Climate Change

[timsk]

Peterson is a top "messanger" I watched dozens of his videos mostly about IQ and capitalism.
He is a genius.
I don't agree with his message here.
He seems to be blaming a consulting company and EU.

CV,
Deloitte and the EU are, essentially, one and same when it comes to climate change. They're both singing from the same hymn sheet: they're both part of the collectivist, totalitarian globalist elites who want to control how us plebs live our lives.

I dont' know that company but IMO EU is doing pretty well about climate change.

In other words, the EU agrees 100% with Deloitte and everyone else who make the completely false claim that the 'science is settled'.

We can blame globalization and big companies but the point is that climate change is very real and visible.

No one denies climate change. This is a myth. Everyone accepts that the climate changes over time: always has and always will. The only issue is whether or not the modest 1 degree rise in temperature over the last 150 years is a problem and, if it is, is it caused entirely by mankind such that changing what we do will impact future temperatures. There's no empirical evidence (just 'gigo' modelling) to support this view.

I am a chemist and it is all about chemistry, we have to stop putting CO2 into the air, simple.

Why? You're being CO2ist - leave it alone - there's nothing wrong with it!
Tim.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

97% of scientist say that climate change is unprecedented and due to humans burning fossil fuels.
I am a scientist and I agree with the scientists.

 

[timsk]

97% of scientist say that climate change is unprecedented and due to humans burning fossil fuels.
I am a scientist and I agree with the scientists.

That doesn't make them - or you - right!
Besides which, that 97% figure has been debunked many times - it's nonsense. The 'science' says coronavirus can kill anyone irrespective of their age and general heath and that the vaccines are effective and safe. We now know that's total bunkum too. As a result of the lies your colleagues in the scientific community have told day after day during the pandemic, more and more people are waking up to the fact that they're being lied to about climate change as well. Sadly, your once great profession has fallen into complete disrepute, mired by corruption, the pursuit of recognition and money at the expense of genuine scientific enquiry. I just hope you're better at chemistry than most so-called climate scientists are at climate science!
Tim.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Maybe, it is 97% and ME.
I know that many here prefer to belong to the 3% contrarians because it is more cool
It is about common sense, 97% of scientists can be wrong but it makes more sense to believe them than the other 3%.

 

[counter_violent]

Maybe, it is 97% and ME.
I know that many here prefer to belong to the 3% contrarians because it is more cool
It is about common sense, 97% of scientists can be wrong but it makes more sense to believe them than the other 3%.

Cav, Tim has a point that must be addressed.

Science is all about testing hypothesis to destruction and whatever remains must be the truth.

This is not about Govt's mandating policy based on bad science.

Funding of science is likely the main issue here, where the paymaster calls the tune and therefore determines the outcome.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Ok but always looking for a conspiracy, for some bad company trying to profit is not the way to understand a subject that is about chemistry and science, not about ecomony and politics.
Both Elon Musk and Bill Gates say climate change IS THE PROBLEM ( and they are not friends )
There will be businesses that will make money from it just like always, like steam technology or oil technology.
Renewable energy and circular economy is the future and who will make the right steps with it will make money.

 

[timsk]

Maybe, it is 97% and ME.
I know that many here prefer to belong to the 3% contrarians because it is more cool
It is about common sense, 97% of scientists can be wrong but it makes more sense to believe them than the other 3%.

CV,
It's not about being contrarian or being cool - I'm not a fcuking teenager. Jeeeeeeeez!
It's about real science - not pseudo science that's driven by an agenda that has absolutely bu88er all to do with facts and the truth. That's what you're choosing to believe in - which is alarming given that you claim to be a scientist yourself. I expect, like almost everyone who trots out the erroneous 97% figure - you're just repeating it because you heard Barrack Obama or the BBC's Justin Rowlatt say it and assumed that if they're saying it then it must be true. It's not - it's fiddling the numbers. If you can be bothered to discover the truth behind this highly misleading statistic - read this article which explains how it was cooked up . . .

Is it Really True, as Climate Change Activists Claim, That 97% of Scientists Agree With Them?​

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Let's take the opposite position.
Let's suppose climate change is a fake.
Even without it going renewable makes A LOT of sense.
Pullution is not a fake, cancer because of pollution is not a fake, wars because of oil are not fake.

 

[timsk]

Let's take the opposite position.
Let's suppose climate change is a fake.

CV,
Fair enough, but let's be clear from the outset exactly what we're talking about. To repeat, by 'climate change', I do not deny that the climate is changing - it is - and I accept that it's getting slightly warmer. What I dispute is:
1. The rise in temperature is anything to be alarmed about, and . . .
2. That it's caused by CO2 emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels.

Even without it going renewable make A LOT of sense.

Sorry, not sure I understand your point? If it's that even if climate change is fake (as per my definition), then it's still a worthwhile goal to develop renewable energy solutions - then I agree 100%. That's just common sense, as coal, oil and gas will all run out eventually.

Pullution is not a fake, cancer because of pollution is not a fake, wars because of oil are not fake.

This is where the alarmists spin their webs. They often conflate the myth of climate change (again, as per my definition) with air pollution, plastics getting into the food chain and dumping waste at sea etc. All of that is entirely man made and all of it is completely unacceptable. Caring for our environment is something we absolutely must do and I support fully anyone - or any organisation - trying to make that happen. But none of that (pollution) has anything (directly) to do with so called climate change.
Tim.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

1. The rise in temperature is anything to be alarmed about, and . . .
2. That it's caused by CO2 emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels.

