Atilla
Legendary member
- Messages
- 20,845
- Likes
- 4,027
Don't recall where as I read a lot. I think it was in one of those scientific journals.
I'm not fussed whether you believe it or not. You carry on as you were.
fwiw I also recall watching a Horizon program few years back now which predicted UK would enter global warming with freezing temperatures. Seeing it written in words one must think that's barmy and an oxymoron of terms if ever. However the science of it is believable and reasonable imo. I could be wrong of course
They talked about the conveyor belt. Basically, the gulf stream which the UK depends on needs temperature difference between warm weather off the gulf of Mexico and cold weather off the isles of UK and North Sea. As global warming hots up and that temperature differential narrows, the gulf stream may well stall.
When that happens no more warm currents or gulf stream air coming our way and so cold North temperatures come down South. Hey presto UK freezes over.
That may be theory but considering that Horizon program was years ago and UK is displaying heavy floods, cold blasts of all kinds of beasts from here and there and some warm temperatures once in a while, could be interpreted as consequences of warming.
Google it for your selves. https://www.independent.co.uk/envir...perature-ice-age-global-weather-a8300896.html
So for the logical reasonable humanoids out there it is a tough sell telling the Brits and trump fans, UK freezing over is global warming in action.
C
cantagril
Somewhat off-topic but I think that when one considers the evil that has been done in the name of God, it's worth reminding oneself that, unless I'm much mistaken, God has not seen fit to directly intervene in the affairs of man to any great extent. He also seems to have left the Dinosaurs completely to their own devices for hundreds of millions of years, excepting the odd Extinction Level Meteorite - presuming of course, that you see the Hand of God shunting space rocks about.
Since Man has been, well, Man, we have looked for and quite often created all sorts of deities, some benign and peace loving and others remarkably bad-tempered and vindictive. The one constant in all organised religions is that they have been organised by Man for the ends of men - God has seen fit to allow all sorts of sub-standard management and interpretation whilst he's been occupied with other business.
As long as some men continue to jealously guard the word of God for themselves then that particular brand of evil will continue happily on its way....
That fits in 100% with my way of thinking. I just do the best that I can and hope that it is the right thing. He has never told me what He wants and, when evacuated, during WWII, I was made to go to church and Sunday School three times on Sundays. The vicar and teacher told me what was right but most of it went into one ear and out the other while I studied the design of the stained glass windows. Morning service, lasting an hour, for a seven year old was lke a lifetime.
I think that going to sea, keeping the middle watch and watching the night sky convinced me, more than any preacher could,, that all this did not happen by itself. We are so small and insignificant, down here, while believing that we are so important.
Is your whole premise on climate change based on the idea of "if"? Would you trade a strategy based on the idea of a "if"?
You are attempting to conflate the moral appeal of addressing pollution and the leftist worldview of global warming which became climate change. The debate is simply about the premise underlying three issues :
1)Is there global warming?
2)Is it principally man made?
3)Is it reversible?
Discuss the facts and not hypotheticals. Do you trade based on "feeling lucky"?
Last edited:
I suggest that if you wish to discuss the subject of religion to start a thread on it. If your whole defense of climate change is to attack Christians then I suggest we stick to trading. Any intellectual discourse requires good faith.
Don't recall where as I read a lot. I think it was in one of those scientific journals.
I'm not fussed whether you believe it or not. You carry on as you were.
I am frankly agnostic on the issue primarily I have seen expert arguments on both sides. The subject itself is highly complex and requires far too much time to properly understand the issues. Unfortunately public discussions are far too often highly politicised driven primarily by individual values and opinion rather than scientific facts.
1)Is there global warming?
Yes
2)Is it principally man made?
No
3)Is it reversible?
No
There's my point of view. There is sufficient evidence of long cycles over millions of years. Whatever evidence the hardline global warming crowd shows, it is a pointless task because we are headed there already.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
Yes
2)Is it principally man made?
No
3)Is it reversible?
No
There's my point of view. There is sufficient evidence of long cycles over millions of years. Whatever evidence the hardline global warming crowd shows, it is a pointless task because we are headed there already.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
The argument in favour of human-influenced global warming is based on scientific observations and modelling. Its hardly my fault if some of the argument against it is based on religious beliefs, and it is relevant that this be pointed out.
There is global scientific agreement that global warming is occurring, that human activity has been a prime factor in its acceleration. As for whether it can be reversed, I've not seen even the most optimistic scientific evidence that we can do better than slow it down.
