Climate Change

Tweet
wackypete2 said:
https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/global-warming-fake-news-from-the-start

Peter
Click to expand...


Intersting...but if you read the OSS article from start to finish here: http://ossfoundation.us/projects/en...s/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence it deals with the differences of opinion between those working within the domain of climate science and those without.

The Heartland Foundation seems to be somewhat politically based and biased:

"The Heartland Institute is one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks. It is a national nonprofit research and education organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Its mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems." (my Bold)

The conclusion of the OSS paper is " 97% of working climate scientists say the temperature is rising, and human activity is a significant contributing factor."

Their own ethos : ".... is focused on facilitating research and solution development pertaining to multidisciplinary work in key areas of human endeavor that pertain to our sustainable capacity, and the living systems of Earth."

Effing scientists eh? - what do they know?

Whereas the Heartland article's objective is completely transparent, it would seem to me that the OSS headline was aimed solely at getting people to read the first para rather than actually bother to plough through the whole thing....which takes almost a minute and a half!! What do they think we are? Scientists?? A Tweet is about all I can manage on a good day. If 280 characters is enough for the POTUS then surely it should be possible to dumb down this red herring to something digestible by the masses.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Signalcalc said:
It's the same as the manufactured myth that fat is bad for you, manufactured by the grain industry to sell.....more grain, and it's worked.
Click to expand...

Whilst I would agree that the binary approach adopted by those either trying to lose weight or to make money from them ( i.e Fat is Good or Fat is Bad) is somewhere between complete and utter bolleaux, there is nonetheless a vast body of evidence to suggest that a fat-laden diet ain't going to do you much good in the long-run.

At the risk of seeming a tad un-politically correct, I would further single out Trans-fat as being particularly harmful.

Eating is a bit like Trading - if you do it sensibly it's enjoyable and beneficial and if you don't, all that happens is you die sooner - we all have a choice:p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cantagril said:
Whilst I would agree that the binary approach adopted by those either trying to lose weight or to make money from them ( i.e Fat is Good or Fat is Bad) is somewhere between complete and utter bolleaux, there is nonetheless a vast body of evidence to suggest that a fat-laden diet ain't going to do you much good in the long-run.

At the risk of seeming a tad un-politically correct, I would further single out Trans-fat as being particularly harmful.

Eating is a bit like Trading - if you do it sensibly it's enjoyable and beneficial and if you don't, all that happens is you die sooner - we all have a choice:p
Click to expand...

I didn’t state that a fat laden diet is good for you, slight twisting of my initial post there.

Transfat was an invention of the food processing industry to make processed meals more palatable and profitable and since turned out to be dangerous, it’s not the kind of fat I was referring to.

I didn’t explicitly go into the details of what kind of fat has been demonised because the message post war has always been ‘all fat’ is bad for you. You now see the mainstream slowly coming around to the idea that there are healthy fats that should be included within ones diet and not ‘all fats’ are bad for you.

I could always start a separate thread on the subject if there is enough interest [emoji12]
 
Signalcalc said:
I didn’t state that a fat laden diet is good for you, slight twisting of my initial post there.

Quite right, you didn't. You said "..the manufactured myth that fat is bad for you" and my point in reply to that was precisely that most people with the odd neurone or two have come to the conclusion that things are somewhat more nuanced....and that is essentially what you said eventually.

Transfat was an invention of the food processing industry to make processed meals more palatable and profitable and since turned out to be dangerous, it’s not the kind of fat I was referring to.

I didn’t explicitly go into the details of what kind of fat has been demonised because the message post war has always been ‘all fat’ is bad for you.

Yerst, but as you didn't expand on your chosen flavour of fat, I was only able to reply to what was in front of me


You now see the mainstream slowly coming around to the idea that there are healthy fats that should be included within ones diet and not ‘all fats’ are bad for you.
Click to expand...


I see that we are in complete agreement! May I offer you a celebratory chip and dripping butty?
 
cantagril said:
The conclusion of the OSS paper is " 97% of working climate scientists say the temperature is rising, and human activity is a significant contributing factor."
Click to expand...

Meteorologists are climate scientists. What percentage of them can accurately forecast tomorrow's weather? Don't believe everything you hear. Climate has been drastically changing since the world began.

Peter
 
wackypete2 said:
Meteorologists are climate scientists. What percentage of them can accurately forecast tomorrow's weather? Don't believe everything you hear. Climate has been drastically changing since the world began.

Peter
Click to expand...

Touché mon brave...but...(there always is one)...the point of both articles appeared to be that "scientists" did not believe that the world to be warming up nor that part of that warming is our responsibility...or fault, if one considers said warming to be sub-optimal for our future. I agree wholeheartedly with the thesis that experts often aren't, but curmudgeonly cynic that I may be, Inevertheless I lean toward giving above marginal credence to the 97%.

