independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Climate change protests around the world
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 6 of 10 <12345678910>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #150 posted 10/01/19 3:01am

jaawwnn

avatar

TweetyV6 said:


I do respect everybodys way of living. Do whatever you like.
Just as long as you (not you personally) don't try to impose your way of living on me.

If only any of the most powerful countries on the planet followed this advice eh?

[Edited 10/1/19 3:40am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #151 posted 10/01/19 4:26am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

I'm not sure I agree with some of this. I agree that CO2 is not the sole player, but I do see it as being important. I know that there is probably plenty of science that sides with your post, but there is also plenty of science that suggests the opposite, that CO2 is a major cause for concern. Given how industry has grown exponentially in the past 150ish years, it is not difficult to observe that the fuel consumed by this earth is far higher than ever, and that our emissions are also higher.

There is factual science and there is 'model' science.
That's the whole issue.

The predictions made about temperature rising and what terrible consequences it may have are ALL coming from scientists that use models in order to predict the future. These models, as pointed out earlier, are far from perfect.
There are hundreds of variables in these models of which we know only a few. The rest are, to say it nicely, educated guesses.
Consequence of this is that the error progression [uncertainty] of these models, when predicting further into the future, becomes so big that the prediction about a possible temperature rise falls multiple times within the uncertainty.
Which means that the predicted 3 degrees warming by the end of the century could be 5 degrees cooling but also 11 degrees warming. In other words: THEY DO'T KNOW EXACTLY.

IPCC uses the CMIP5 predictions which is an array of over 50 (!!!) climate models, takes the average of those models, doesn't mention the range of error, and communicates that as 'the truth'.

The FACTS tell a completely different story then what the models have predicted.


That's one issue I have with 'climate science'
The other is that some kind of political corectness has gotten hold of the editors of [scientific] magazines such as Nature. Doomsday predictions sell, factual science is rather boring.
This means that research contradicting the 'the world is near the end, we're all gonna die!!!'-mindset, does simply get not published.
The mainstream media, pick up on those doomsday headlines (because they help selling their product) and, without any sanity check whatsoever, publish the big headlines.

But when an apocalyptic research gets pulled (because of junk science) you won't hear anything about it.
Just recently a research paper, cited by the IPCC, got pulled because of junk science. The statistics in the paper were... crap, to put it mildly.

https://retractionwatch.c...retracted/

Did you hear anything about it?

But I'm sure you heard about it when it was published for example in the New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2...hange.html or the Guardian https://www.theguardian.c...tury-study

2 well known alarmist outlets.

But now it has been retracted... silence.... You don't need to know the facts... you just need to stay alarmed and feel guilty.

As always I side with NASA who say:


Ancient air bubbles trapped in ice enable us to step back in time and see what Earth's atmosphere, and climate, were like in the distant past. They tell us that levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere are higher than they have been at any time in the past 400,000 years. During ice ages, CO2 levels were around 200 parts per million (ppm), and during the warmer interglacial periods, they hovered around 280 ppm (see fluctuations in the graph). In 2013, CO2 levels surpassed 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history. This recent relentless rise in CO2 shows a remarkably constant relationship with fossil-fuel burning, and can be well accounted for based on the simple premise that about 60 percent of fossil-fuel emissions stay in the air.

Today, we stand on the threshold of a new geologic era, which some term the "Anthropocene", one where the climate is very different to the one our ancestors knew.

If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future.


This is a great example of how you are being manipulated.
What should trigger your questionmarks is that they only look at the past 400.000 years, as where earth is much, much older then that.

The reason is simple.... if you go further back in history, CO2 levels were significantly higher then they are now.
If you look on a paleoclimatic scale, going back millions of years, levels of 7000 ppm have been reached.
The GEOCARB III research shows that the current value of 400ppm is the close to lowest value.


And yes, GEOCARB III is a model (combining several researches on proxy data for atmospheric CO2) but in this picture, the estimate of uncertainty is also indicated and if you look at the lowest value of that, you still have way much more CO2 then we have now.

I agree, no-one knows exactly. Jeez, we couldn't predict Brexit, or Trump getting into power, so we've no chance of making accurate predictions for the next hundred years and more. Nonetheless, I'm not going to change my 'beliefs', just as you won't change yours. The retraction you linked to states:


Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal.

