Climate Change

Signalcalc said:
And where did you hear such news, MSM, Greta, the UN, the EU, God, climate loonies, celebs, paid actors, the Left wing? Or a bone fide, undisputable, never-to-be-questioned-on-the-matter-again-because-it-is-the-single-source-of-verifiable-truth -because-we-have-actually-had-a-transparent-debate-on-the-subject source?

Not the latter is my guess, the debate has not been had, the science is not settled, theories have not been proved, previous models have failed, there is mounting evidence to be presented to counter the mainstream narrative but it is prevented from being discussed by the mainstream, therefore EVERYTHING is still open to question.

Academia used to be based on rigourous scientific observation and critical thought, academia appear to have lost their collective minds in recent years as they slowly adopt the science of mainstream identity politics, virtue signalling and media hype.

Let's have the argument/debate in an open and transparent way, then we can make informed decisions, otherwise we are fed a diet of politics, opinion, supposition, superstition and speculation with a 'you must pay for it' attitude provided by investors.

As @timsk has highlighted, mainstream media views are not necessarily mainstream views held by joe public, we have seen this time and again in recent years, the climate change agenda hoax is one of them, all it needs is a yougov poll to sort that one out........
Click to expand...


Well, I can only refer to you to the posts above, I really don't know what more I can add.

Except to put up the most fundamental question again - what basis is there for non-scientists to accept some scientific beliefs and deny others?
 
Hi Tom,
tomorton said:
Its completely normal for a scientific belief to be the majority scientific view at any point along the continuum of knowledge on the subject. Only for the majority to take a different view when more information becomes available. That's how science advances. That's why religion and superstition doesn't.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%.

tomorton said:
What should a scientist do when more information becomes available? I for one hope they revise their ideas on the subject to take account of it. That might mean what was the majority view yesterday will no longer be the majority view.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree 100%. However, this is where the problem lies. More information has become available and it's being ignored, overlooked and dismissed.

tomorton said:
What do you expect a scientist to do when no more new information is available? I expect them to hold fast onto the current theory / solution / whatever it may be. Would you seriously expect a scientist to decide one day, either randomly or maybe due to public opinion, that although no new information has come to light, they should revise their current scientific beliefs?
Click to expand...
Again, I agree 100% in principle. However, as per my comment above, (not so) new information is available but the mainstream lobby are putting their hands over their ears and shouting 'we can't hear you'. You gotta ask: why are they doing that?

tomorton said:
I know what I don't know as the saying goes. I definitely do not know more than any scientist worth the title concerning climate change. Therefore I cannot contradict even one of them, never mind the majority of them.
Click to expand...
Again, I agree 100%. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either side - I simply don't know which is correct. However, I do know that shutting down debate and inviting Extinction Rebellion activists into schools (they've been into The Grove primary school in Totnes) - is just plain wrong.

tomorton said:
But in the most general terms, what basis is there for non-scientists to accept some scientific beliefs and deny others?
Click to expand...
If there's a genuine majority view that's arrived at through rigorous scientific research and untarnished by politics and money etc. - then I agree with you - that's a perfectly reasonable approach. However, this issue is deeply entrenched in politics and hundreds of billions of dollars worldwide are - or soon will be - invested in it. Seriously, do you not smell a rat here? The stench is overwhelming from where I'm standing!
;)
Tim.
 
tomorton said:
Well, I can only refer to you to the posts above, I really don't know what more I can add.

Except to put up the most fundamental question again - what basis is there for non-scientists to accept some scientific beliefs and deny others?
Click to expand...

But that is not the point I am making, I am not disputing or upholding the science on either side, I am calling for a transparent debate so that the information can be laid bare and critically examined before decisions are taken on how to proceed.

Unfortunately that has not happened, therefore I must dispute the mainstream narrative and call it in for critical questioning, especially where it concerns the livestyle and livelihood of myself and my family and especially more so where the the majority of proponents of the climate change hoax turn out to be virtue signalling, hypocritical, rich, elitist, royal, banksters, globalist, power crazed media types who have lied and deceived us on so many other subjects of interest to us all.

I smell rats :mad:
 
Last edited:
You only have to do a rudimentary search to see Wikipedia (of all places), showing average global temperatures put into context, whereas try to go beyond 1850 in, lets say the met office presentation, 5 million years is a great historical context, 170 years not so much, context speaks for itself o_O

Just look at the regular cycle over the last 800,000 years, lovely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record

www.metoffice.gov.uk

Global-average temperature records

Dr Peter Stott explains how global-average temperature records work.
www.metoffice.gov.uk www.metoffice.gov.uk
 
Signalcalc said:
But that is not the point I am making, I am not disputing or upholding the science on either side, I am calling for a transparent debate so that the information can be laid bare and critically examined before decisions are taken on how to proceed.

Unfortunately that has not happened, therefore I must dispute the mainstream narrative and call it in for critical questioning, especially where it concerns the livestyle and livelihood of myself and my family and especially more so where the the majority of proponents of the climate change hoax turn out to be virtue signalling, hypocritical, rich, elitist, royal, banksters, globalist, power crazed media types who have lied and deceived us on so many other subjects of interest to us all.