For your delectation Pete... and anyone either too young to remember or for oldster fans who remember Michael Fish's finest hour - see attached vdeo:


As an aside, I slept through the whole thing and - there being no public transport - ended up walking from Notting Hill to the prop shop where I was working at the time. The only two people who fronted that day were me and the boss; we spent most of the day ringing round clients for margin. Happy days.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pat494 said:
The new report on the state of the planet is worryingly bad.
No doubt the big 3 world leaders will ignore it and go on wasting shedloads of our money on more weapons.

Click to expand...

Not just big world leaders, small one's also, very small one's.

trib.al

London Mayor and his team take enough flights to reach the moon

London Mayor Sadiq Khan and his team have travelled 280,000 miles around the world since he took up his post. His opponents have accused him of not living up to his green rhetoric
trib.al trib.al
 
Last edited:
OK so no one is perfect !
But the climate change activists are actually doing something to raise awareness
to world leaders who currently have their heads in the sand.
That must be good for the planet and a much needed PLUS.

Flower Power phase 2 maybe?
Many are unaware of the 1970s effort, which dissolved into a drugs nightmare.
 
This is the sort of candid debate you never see on British television and yet appears to have close parallels with what is proposed here, hmmm, carbon taxes smacks of Globalism to me, now if UKGov could just say if they would offset consumption taxes with lower personal or corporate taxes then there might be more believers, until then, carbon taxes remain in the scepticism bin.

 
Last edited:
Who is it exactly that thinks this is an eco friendly way of going about ‘saving the planet’ ? You see fields full of these monstrosities, as bad as the ‘eco friendly’ windmills ruining the landscape. In another 10 years they’ll be removing them as eco disasters because they do nothing for wildlife and bees etc.

Another hoax.

Locals fight back in row over the future of Thomas Hardy country
mol.im

Locals fight back in row over the future of Thomas Hardy country

If a London-based energy corporation has its way, a swathe of the vale will soon be desecrated by nearly 40,000 solar panels, covering a total of 44 acres of Thomas Hardy Country in Dorset.
mol.im mol.im
 
Signalcalc said:
Who is it exactly that thinks this is an eco friendly way of going about ‘saving the planet’ ? You see fields full of these monstrosities, as bad as the ‘eco friendly’ windmills ruining the landscape. In another 10 years they’ll be removing them as eco disasters because they do nothing for wildlife and bees etc.

Another hoax.

Locals fight back in row over the future of Thomas Hardy country
mol.im

Locals fight back in row over the future of Thomas Hardy country

If a London-based energy corporation has its way, a swathe of the vale will soon be desecrated by nearly 40,000 solar panels, covering a total of 44 acres of Thomas Hardy Country in Dorset.
mol.im mol.im
Click to expand...


Hmmm. You seem very sure that that a "hoax" is being perpetrated. By whom exactly? ..and why, exactly? Do you think that the world is not warming up? If it is, does it matter? ...and can we either influence this or at least mitigate it?

As to the windmills replacing the greenwood trees, yes, they ain't pretty and they ain't kind to small creatures....but are they as unkind as say, fossil fuel emissions? ...and has anyone said that these same monstrosities represent something permanent?

I don't see any of the panicked rush toward sustainability as being "the solution" but as attempts (only some of which will be partially successful) to reduce the rate of deterioration of our environment to a level at which we might be able to adapt. All the political eco-shenanigans pale into insignificance when compared to what awaits us down the road with population control etc etc.....which leads us neatly back to Hardy and Little Father Time's note to posterity.

If being too many leads to our extinction, the planet will recover embarrassingly quickly and in a few thousand years it will be quite difficult to believe that we were ever here - see what has happened to in the Chernobyl exclusion zone since that particular hoax came undone. We are our own problem and if we comprehensively fuck up the planet the only thing on it which will truly be no longer sustainable (or even viable), is us.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Most people are aware of the dangers of climate change, over population, pollution etc. but the ignorance of one
man is seriously undermining the efforts to do something about it. It is just a great pity that he is in charge of the 2nd biggest polluting country and when every other country on the planet has signed up to do something about it before it is too late except the idiot's country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Westward Group Alternative Energy Tokyo: No excuse for inaction on emissions
Replies
1
Views
1K
ABTrading
ABTrading
Stewenson133
12 Economic Bubbles That May Burst
Replies
18
Views
7K
SAINT
S
P
Providio's Futures Market Comentary for March 14, 2012
Replies
0
Views
2K
providiotrading
P
NVP
Property - the pitfalls and problems
Replies
1
Views
2K
Aforce1
A
Top