Therefore, as I read it, they stand by the results, and are happy to resubmit the paper with the same results, but addressing the criticisms about the uncertainties.

Anyway, what it does show is how complicated it all is for the average Joe with limited scientific knowledge. Which is why, almost always, I'll trust NASA.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #152 posted 10/01/19 5:32am

13cjk13

avatar

jaawwnn said:

TweetyV6 said:


I do respect everybodys way of living. Do whatever you like.
Just as long as you (not you personally) don't try to impose your way of living on me.

If only any of the most powerful countries on the planet followed this advice eh?

[Edited 10/1/19 3:40am]

Yep, and let me do whatever the fuck I want to the environment, just don't impose on my fucking up the world for everyone else. me. me. me. me. me.

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #153 posted 10/01/19 5:37am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Congrats on the new job. It's good to know environmental restraints on chemical usage are being followed. Personally I'd love to see a lot less chemicals used in all sorts of places and for us to go back to nature a lot more.

Thank you

Everything is chemical wink


Taxes are ridiculous. The consumer is penalised for something the industry should change.
There should be clear restrictive legislation, limiting the use of plastics. Why do cucumbers have to be wrapped in plastic? Why is my plastic bag of crisps only filled for 50%?

Making money is no bad idea, we all live from it. If my company wouldn't make profit, I wouldn't have an income and I wouldn't pay income taxes which are used for paying people in public office etc.
I'm certainly not against that, and I surely don't agree with Greta.


I'm not an activist. I just carry on the best I can. I avoid plastic as much as possible (impossible to totally avoid), I avoid palm oil as much as possible, I don't eat meat and am ever striving towards my goal of veganism, I cook simply and live a very simple life. I have had your share of kids though!


I do respect everybodys way of living. Do whatever you like.
Just as long as you (not you personally) don't try to impose your way of living on me.

I said we rely on oil far too much, not that we need to quit using it altogether. I'd say the same about many things (inc plastic). I still think electric vehicles are a good thing.

I'd go with industry regulation, and we agree about packaged fruit etc...

Making money is fine. Taking the piss is not. See the bonus's paid to Thomas Cook bosses, or the amount Jamie Oliver took before his company went bankrupt. How is it even right? When people who worked for them are losing their jobs and homes? Greed at the very real expense of others makes me sick, yet it's everywhere (but at its worst at the top of society)


The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #154 posted 10/01/19 6:19am

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

Greed at the very real expense of others makes me sick, yet it's everywhere (but at its worst at the top of society)


And there you have it.
The reason for climate change panic preaching.
Ever wondered why the big companies like Shell, Vatenfall, Siemens, Exxon Mobile, Total, NASA are suddenly extremely interested in climate, renewables and sustainables?

Electric cars, solar- & wind power ONLY exist because of the 'free money', provided by governments all around the world.

The global sum of governmental provided funding for all kinds of research, renewables and sustainables goes in to trillions (!!) and has surpassed the oil business by a long shot.
(Deliberately?) mis- or ill informed politicians, scared of the brain washed public opinion, issue unfounded legislation and, to pay for all their idocy, introduce all kind of new taxes making the poor even more poor.
Without any accountability.

It is ALWAYS about money & power. Allways. Even with the people behind Greta.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #155 posted 10/01/19 6:42am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

Greed at the very real expense of others makes me sick, yet it's everywhere (but at its worst at the top of society)


And there you have it.
The reason for climate change panic preaching.
Ever wondered why the big companies like Shell, Vatenfall, Siemens, Exxon Mobile, Total, NASA are suddenly extremely interested in climate, renewables and sustainables?

Electric cars, solar- & wind power ONLY exist because of the 'free money', provided by governments all around the world.

The global sum of governmental provided funding for all kinds of research, renewables and sustainables goes in to trillions (!!) and has surpassed the oil business by a long shot.
(Deliberately?) mis- or ill informed politicians, scared of the brain washed public opinion, issue unfounded legislation and, to pay for all their idocy, introduce all kind of new taxes making the poor even more poor.
Without any accountability.

It is ALWAYS about money & power. Allways. Even with the people behind Greta.

So all the climate change scientists are lying. For what reason? They are not on huge salaries. And all the companies inc NASA are corrupt, and all the governments are too cowardly to call the scientists out? Come on, this is a far reach.