YES and YES
As you say pollutiion is a problem, climate change is a problem and an emergency.
If you don't trust me ask to a trusted friend with a degree in chemistry or eviromental science.

 

[counter_violent]

YES and YES
As you say pollutiion is a problem, climate change is a problem and an emergency.
If you don't trust me ask to a trusted friend with a degree in chemistry or eviromental science.

Oh No !

The second line fills me with dismay.

We have gotten so far away from science, truth and discovery here.
I will wager that any new graduates WILL NOT even get a degree these days unless they incorporate all the pre-determined nonsense, masquerading as scientific truth, being handed down by their Professors etc.

You may be familiar with the term, "we have had enough of experts". The reason this came about was that every expert and his dog was deliberately misleading Joe Public into going along with "the official narrative"
We saw this play out with Brexit and Covid19 etc. Why would climate science be exempt?

 

[CavaliereVerde]

deliberately misleading Joe Public into going along with "the official narrative"

Sometimes the official narrative can be right, like about Ukraine...

We saw this play out with Brexit and Covid19 etc.

Better to discuss about it in the right topics.
Long story short:
Brexit: the biggest BS of the century after war in Ukraine
Covi19: the response of every gov in the world has been decent, excluding China and Belarus for opposite reasons.

 

[timsk]

YES and YES
As you say pollutiion is a problem, climate change is a problem and an emergency.
If you don't trust me ask to a trusted friend with a degree in chemistry or eviromental science.

CV,
There's no real evidence based on real science to suggest that climate change is a problem - let alone an emergency.

It's not a question of trusting you or not. I believe you believe what you write, but that's because you've been completely hoodwinked by easily debunked and grossly misleading information (the 97% figure being a good example). Real science does not need to close down debate, censor and cancel people who hold a different view. Surely that's obvious? Real science and real scientists would embrace alternative views in order to establish the truth or, at least, get a little closer to it. Why isn't that happening? If the science is as solid and clear cut as you seem to think it is, then it would be easy to demolish the argument put forward by climate sceptics like me. Closing down the debate is no way to win it. That it's not possible to hold a different view, that organisations like the BBC will not even allow anyone on their programs who challenges the mainstream narrative - tells you all you need to know. Namely that the science you've chosen to believe in without seeing any empirical evidence to support it is at best highly questionable and, at worst, completely false.

As with the pandemic, climate change isn't about the climate at all, it's about money, power and control. If people are sufficiently scared and believe there's an emergency (real or not), then they'll do just about anything their government, media and so called experts tell them. That's why they so love Greta. Having a teenage girl screaming we're all going to die in 12 years time is perfect to get the youngsters on board with the scam - for a scam is what it is - adopted by their parents.
Tim.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

grossly misleading information (the 97% figure being a good example)

What is the right figure?

 

[timsk]

What is the right figure?

It's in the article I linked to.

 

[timsk]

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics – and Computer Models​

 

[CavaliereVerde]

climate sceptics

censor and cancel people who hold a different view.

While about covid the problem was govs facing the unknown.
We know everything about climate change, there is plenty of evidence in experiments and data and everyone can see the disasters happening in front of our eyes.

At this point the emergency is a fact and the different opinion is denial, it is science not politics, 2+2=4 it is not an opinion.
It is not like Trump vs Biden, leave vs remain, private health vs public health.
What could be discussed is how to deal with the emergency, how to prioritize electrification, transit, nuclear energy or renewables.

 

[Atilla]

Good discussions folks. Entertaining as well.

I thought I'd stick my oar in.

I believed in the science to start with and sort of still do. Let's say I'm 51% in favour of the science side but remain 49% sceptical because the planet earth has gone through several cycles of freezing and heating up but as you'll all agree over 1000s of years. Not like in just my life time. So it's pretty personal to me.

With respect to the science, and I like Tim's post above, one can produce any outcome with statistics. It can be mathematically shown that baby births are positively correlated to sighting and number of storks in any year over the last 100 years.

That doesn't mean storks deliver babies. It might be construed that way. So seeing CO2 in the air and witnessing global warming may just be coincidental.

More importantly for me, this has happened before and after global warming we'll no doubt enter another ice age. Apparently, that's how the first humanoids got into the UK many 000s of years ago (before border controls haha). After the ice melted they were left stranded on the Island cut away from Europe.

Question around who/what causes it I think might be to do with perhaps rotation of the sun and and the planets as well but that's a wild guess from me.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

If you take a container of air and another container with added CO2 , you expose them to sunlight the one with CO2 gets hotter, significantly.
This is not statistics and neither an opinion it is scientifical evidence.
There is not need for "support", it is the reality, you can like it or not, if I dont' like that the grass is green the grass is still green.
There are many forms of pollution, CO2 pollution has become an emergency and what is an emergency becomes mainstream, and being mainstrem daos not mean it becomes fake or a manipulation from "the world order" vs the the average Joe.

 

[CavaliereVerde]

Let's say I'm 51% in favour of the science

When you go to the hospital you are trusting science.
When you buy/use something you are trusting a technology that comes from "mainstream science".