- This topic has 10 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 8 months, 1 week ago by SA.
November 21, 2019 at 20:22 #48814glenn_ukGuest
The comment I wanted to reply to has disappeared. Before anyone comes up with more climate change denial, hoping to counter the point CM made in the Do Not Despair of This Election post, I urge them to watch the following about 13 misconceptions that the Denialists like to push. It’s six minutes long. I don’t usually “do” argument by link to videos, but this one is so concise and compelling, please look at it.
It covers all the silly “gotchas” that Denialists like to put forward.
CM is right – I despaired of the fact that we went around and around on Brexit, with Johnson thinking the side that Corbyn was going to urge on voters in another referendum was the ultimate put-down. But climate change, the disaster we actually do face, was not even mentioned until the last few minutes – I thought (as in the Democrats’ debate put on last month in the US) there were going to be no questions about it at all.November 21, 2019 at 20:47 #48818Harry TickGuest
This video contains no hard analysis of data. It is just the usual propaganda. He could be right in part. He might be completely wrong. The point is people on either side can choose data to support their argument.
One thing that is obvious to me is that the current “Climate Crisis/ER emergency” is a top-down operation, the objectives of which are economic and political rather than environmental. This is the new ‘Communism’, an instrument for economic regeneration in the west and the facilitation of the installation of global governance. The other obvious thing is that whatever is taking place is definitely not primarily driven by CO2 levels. Again, this bull**** creates a pretext for Orwellian control over societies.
There was no ‘Climate Crisis’ during the Medieval warm period nor during the mini-ice-age of the 1700s.
Here is just one comment (made by an expert reviewer for the IPCC) picked at random from a climate forum:
neilperth at 14:02 PM on 7 October, 2009
In an interview with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner (head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden, past president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project – he has been studying the sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years) by EIR (Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology) [http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html] he talked about the IPCC misrepresentation of sea level data: “Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications,… was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge… It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” … I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend! That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. … So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it! I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised.November 21, 2019 at 21:00 #48820pretzelattackGuest
this is all horsecrap. one side has the support of science, the other the support of the fossil fuel industry.November 21, 2019 at 21:01 #48824glenn_ukGuest
Come on, it’s a six minute video covering 13 points – you expected lots of hard data there? Be serious for a moment. Go to the IPCC yourself and get their primary source data if you actually want to look at the real evidence.November 21, 2019 at 21:02 #48826HatueyGuest
“But climate change, the disaster we actually do face”
I’ll assume you mean climate changed caused by mankind.
But when should we expect this disaster? And if you can’t tell us, how do we falsify the theory?November 21, 2019 at 21:04 #48822glenn_ukGuest
A fossil fuel industry, incidentally, that receives _trillions_ of dollars in government subsidies annually. Now what that industry possibly be afraid of, by losing public support? What would they stand to gain, by feeding a misinformation campaign that useful idiots would then parrot about climate change denial? Hmm. Tough one that.November 21, 2019 at 21:06 #48828glenn_ukGuest
Let’s see, Hatuey. A bus is steaming towards you. I say you’d better get out of the way of that bus, because when it hits you, it’s going to be pretty bad. Would your answer be, “Oh – oh – and you can’t say exactly when? So how do we falsify this theory of yours then?”November 21, 2019 at 21:26 #48830pretzelattackGuest
why don’t you check the science, hatuey. if you think it is bad science, tell the royal society. or find one publishing scientist presently that agrees with you. and btw, we are experiencing it now. it’s going to get worse (at this point, inevitably) but we can mitigate the disaster.November 21, 2019 at 21:27 #48832Ken KennGuest
No where near an expert on climate change but we can have all the plans we want but if it is true and I think it is every meglomaniac and doubter will no longer exist to doubt it.
Is it worth the risk?
If it turns out to be wrong we have wasted a lot of money but the Bail Out for the Financial Crash cost 22 Trillion so contarsted and compared I’ll side with the Climate Defenders.
If I’m wrong we can have a laugh about down the pub.
Lesson: don’t be scared of being wrong.
That attitude has led the world to deadly point we are at now.
That’s what makes Swinson answer instantly “Yes!” to pressing the nuke button.
She is not alone.
No plans with no planet..November 22, 2019 at 13:55 #48841ClarkGuest
– “But when should we expect this disaster?”
If you live in Bangladesh or Florida, expect this disaster several years ago, as you had to leave your home and head inland to escape the rising ocean. If you live in the tropics, expect this disaster next time a super-storm destroys everything you have, if the previous one left you anything. If you live in New York, expect it in 2012.November 28, 2019 at 05:00 #48921SAGuest
If it turns out it is wrong we haven’t wasted anything. If by that time we have developed cheaper cleaner sustainable energy, have Broken the grip of the oil industry and speculators on world finances, have removed one of the main causes of the oil wars, then it is win win all the way. That is why the subject is hotly contested.