[Edited 10/1/19 6:43am]

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #156 posted 10/01/19 6:49am

poppys

Why does one couple need 7 cars? Conspicuous consumption.

And you complain about the greed of Caltech being donated money for climate research. Ridiculous.


"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #157 posted 10/01/19 7:33am

ThatWhiteDude

avatar

poppys said:

Why does one couple need 7 cars? Conspicuous consumption.

And you complain about the greed of Caltech being donated money for climate research. Ridiculous.



yeahthat
"Like books and BLACK LIVES, Albums still MATTER."


"Extra cheese, extra HAM, extra bullshit" -DiminutiveRocker
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #158 posted 10/01/19 7:44am

jaawwnn

avatar

maplenpg said:

TweetyV6 said:


And there you have it.
The reason for climate change panic preaching.
Ever wondered why the big companies like Shell, Vatenfall, Siemens, Exxon Mobile, Total, NASA are suddenly extremely interested in climate, renewables and sustainables?

Electric cars, solar- & wind power ONLY exist because of the 'free money', provided by governments all around the world.

The global sum of governmental provided funding for all kinds of research, renewables and sustainables goes in to trillions (!!) and has surpassed the oil business by a long shot.
(Deliberately?) mis- or ill informed politicians, scared of the brain washed public opinion, issue unfounded legislation and, to pay for all their idocy, introduce all kind of new taxes making the poor even more poor.
Without any accountability.

It is ALWAYS about money & power. Allways. Even with the people behind Greta.

So all the climate change scientists are lying. For what reason? They are not on huge salaries. And all the companies inc NASA are corrupt, and all the governments are too cowardly to call the scientists out? Come on, this is a far reach.

[Edited 10/1/19 6:43am]

I'm not fully sure what tweety is getting at here, businesses LOVE Government money more than anything else because it's usually guaranteed.

Airlines wouldn't exist without all the subsidies that keep them alive, iphones wouldn't exist without the 30-40 odd years of Darpa research. Really the only problem with all of this is that the government doesn't get the payout that Apple gets from the end product.

I 100% agree with him that both the Green and the oil businesses wouldn't exist without governmental funding, the problem now is that the vast majority of us no longer want to fund the oil industry but suddenly we're not allowed call the shots shrug

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #159 posted 10/01/19 10:55am

maplenpg

avatar

jaawwnn said:

maplenpg said:

So all the climate change scientists are lying. For what reason? They are not on huge salaries. And all the companies inc NASA are corrupt, and all the governments are too cowardly to call the scientists out? Come on, this is a far reach.

[Edited 10/1/19 6:43am]

I'm not fully sure what tweety is getting at here, businesses LOVE Government money more than anything else because it's usually guaranteed.

Airlines wouldn't exist without all the subsidies that keep them alive, iphones wouldn't exist without the 30-40 odd years of Darpa research. Really the only problem with all of this is that the government doesn't get the payout that Apple gets from the end product.

I 100% agree with him that both the Green and the oil businesses wouldn't exist without governmental funding, the problem now is that the vast majority of us no longer want to fund the oil industry but suddenly we're not allowed call the shots shrug

Yup, and if we're going to discuss government money being spent inappropriately, maybe we should be looking at our top ministers giving our taxes to their prostitutes mistresses. Or high speed rail, which might now be cancelled at the cost of billions. But, sigh, obviously saving the planet is the biggest waste of all.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #160 posted 10/02/19 4:00am

TweetyV6

avatar

poppys said:

Why does one couple need 7 cars? Conspicuous consumption.

That's your opinion.
I don't need them in a way that they are necessary to live.
We don't drive 3 of them; they're going to be saved for later

And you complain about the greed of Caltech being donated money for climate research. Ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with greed. It's just free money for researchers who, to my opinion, do not deserve it.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #161 posted 10/02/19 4:02am

TweetyV6

avatar

ThatWhiteDude said:

poppys said:

Why does one couple need 7 cars? Conspicuous consumption.

And you complain about the greed of Caltech being donated money for climate research. Ridiculous.


yeahthat


Oh, my favoriute SJW Snowflake chimed in.
Is there anything else you can contribute to the discussion, except for the 'Yeah That' sign? rolleyes

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #162 posted 10/02/19 4:16am

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:


So all the climate change scientists are lying. For what reason? They are not on huge salaries.

