I read the news today oh boy! Page 2,619

You make a fair point Stephen, it may not happen in our children's life time, but that doesn't negate the Science or save the planet. Other than shroud waving, what incentive is there for our government to do more than pay lip service or project blame away ? Trump made money from concert (very bad environmentally) Bush with crude oil and Boris denied party gate.

If they dont care about what's happening today (eg covid) doubt they'll do anything for future generations unless it benefits them - ie it's in the news. Can you suggest a better proven way ?

The thing is we've always had climate change. That's why, in the past, there have been ice ages. And then there weren't. At the moment there isn't. At some time in the distant future there probably will be. Again.

If you look at a graph of global mean temperatures over the past 500,000 years, you will see that the mean temperature has dropped, risen and then dropped back again periodically, rising and falling on virtually identical gradients each time. At the moment we're on another upward gradient.

The difference this time is that humankind is now either naive enough or arrogant enough (or both) to believe that it either had something to do with having caused the latest upward trend in the first place or that it has the ability to reverse its course. Of course, it's the human race trying to outwit nature (which has been getting along quite nicely for millions of years without any intervention thank you very much) that will probably ultimately do the real damage.

True, but by the same token humans have always thrived by self preservation. So why stop now ? Plus it gets Greta Thumberg out of the house, I expect her parents need the break.

Of course theres has been Climate Change in the past.
We know this from tree-rings etc etc
The difference is, the 'man-made' temperature changes, bought on by increasing C02 in the atmosphere, will do in a century what would happen 'naturally' over 5000 years.
Which gives us a lot less time to adapt.
We can't change the 5000 year cycle - but we can slow-down the accelerated one we're in now.
We don't need to outwit nature.
Just ourselves - which is clearly a harder job.

What I find hilarious about climate change is the average Joe who claims to know more than the WMO, the UN and all the scientists and experts who devote their whole life to studying the subject- spending millions of dollars and using the best scientific equipment etc etc

Yes, YOU lot are actually wrong, and ME , some bloke who works in Halfords is right - it's all nonsense and there's nothing can be done, so just shut up

Wow, now that is some arrogance right there

You pay me A hundred thousand to find evidence that the Earth's water supply is evaporating and escaping through the ozone hole into outer space, ill find you the evidence.

But no-ones going to do that, SG.
You're not a scientist.
But, joking aside, if anyone's getting paid to 'produce' evidence, isn't it more likely to be the 3% of scientist who disagree with the 97%.?
And isn't it more likely that the interested parties might be doing that to protect their fossil-fuel investments/interests etc.?

Quote: lofthouse @ 17th July 2023, 2:37 PM

What I find hilarious about climate change is the average Joe who claims to know more than the WMO, the UN and all the scientists and experts who devote their whole life to studying the subject- spending millions of dollars and using the best scientific equipment etc etc

Yes, YOU lot are actually wrong, and ME , some bloke who works in Halfords is right - it's all nonsense and there's nothing can be done, so just shut up

Wow, now that is some arrogance right there

View original

Because of course scientists & experts have never been wrong in the past! And not all the scientists and experts in any case. Only those that the media prefer to call on and quote. Rather like those scientists and experts who wanted to prolong lockdown as long as possible to protect their vested interests. You never heard from those with alternative views because it didn't fit the agenda.

The thing is you don't know any more than any other layman. You're only believing what you've been told or read. Others have an opinion based on what they've been told or read. The problem is, like so many other things, one is not allowed to question the perceived wisdom. You are not taught to think for yourself anymore. You are, instead, taught what to think.

Quote: Lazzard @ 17th July 2023, 2:47 PM

And isn't it more likely that the interested parties might be doing that to protect their ... ... investments/interests etc.?

View original

Exactly.

Quote: Billy Bunter @ 17th July 2023, 4:36 PM

Exactly.

View original

I'm guessing your point is that it could be the 95% who are all being paid to deliver bad science, whilst the 5% are bold bearers of the truth.
Paid by whom, though?
Scientists have been on about this for years - certainly before there was any sort of 'green industry/economy'.
An industry that, even today, isn't by any stretch of the imagination organised or defined by half-a-dozen powerful, trans-global corporations.
The fossil-fuel industry, on the other hand, has been there from the beginning.
And, much like the tobacco industry, has been promulgating pseudo-science from the get go.
You're a betting man, BB.
If 19 mushroom experts told you a mushroom was poisonous, whilst one said, "Fill you boots, - they're delicious", would you swallow it?
(Especially if you found out he was being funded by the Poisonous Mushroom Society.)

Note: I previously said 97% v 3%. Apologies. I do the mavericks/shills a disservice. But only a little one.

Quote: lofthouse @ 17th July 2023, 2:37 PM

What I find hilarious about climate change is the average Joe who claims to know more than the WMO, the UN and all the scientists and experts who devote their whole life to studying the subject- spending millions of dollars and using the best scientific equipment etc etc

View original

It's not surprising, as scientists are often wrong. Literally trillions of dollars are up for grabs, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. It's prudent to be skeptical when politicians use "unquestionable" science to drive that kind of spending.

Remember "two weeks to flatten the curve" during the pandemic? Remember when Covid vaccinations were going to stop the spread? Remember when it was a good idea to close schools and make toddlers wear masks? Remember when speculating about a Wuhan lab release would get you banned on Twitter?

I remember when butter was bad and margarine was good. I remember when eggs were bad for you. I remember when we were all going to starve to death due to overpopulation - if the coming ice age didn't kill us first.

Quote: DaButt @ 17th July 2023, 5:04 PM

It's not surprising, as scientists are often wrong. Literally trillions of dollars are up for grabs, and everyone wants a piece of the pie. It's prudent to be skeptical when politicians use "unquestionable" science to drive that kind of spending.

Remember "two weeks to flatten the curve" during the pandemic? Remember when Covid vaccinations were going to stop the spread? Remember when it was a good idea to close schools and make toddlers wear masks? Remember when speculating about a Wuhan lab release would get you banned on Twitter?

I remember when butter was bad and margarine was good. I remember when eggs were bad for you. I remember when we were all going to starve to death due to overpopulation - if the coming ice age didn't kill us first.

View original

Always go by the latest science.
That's how science works.

Quote: Lazzard @ 17th July 2023, 5:05 PM

Always go by the latest science.
That's how science works.

View original

But what about when scientists knowingly lie to you? How can you expect people to "trust the science" when they're lying to support their personal interests and politics? Dr. Fauci is a perfect example.

Quote: DaButt @ 17th July 2023, 5:22 PM

But what about when scientists knowingly lie to you? How can you expect people to "trust the science" when they're lying to support their personal interests and politics? Dr. Fauci is a perfect example.

View original

We'll have to agree to differ on that particular point.
That's politics, not science.
BUT, that aside, you have to go with the weight of scientific opinion.

I did when they said London would be underwater in 10 years (its always 10 years - just out of reach)
And the acid rain and the ozone layer.
Scepeptism is now built-in when scientists say the world is doomed.

A cleaner planet is a great thing but cleaner or we all die is not.

I agree I think that stopping pollution and resolving issues that can be addressed but are not is the way forward. Things like every house with solar panels and windmills overriding local planers etc.
We are bad tenants and this planet was fine before us and will be better off after us if needs be. So we need to do more from a positive perspective not imminent death etc.
As it stands one person can sit in the dark all their life and use a bag for life a million times but India and China will build a power station a week. It has to be global rational and adhered to .