Pat494
Legendary member
- Messages
- 14,614
- Likes
- 1,588
Oui oui ( pronounced wee wee)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-43900009/macron-to-us-congress-there-is-no-planet-b
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-43900009/macron-to-us-congress-there-is-no-planet-b
Last edited:
If you have a broken window and it is freezing outside, do you put it down to climate change and leave the window? Or do you repair it?
Humans have done a lot of damage to the planet. Time to do our best to repair it.
Climate change is a "blame" issue, not an excuse to do nothing.
C
cantagril
1) Moral appeal of addressing pollution???? Either we don't live on the same planet or there are some lacunae in your reading. ...and I certainly wasn't trying to conflate, confuse or blend any kind of left-wing tree-buggering eco excrement smoothie......As an aside, I can assure you that this forum is no place to air my political beliefs, which make Stalin, Hitler and Atilla (the other one) look like woolly liberal wimps.
2) Why should "principally man-made" be the arbiter? The weight of evidence does more than just suggest we have a hand in the matter and if there is anything we can do to undo our wrongs then it would be irresponsible not to do it, considering the stakes.
3) Maybe not reversible but perhaps if things happen more slowly then we will adapt if not given the time to evolve. Adapting would include changing policies and bad habits....which is kind of what the whole thing is about anyway.
My point was that there is NO downside to acting; so yes, if trading on an "if" and "feeling lucky" meant that on being right I would make a large sum of money (or in this case, that my grand-children would live long and healthy lives) and on being wrong wouldn't change anything in either my bank account or life expectancy of my heirs, then that - as one hears so often these days - is a no-brainer. I would have to be the greatest idiot to walk the earth to not act in these conditions.
Incidentally, since we're chatting: as you so rightly pointed out, this is a trading forum and yet here we are on a Climate Change thread.By your tone, you give the impression that you'd prefer that there were no other threads apart from trading related. If that is so then your case would be better made directly to the great and good of T2W rather than here on, um, the Climate Change thread.
And since we're discussing said Climate Change, (no matter whose fault) then should we not be including anything and everything that pertains to it? IMHO That would include fallacious and dangerous fictions harmful to the human race. Of course, fallacies and fictions that provide fodder for more anodyne and less harmful outcomes probably do belong on another thread. The Brexit one maybe
The so called modelling and the famous hockey stick graph to push the warming narrative.
... except that through the climate gate scandal, they were caught fudging data to fit their narrative by omitting inconvenient data.
or the so called model that its prediction does not match reality which raises the question of its utility and the premise of its case
No matter how misguided or moronic is with the notion of flat earth, how is it even relevant to our conversation about climate change? Please point out the nexus.
Seriously. Point out to me the scientific data and I will point out to you the correlation between sun spot activities and the weather.
Is that simply an assertion?
your premise is based on the presupposition that it is broken. Is it?
In any intellectual debate, the most basic structure is that you make a case by stating your underlying premise and whatever associated facts or data there are in support of your argument. If I disagree with the warrant of your case, it is my job to offer undercutters or defeaters to undermine your argument. So what is the case that you are making or is it just some incoherent rants?
Seriously. You guys are insisting that climate change is man made and you are questioning whether it should be the arbiter. Maybe as you suggest, I am truly in an alternate universe because words no longer have meaning.
Show me the evidence and not assertions.
No downside to acting - seriously? There are no free lunches. It is estimated the cost to implement the Paris Accord is up to €46 trillion. What do get you in return? A 0.05 degree improvement.
If you are going to spend €46 trillion, make sure you get your facts right and not rely on some modelling that is highly questionable based on fudge data.
Incidentally, since we're chatting: as you so rightly pointed out, this is a trading forum and yet here we are on a Climate Change thread.By your tone, you give the impression that you'd prefer that there were no other threads apart from trading related. If that is so then your case would be better made directly to the great and good of T2W rather than here on, um, the Climate Change thread.
And since we're discussing said Climate Change, (no matter whose fault) then should we not be including anything and everything that pertains to it? IMHO That would include fallacious and dangerous fictions harmful to the human race. Of course, fallacies and fictions that provide fodder for more anodyne and less harmful outcomes probably do belong on another thread. The Brexit one maybe
You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
The so called modelling and the famous hockey stick graph to push the warming narrative.
... except that through the climate gate scandal, they were caught fudging data to fit their narrative by omitting inconvenient data.
or the so called model that its prediction does not match reality which raises the question of its utility and the premise of its case
No matter how misguided or moronic is with the notion of flat earth, how is it even relevant to our conversation about climate change? Please point out the nexus.
Seriously. Point out to me the scientific data and I will point out to you the correlation between sun spot activities and the weather.