All? No. Not all.
Some of them are unknowingly incapable, some of them know they're lying.

Reason: They need to make a living and get published / funding.

And all the companies inc NASA are corrupt, and all the governments are too cowardly to call the scientists out? Come on, this is a far reach.


NASA's James Hansen is a well known alarmist.
NASA is also very dependent on government funding.

Not all governments are too cowardly to call the scientist out.
Trump isn't.
But the majority of the European governments are.

In the Dutch parliament, there are 150 politicians. Only 2 (!!) of them have a scientific degree.

The other 148 don't have a effin' clue about science.

It's the 'scientific' & industry lobby who decides about legislation.
And that's even worse in the EU parliament. If you want to see how corruption works, go to Brussels.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #163 posted 10/02/19 5:08am

13cjk13

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

ThatWhiteDude said:

poppys said: yeahthat


Oh, my favoriute SJW Snowflake chimed in.
Is there anything else you can contribute to the discussion, except for the 'Yeah That' sign? rolleyes

nuts nuts nuts nuts nuts

"hey if you found out someone gave you a fake $20 would you be mad?"It is in fact #TRUTH.Mocha ObsidianˈN(y)o͞obēən Cocoa Noir...
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #164 posted 10/02/19 5:26am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:


So all the climate change scientists are lying. For what reason? They are not on huge salaries.

All? No. Not all.
Some of them are unknowingly incapable, some of them know they're lying.

Reason: They need to make a living and get published / funding.

And all the companies inc NASA are corrupt, and all the governments are too cowardly to call the scientists out? Come on, this is a far reach.


NASA's James Hansen is a well known alarmist.
NASA is also very dependent on government funding.

Not all governments are too cowardly to call the scientist out.
Trump isn't.
But the majority of the European governments are.

In the Dutch parliament, there are 150 politicians. Only 2 (!!) of them have a scientific degree.

The other 148 don't have a effin' clue about science.

It's the 'scientific' & industry lobby who decides about legislation.
And that's even worse in the EU parliament. If you want to see how corruption works, go to Brussels.

We'll agree to disagree about this. I've met a lot of researchers in my time. I don't think any of them don't believe 100% in their research. Now that is not to say that their research can't be critiqued, but I don't see any of them as being underhand in their findings (but then I might be unknowingly incapable wink)

As for governments, we are on opposing sides. I'd rather the governments took more action. I absolutely agree there is corruption in Brussels, but I don't believe climate change is at the heart of it. Trump has harmed the whole 'helping the planet' movement, not just climate change. He's a baffoon and I'll never believe he knows what he's talking about, about anything. He's a conman out of his depth, but that's a different thread.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #165 posted 10/02/19 5:45am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

poppys said:

Why does one couple need 7 cars? Conspicuous consumption.

That's your opinion.
I don't need them in a way that they are necessary to live.
We don't drive 3 of them; they're going to be saved for later

And you complain about the greed of Caltech being donated money for climate research. Ridiculous.

It has nothing to do with greed. It's just free money for researchers who, to my opinion, do not deserve it.

I thought you and your wife drove 1 each? That would leave 5 that weren't driven?

With regard the donation from Resnicks to Caltech, Resnicks made a shitload of money through bottled water and pomegranate juice. That's a whole lot of plastic being generated, much of which will have been thrown away. Plus Caltech are saying that the donation will "permit Caltech to tackle issues of water, energy, food and waste", all of which have to be good for the planet, regardless of whether you believe in man-made climate change or not. I applaud his move.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #166 posted 10/02/19 6:53am

poppys

TweetyV6 said:

poppys said:

Why does one couple need 7 cars? Conspicuous consumption.

That's your opinion.
I don't need them in a way that they are necessary to live.
We don't drive 3 of them; they're going to be saved for later

And you complain about the greed of Caltech being donated money for climate research. Ridiculous.


It has nothing to do with greed. It's just free money for researchers who, to my opinion, do not deserve it.


TweetyV6 said:
And the researchers go:

(gif of ugly guy dancing in flag underwear)

FREE MONEY FOR OUR HOAX


Riiiight. Of course. Climate research is a hoax. Why should researchers get "free" money??? Those billionaires should just buy extra cars and save them for later!!!