I smell rats :mad:
Click to expand...


This is entirely the point. We have here a scientific issue which has been subject to scientific enquiry and debate, leading to certain conclusions.

So on what basis do lay-persons seek to deny these conclusions? If you complain that the climate change lobby has motivations behind its conclusions which are not impartial, then you must support the disclosure of the motivations of the denial camp.

A key question here is what is the basis for selecting to accept some scientific conclusions but to criticise the validity of others? We would surely never accept that sort of behaviour from scientists because that is what you are in part criticising.

So for example, if the majority of scientists say that there is a planet called Mars that orbits outside our own orbit around the sun, what logical process would allow you to argue against this?
 
Just who's side are Wikipedia on? They provide all the propaganda and manipulation needed, but can't deny the facts.

Wiki Co2 temp cycles.png
 
Last edited:
tomorton said:
A key question here is what is the basis for selecting to accept some scientific conclusions but to criticise the validity of others? We would surely never accept that sort of behaviour from scientists because that is what you are in part criticising.
Click to expand...

I am not accepting some scientific evidence as more valid over other scientific evidence, I am asking for a critical review of all the scientific evidence that is before us, something that has not yet happened, yet again you are misunderstanding the argument.

Or just being deliberately obtuse.
 
tomorton said:
So for example, if the majority of scientists say that there is a planet called Mars that orbits outside our own orbit around the sun, what logical process would allow you to argue against this?
Click to expand...

Straw man arguments do not win arguments, it shows you have little to prove that your own argument is valid, at the same time you want to turn my argument into something it is not, try sticking to the point I am making.
 
Well, forget scientists for a bit and trust our own minds a bit, like Cantagril. When I were but a lad they used to say you could stand the population of the world on the Isle of Wight. And with over 4billion square feet to play with you could, too, up until 1974 when the world population hit 4 billion. It’s 7.7 billion now and has tripled, yes that’s TRIPLED , since 1950 (a mere pin-prick of 70 years for God’s sake) and continues to increase at around 1 - 1.5% a year. Now apply that multiple to the growth in everything those billions need, or think they need, to live, the resources involved in providing and servicing those needs and the necessary destruction involved in obtaining the more natural resources.

The world is a big place, but does anyone really think that growth of this order has not affected the natural balance of things? Surely it is wise to explore that changing balance and assume climate change is part of it? Particularly since it seems unlikely that this almost exponential growth can be stopped - let alone reversed .
 
barjon said:
Well, forget scientists for a bit and trust our own minds a bit, like Cantagril. When I were but a lad they used to say you could stand the population of the world on the Isle of Wight. And with over 4billion square feet to play with you could, too, up until 1974 when the world population hit 4 billion. It’s 7.7 billion now and has tripled, yes that’s TRIPLED , since 1950 (a mere pin-prick of 70 years for God’s sake) and continues to increase at around 1 - 1.5% a year. Now apply that multiple to the growth in everything those billions need, or think they need, to live, the resources involved in providing and servicing those needs and the necessary destruction involved in obtaining the more natural resources.

The world is a big place, but does anyone really think that growth of this order has not affected the natural balance of things? Surely it is wise to explore that changing balance and assume climate change is part of it? Particularly since it seems unlikely that this almost exponential growth can be stopped - let alone reversed .
Click to expand...

Apparently it has been studied, the argument has been had and the science is settled, and yet nobody can tell me where, when or how?
 
Signalcalc said:
I am not accepting some scientific evidence as more valid over other scientific evidence, I am asking for a critical review of all the scientific evidence that is before us, something that has not yet happened, yet again you are misunderstanding the argument.

Or just being deliberately obtuse.
Click to expand...

According to the majority of scientists, this has been done and the argument is over.
 
Signalcalc said:
Straw man arguments do not win arguments, it shows you have little to prove that your own argument is valid, at the same time you want to turn my argument into something it is not, try sticking to the point I am making.
Click to expand...


You can't pick and choose which science you believe and which you don't. Well, you can, but that's called superstition. Or faith if you like. But nothing that's verifiable and evidential.
 
Signalcalc said:
Straw man arguments do not win arguments, it shows you have little to prove that your own argument is valid, at the same time you want to turn my argument into something it is not, try sticking to the point I am making.
Click to expand...


I'm not using the Mars example to prove climate change on earth obviously.

I'm using it to demonstrate that it is irrational to argue against a scientific conclusion unless you can state the rationale. I don;t suppose you deny that Mars exists but if you had to argue against its existence, what logic would you use?
 
tomorton said:
It wasn't an event, it has been a process, taking many years and involving huge numbers of scientists.
Click to expand...

And as Sig has pointed out, go against the herd and get run over (Bellamy)

In every scientific breakthrough, it only take One to be right for all the rest to be wrong. That's how science works, that's progress in play.

I really don't get where you think you are going with this line Tom.
 
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