Is that simply an assertion?
your premise is based on the presupposition that it is broken. Is it?
In any intellectual debate, the most basic structure is that you make a case by stating your underlying premise and whatever associated facts or data there are in support of your argument. If I disagree with the warrant of your case, it is my job to offer undercutters or defeaters to undermine your argument. So what is the case that you are making or is it just some incoherent rants?
Seriously. You guys are insisting that climate change is man made and you are questioning whether it should be the arbiter. Maybe as you suggest, I am truly in an alternate universe because words no longer have meaning.
Show me the evidence and not assertions.
No downside to acting - seriously? There are no free lunches. It is estimated the cost to implement the Paris Accord is up to €46 trillion. What do get you in return? A 0.05 degree improvement.
If you are going to spend €46 trillion, make sure you get your facts right and not rely on some modelling that is highly questionable based on fudge data.
You are entitled to your opinion and so am I.
There are some scientists who support a contrary view, that global warming is not human-driven and is not occurring, or more slowly than others say. But that is the nature of science, with regards both past observations and future possible scenarios. The fact that there is a contrary view does not undermine the bulk of evidence in favour, beyond a reasonable doubt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24021772
C
cantagril
I'm quite entertained by your use of the argumenta (ad absurdum /ignorantiam /verecundiam etc etc) but you're not the only on this thread who's been to school.
Proceeding on the basis that you not being deliberately disingenuous or obtuse:
The "case" as you put it is as simple as it gets. The world is warming up. At some point, if it continues to do so, human life will be unsustainable and getting to that point will be drawn-out and very painful. There is one school of thought that says that this is an entirely natural cycle and that we have no responsibility in it whatsoever.
There is a growing understanding which is becoming generally (but not universally) accepted that we can indeed cause great damage to the environment and that some of this is adding to the factors cause global warming.
My use of the "incoherent rant" as you put it would have been my own ad absurdum bit with regard to your earlier point on the acting or not, on an "if". The "if" being just this problem of whether by doing nothing we are sealing our fate.
Man-made global warming, hmmm. A rather obvious reduction from what I actually said which was "Why should "principally man-made" be the arbiter?". We do not know whether we are 20% responsible or 60% responsible so at what point on the scale and on the time line do we act? 51%? 80%?? The whole point is that nobody knows just how much we are responsible nor exactly when it will be too late to do anything......even if we can. I'm pretty much a fatalist myself but I'm not at all convinced that "Que sera, sera" is any kind of policy. I'd rather continue arguing and discussing and keeping an open mind with a view to a better understanding of our plight and whether by doing something in the immediate future we can mitigate what is yet to come. Sustainable development is on the palliative side but still helps toward reducing current rates of damage.
Again, pointing the finger at just one of the purposes of the Paris Accord does appear deliberately obtuse. I'm assuming that you know full well what the others are so I don't see any point in delving into the detail. IMO if we left out the first clause (the warming bit) the rest is more than enough reason to act and act now.
As to your entitlement to an opinion: of course! We can all post any crap we want - I know I do
Hi, cantagril. I agree with you, as most sensible people should. I think that the human species is going to die out but it does not mean that we should not go down fighting. Besides, it makes sense to me to try to keep the place clean and tidy, not chuck the debris into the oceans for the fish to eat--plastic and all. Chemicals are killing us all, so it can't be doing Mother Earth any good.
Brumby probably owns a chemical plant, somewhere. He certainly seems very positive that it is not our fault. I remember how cigarette manufacturers insisted that tobacco did not cause cancer.
Brumby probably owns a chemical plant, somewhere. He certainly seems very positive that it is not our fault. I remember how cigarette manufacturers insisted that tobacco did not cause cancer.
Last edited:
C
cantagril
Now now!
Brumby is providing a valuable service and however it may seem I appreciate his input - he is clearly considering the issue quite seriously which is in stark contrast to a lot of people who should and probably do know better. Personally, I reckon it's probably a case of Brumby by name, Brumby by nature and I think the greater part of his motivation is to do with contempt for the herd and perceived political correctness and other assorted band-wagonry....subjects not too far from my own heart.
As an ex-smoker and ex-shareholder of BAT and other assorted sinners I can attest that it does take an awfully long time to change a culture. 1960s: Tobacco - Good. 40 odd years for it to become popularly acknowledged that on balance, maybe not quite so good after all
Your example is just one of many and to my mind evidence that the herd is as contemptible as Brumby appears to think.The same drawn-out process is happening with climate change but unfortunately there's no vaping on the horizon there to take up the slack.
Last edited by a moderator:
C
cantagril
Similar threads