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #167 posted 10/02/19 7:45am

maplenpg

avatar

poppys said:

TweetyV6 said:


It has nothing to do with greed. It's just free money for researchers who, to my opinion, do not deserve it.


TweetyV6 said:
And the researchers go:

(gif of ugly guy dancing in flag underwear)

FREE MONEY FOR OUR HOAX


Riiiight. Of course. Climate research is a hoax. Why should researchers get "free" money??? Those billionaires should just buy extra cars and save them for later!!!

I think a lot of research can be criticised before it has even happened. People have very different ideas about where money should be spent in order to make best progress in the world. I also think a lot of research is flawed, and bias.

However, do I think that a massive number of scientists worldwide are trying to hoodwink the world for their own ends? No.

Do I think money (a lot of it made from bottled water) should be used to work out ways we can continue to exist on this earth and not continue on our current path to fucking it up (and many of us have varied ideas on how exactly we're fucking it up, but most agree we are)? Of course.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #168 posted 10/02/19 11:05am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

Plastic kills. sad

“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it.”
-George Orwell, 1984
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #169 posted 10/02/19 10:26pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:


I also think a lot of research is flawed, and bias.

I'm very sure. In some cases not even self motivated but 'forced'

Before my new job, I worked at Eumetsat, the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

As Head of Process Assurance and Management Support Division, I was in charge of the data integrity and data accuracy of data we collected. (and I've worked together with ESA and NASA, mainly about instruments for data collection & data transfer)

I have seen data being manipulated by running them through 'models' before being provided to media outlets. This was politically motivated (Eumetsat is a EU institute, management representatives are in Brussels twice a month)

I could go public with it, but that would harm my future as I do have signed a non disclosure agreement when I left in order to be eligible for the Eumetsat pension scheme.


However, do I think that a massive number of scientists worldwide are trying to hoodwink the world for their own ends? No.


It's not a massive amount. It's merely a hand full. But they're very vocal and are supported by a influencial lobby and have access to large media outlets. Like Dana Nuccitelli, who is tied to the Britisch newspaper the Guardian

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #170 posted 10/03/19 2:19am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:


I also think a lot of research is flawed, and bias.

I'm very sure. In some cases not even self motivated but 'forced'

Before my new job, I worked at Eumetsat, the European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites.

As Head of Process Assurance and Management Support Division, I was in charge of the data integrity and data accuracy of data we collected. (and I've worked together with ESA and NASA, mainly about instruments for data collection & data transfer)

I have seen data being manipulated by running them through 'models' before being provided to media outlets. This was politically motivated (Eumetsat is a EU institute, management representatives are in Brussels twice a month)

I could go public with it, but that would harm my future as I do have signed a non disclosure agreement when I left in order to be eligible for the Eumetsat pension scheme.


However, do I think that a massive number of scientists worldwide are trying to hoodwink the world for their own ends? No.


It's not a massive amount. It's merely a hand full. But they're very vocal and are supported by a influencial lobby and have access to large media outlets. Like Dana Nuccitelli, who is tied to the Britisch newspaper the Guardian

I'm sorry Tweety, regardless of the fancy job titles you post, I simply don't believe that the climate change movement, which is massive, is a hoax, or forced, or whatever. I think it is debatable whether climate change is man made, or whether it can be reversed. That is not to say that I don't think investment shouldn't be made into trying to find the answers to these questions.

If I choose to believe the carbon predictions, then I will be dead before I know whether those predictions come true or not. But my grandchildren won't be, or their children. And maybe, regardless of whether I believe the research is bias, or flawed, or whatever, I would like the planet to be as healthy as possible for many generations to come. And if that means taking my chances, just in case, then so be it. Even if the predictions turn out to be wrong.

There are many people destroying the planet, by war, by rainforest deforestation, by over-use of plastic, by over-consummation, by waste, by needless imports, by refusal to build sea defences, by over-use of antibiotics etc... I could go on and on. It may be too late, it may not be. All I know is that I want to be as kind to the earth as I can. And if that means money needs to get spent on how best to enable humanity to survive, then I have no problem with that - even if there are a handful of corrupt people getting rich on the back of it (it would hardly be the only corrupt part of society would it?).

