 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

12 years to turn things around is surely not much less bogus. 

Perhaps, but 12 years of doing nothing (provided current projections are accurate) gets us to around a global mean temperature anomaly of +1.5 degrees C - which will of course go higher in the time it takes us to do something about it then, if we choose to do so. That alone is enough for some rather nasty changes to eventuate in the years to follow.

 

I agree that it sounds scaremongering given the low amount of time quoted, but...

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

8 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps, but 12 years of doing nothing (provided current projections are accurate) gets us to around a global mean temperature anomaly of +1.5 degrees C - which will of course go higher in the time it takes us to do something about it then, if we choose to do so. That alone is enough for some rather nasty changes to eventuate in the years to follow.

 

I agree that it sounds scaremongering given the low amount of time quoted, but...

I do just feel that if the time left to make that change was really 10 years surely we would already be FUBAR? It just cant be right

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Just feel like she's being a tad exploited. Maybe the disorders are not relevant at all

 

Its pretty cool that she can sense C02 though

You're pretty hung up on that seeing carbon dioxide quote.  I can only find mention of it on a few fringe sites which provide the translation of this bizarre claim from her mother's book:

Quote

Greta was diagnosed as a child with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Asperger’s syndrome, just like her younger sister Beata. The activist also has a photographic memory. She knows all the capitals by heart and can list all the chemical elements of the periodic table within one minute. In addition, she has another gift according to her mother. “Greta is able to see what other people cannot see,” writes Malena Ernman in the book. “She can see carbon dioxide with the naked eye. She sees how it flows out of chimneys and changes the atmosphere in a landfill.”

Those quotes could be taken out of context, for all we know they could be describing symptoms of her condition which were later addressed.  In any case I don't see any evidence of the girl herself incorporating these claims into her message so I don't see how it's relevant.  Then again I've not really watched any of her talks, I'm only going off what I can find with a quick google so feel free to link me any better sources.

[MC Prussian]

6 hours ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Always amuses me in these sort of discussions when every Joe Bloggs gets his “well I think...” in with equal weighting against those who have studied a highly technical subject all their lives.

 

Anyone offering their own opinion as opposed to that of an an actual researcher in the field should state what scientific training they have had.

Based on how split the scientific consensus is, it's more than warranted to remain skeptical.

 

Not buying into the current climate change hysteria perpetrated by media and activists alike, with politicians up their arses in the process.

 

I'd encourage an open, honest debate on the subject between scientists to show how vastly opinions differ, sadly you're not getting any on TV or in the press. It's all very one-sided, lecturing down from the climate change IPCC Ivory Tower and filled with shallow buzzwords, like a wrapping around an empty box.

Edited 3 June 2019 by MC Prussian

[Grebfromgrebland]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Based on how split the scientific consensus is, it's more than warranted to remain skeptical.

 

Not buying into the current climate change hysteria perpetrated by media and activists alike, with politicians up their arses in the process.

 

I'd encourage an open, honest debate on the subject between scientists to show how vastly opinions differ, sadly you're not getting any on TV or in the press. It's all very one-sided, lecturing down from the climate change IPCC Ivory Tower and filled with shallow buzzwords, like a wrapping around an empty box.

Science consensus is not split just like most people think the earth is round.

 

You're beginning to sound like a lobbyist for the oil industry. They come up with the same made up arguments as you. 

[leicsmac]

9 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I do just feel that if the time left to make that change was really 10 years surely we would already be FUBAR? It just cant be right

In terms of tech advancement, 10 years can actually be a pretty long time. I guess we'll have to wait and see, though as I've said I do understand the skepticism on this particular point.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

12 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You're pretty hung up on that seeing carbon dioxide quote.  I can only find mention of it on a few fringe sites which provide the translation of this bizarre claim from her mother's book:

Those quotes could be taken out of context, for all we know they could be describing symptoms of her condition which were later addressed.  In any case I don't see any evidence of the girl herself incorporating these claims into her message so I don't see how it's relevant.  Then again I've not really watched any of her talks, I'm only going off what I can find with a quick google so feel free to link me any better sources.

I dont know the full context of those quotes or whether anything is lost in translation

 

But i do find the whole phenomenon of Greta Thunberg bizarre. She's like an icon for secular environmentalists

Find it odd we're supposed to have all this scientific consensus but nothing will convince except an emotional SJW child's speech to the world leaders. It feels like a stunt, or just plain weird

 

4 hours ago, leicsmac said:

In terms of tech advancement, 10 years can actually be a pretty long time. I guess we'll have to wait and see, though as I've said I do understand the skepticism on this particular point.

If there is any truth in it surely we'd have to be seriously slowing down consumption right now, in noticeable ways like manufacturing and transport that would have a dramatic impact on everyday lives

 

I think what irks me about it is the apocalyptic rhetoric with no real response that matches the extremes of the problem as its put to us.

 

And obviously there are massive environmental issues that exist and are creating lasting problems. I just find the politics around it very strange.

 

To do whats needed to be done if our house is on fire as our Greta says, we probably need to stop travelling, stop having lights at night, stop using manufactured products, stop wars, stop polluting etc.... probably not happening any time soon