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #171 posted 10/03/19 2:57am

jaawwnn

avatar

Well said Maplenpg. I mean, it's similar to the whole "Soros-funded" right-wing talking point, it's true that Soros funds certain groups but he's one billionaire compared to the innummerable billionaires who fund the other side. Yeah, people have their ideologies and their actions are going to reflect them, that's how it works. Right now the (broadly speaking) right have way more power in government and business, in material interests, the (once again broadly speaking) left have a bit more power in the cultural sphere, although even that's way overblown when you consider the reader/viewership for Fox News/ British Tabloid media.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #172 posted 10/03/19 4:08am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

maplenpg said:

TweetyV6 said:


It's not a massive amount. It's merely a hand full. But they're very vocal and are supported by a influencial lobby and have access to large media outlets. Like Dana Nuccitelli, who is tied to the Britisch newspaper the Guardian

I'm sorry Tweety, regardless of the fancy job titles you post, I simply don't believe that the climate change movement, which is massive, is a hoax, or forced, or whatever. I think it is debatable whether climate change is man made, or whether it can be reversed. That is not to say that I don't think investment shouldn't be made into trying to find the answers to these questions.

If I choose to believe the carbon predictions, then I will be dead before I know whether those predictions come true or not. But my grandchildren won't be, or their children. And maybe, regardless of whether I believe the research is bias, or flawed, or whatever, I would like the planet to be as healthy as possible for many generations to come. And if that means taking my chances, just in case, then so be it. Even if the predictions turn out to be wrong.

There are many people destroying the planet, by war, by rainforest deforestation, by over-use of plastic, by over-consummation, by waste, by needless imports, by refusal to build sea defences, by over-use of antibiotics etc... I could go on and on. It may be too late, it may not be. All I know is that I want to be as kind to the earth as I can. And if that means money needs to get spent on how best to enable humanity to survive, then I have no problem with that - even if there are a handful of corrupt people getting rich on the back of it (it would hardly be the only corrupt part of society would it?).

keep in mind that some of us that see it as a "Hoax" are just as sure as thoes that think we are all doomed. And most of the time when I say it is a "hoax" I am not really using that term in a formal way. I mean that it is not really a threat to life on the planet. We do know that many of the major reports have issue with data being 'selected' and in some cases they either guessed or chose the data point that best fit what they wanted the data to say.

Now the crooks are the scum like gore who have made millions... that fool justfied him using like 10X the average energy by saying he buys carbon offsets... FROM HIS OWN COMPANY! I just mover $20 from my left pocker to my right pocket....see I do my part!


But again if the alarmist get their way all of us willl suffer... millions will die...while others get rich.

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #173 posted 10/03/19 4:20am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Well said Maplenpg. I mean, it's similar to the whole "Soros-funded" right-wing talking point, it's true that Soros funds certain groups but he's one billionaire compared to the innummerable billionaires who fund the other side. Yeah, people have their ideologies and their actions are going to reflect them, that's how it works. Right now the (broadly speaking) right have way more power in government and business, in material interests, the (once again broadly speaking) left have a bit more power in the cultural sphere, although even that's way overblown when you consider the reader/viewership for Fox News/ British Tabloid media.

little bit like the leftist lie talking point that 97% of climate scientist agree in reversible man made global climate change--or whatever...

No: about 97% of people attending a climate change alarmist convention (or whatever it was) which was mostly people who were not climate scientists... agreed that there was some form or some level of concern for climate change. And that was decades ago! And so far we've lived like 40 years under the doom clock of 10 years! We are all okay.

The Spike is Real Wear a Mask (this is not the 2nd Wave)
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #174 posted 10/03/19 5:10am

jaawwnn

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

jaawwnn said:

Well said Maplenpg. I mean, it's similar to the whole "Soros-funded" right-wing talking point, it's true that Soros funds certain groups but he's one billionaire compared to the innummerable billionaires who fund the other side. Yeah, people have their ideologies and their actions are going to reflect them, that's how it works. Right now the (broadly speaking) right have way more power in government and business, in material interests, the (once again broadly speaking) left have a bit more power in the cultural sphere, although even that's way overblown when you consider the reader/viewership for Fox News/ British Tabloid media.

little bit like the leftist lie talking point that 97% of climate scientist agree in reversible man made global climate change--or whatever...

No: about 97% of people attending a climate change alarmist convention (or whatever it was) which was mostly people who were not climate scientists... agreed that there was some form or some level of concern for climate change. And that was decades ago! And so far we've lived like 40 years under the doom clock of 10 years! We are all okay.

Sure yeah, it was a nice easy way to deal with the brain melting nonsense that was coming from climate change "skeptics" a few years back. The ozone problem from 30-40 years ago was fixed (not entirely, but to a fair degree) because we did something about it, not because it wasn't real. I'm sure Tweety is right that the earth was a lot hotter back in the day, for millions of years when humans didn't live on earth, fascinating stuff, I don't believe him when he says humans do nothing to the atmosphere, every oil company worked out the damage they were doing to the planet back in the 80s, he can go argue with them and show them his graphs.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. Indeed.


Meanwhile, i'm looking out my window at the approach of the second "once in a hundred years" storm we've had in the past three years.

[Edited 10/3/19 5:19am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #175 posted 10/03/19 8:03am

poppys

jaawwnn said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

little bit like the leftist lie talking point that 97% of climate scientist agree in reversible man made global climate change--or whatever...

No: about 97% of people attending a climate change alarmist convention (or whatever it was) which was mostly people who were not climate scientists... agreed that there was some form or some level of concern for climate change. And that was decades ago! And so far we've lived like 40 years under the doom clock of 10 years! We are all okay.

Sure yeah, it was a nice easy way to deal with the brain melting nonsense that was coming from climate change "skeptics" a few years back. The ozone problem from 30-40 years ago was fixed (not entirely, but to a fair degree) because we did something about it, not because it wasn't real. I'm sure Tweety is right that the earth was a lot hotter back in the day, for millions of years when humans didn't live on earth, fascinating stuff, I don't believe him when he says humans do nothing to the atmosphere, every oil company worked out the damage they were doing to the planet back in the 80s, he can go argue with them and show them his graphs.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. Indeed.


Meanwhile, i'm looking out my window at the approach of the second "once in a hundred years" storm we've had in the past three years.


I saw y'all were getting Lorenzo. Hope all is well.

They told us that 100 year storm BS after Katrina too. Now a bad rainstorm floods many parts of the city, a few times this past summer. Places that never used to flood.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #176 posted 10/03/19 11:21pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

TweetyV6 said:


It's not a massive amount. It's merely a hand full. But they're very vocal and are supported by a influencial lobby and have access to large media outlets. Like Dana Nuccitelli, who is tied to the Britisch newspaper the Guardian

I'm sorry Tweety, regardless of the fancy job titles you post, I simply don't believe that the climate change movement, which is massive, is a hoax, or forced, or whatever. I think it is debatable whether climate change is man made, or whether it can be reversed. That is not to say that I don't think investment shouldn't be made into trying to find the answers to these questions.

Wel you use a word which is very important in this context: believe.
The climate change movement has become very, very religious like. If I would ask any of the climate change protesters what the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphefe is, I'm pretty damn sure that 99,99% would not be able to say 400ppm, let alone explain what ppm actually means.
In general, they're ill informed.

Like with any religion, doom is preached if you don't change your behaviour.
Free of facts, full of apocalyptic fantasy.

Like the sea level rise.
Large part of the Netherlands lies below sea level, so the Dutch have a very strong interest in measuring what's happening to the sea level and thus have been doing so for quite a while.

Here data provided by the Dutch Government:

As you can see, there is no 'acceleration' in sea level rise as is preached by the climate catastrophy church

But the 'funny' thing about it is that the rise is not so much due to an increased amout of water but du to the land drying and therfore shrinking (the land sucked itself full [like a sponge] of water during the melting of the ice after the ice age).

Instant FUCK ME experience.....

Writing the part above, I noticed that the page had changed significantly

Site capture from 14 sept 2017: https://web.archive.org/w...n-mondiaal

On 14 Sept. 2017 the site said:

De meest relevante lokale factor is een bodemdaling over eeuwen. Deze daling is het gevolg van een herstel van de bodem na het wegsmelten van de ijskappen aan het einde van de laatste ijstijd (Peltier, 1999)


The most relevant local factor is a subsidence over centuries. This decrease is the result of a recovery of the soil after the melting of the ice caps at the end of the last ice age (Peltier, 1999)

Now, 2 years later it says: https://www.clo.nl/indica...n-mondiaal

Voor het grootste deel is de trend langs de Nederlandse kust te verklaren uit factoren die op wereldschaal spelen zoals uitzetting van opwarmend zeewater en smelten van ijskappen. Zie tekst hierna en de referenties Katsman et al. (2011) en Sterlini et al. (2017). Daarnaast is de trend voor een klein deel te verklaren uit factoren die lokaal langs de Nederlandse kust invloed hebben zoals een bodemdaling over eeuwen. Deze daling is het gevolg van een herstel van de bodem na het wegsmelten van de ijskappen aan het einde van de laatste ijstijd (Peltier, 1999).

For the most part, the trend along the Dutch coast can be explained by factors that play a role on a global scale such as the expansion of warming seawater and the melting of ice sheets. See the text below and the references Katsman et al. (2011) and Sterlini et al. (2017). In addition, a small part of the trend can be explained by factors that locally influence the Dutch coast, such as a subsidence over centuries. This decrease is the result of a recovery of the soil after the melting of the ice caps at the end of the last ice age (Peltier, 1999).

What has happened in those 2 years?
There was an election and the government of the Netherlands changed. A party joined the coalition which is very vocal about climate change. Guess they thought the original text wasn't alarming enough.

What first was the most relevant local factor has now been pushed to the background and has been labeled 'a small part of the trend'



Another example of how people deliberately are being mis-informed.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #177 posted 10/03/19 11:48pm

TweetyV6

avatar

maplenpg said:

I thought you and your wife drove 1 each? That would leave 5 that weren't driven?

Well, kind of. Obviously, we can only drive one car each at the same time. That means 5 are unused. 3 of those 5 I haven't driven for a couple of years now.

Of the other 4, 2 are only used in summer (convertibles), 2 are used all year.
Whereas we drive together, obviously 1 car is used.

My point was that it's not about the amount of cars we have, but about the combined amount of miles/km's we drive them for (if at all). And for the 2 of us, that's relatively low.

Especially since I have my new job, which is only 25km away from where I live, so I go by mountainbike 2-3 times per week.

The man of science has learned to believe in justification, not by faith, but by verification - Thomas Henry Huxley
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #178 posted 10/04/19 2:00am

maplenpg

avatar

TweetyV6 said:

maplenpg said:

I thought you and your wife drove 1 each? That would leave 5 that weren't driven?

Well, kind of. Obviously, we can only drive one car each at the same time. That means 5 are unused. 3 of those 5 I haven't driven for a couple of years now.

Of the other 4, 2 are only used in summer (convertibles), 2 are used all year.
Whereas we drive together, obviously 1 car is used.

My point was that it's not about the amount of cars we have, but about the combined amount of miles/km's we drive them for (if at all). And for the 2 of us, that's relatively low.

Especially since I have my new job, which is only 25km away from where I live, so I go by mountainbike 2-3 times per week.

Well, one things for sure, you have a shit load more money, and space, than I have!!! biggrin

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #179 posted 10/04/19 2:07am

jaawwnn

avatar

poppys said:

jaawwnn said:

Sure yeah, it was a nice easy way to deal with the brain melting nonsense that was coming from climate change "skeptics" a few years back. The ozone problem from 30-40 years ago was fixed (not entirely, but to a fair degree) because we did something about it, not because it wasn't real. I'm sure Tweety is right that the earth was a lot hotter back in the day, for millions of years when humans didn't live on earth, fascinating stuff, I don't believe him when he says humans do nothing to the atmosphere, every oil company worked out the damage they were doing to the planet back in the 80s, he can go argue with them and show them his graphs.

We are all okay, as long as "we" are the ones living on top of the empire of eternal war. Indeed.


Meanwhile, i'm looking out my window at the approach of the second "once in a hundred years" storm we've had in the past three years.


I saw y'all were getting Lorenzo. Hope all is well.

They told us that 100 year storm BS after Katrina too. Now a bad rainstorm floods many parts of the city, a few times this past summer. Places that never used to flood.

We seem to have come through it without any major incidents, a loss of power here and there, thanks for asking! We'll be fine as long as they don't become regular occurrences...

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 6 of 10 <12345678910>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Climate change protests around the world