|
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 68
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 43,603
|
Re: Climate Change
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
You’re wasting your time, Seph. Whatever the influencers on social media say, the same old loyal CF band of followers follow, pied-piper-like, and refuse to discuss other possibilities or any faults in the arguments they peddle.
I’ve pretty well given up arguing much on here because I have concluded that it’s utterly pointless.
Of course we all agree there is climate change is happening, but I think the jury is out on whether the causes are man made for all the reasons that have been debated above. The reason that there is scientific ‘consensus’ is because those who question it have been silenced, with threats to their careers.
The scientists are not always right. They were wrong to say 30 years ago that butter was bad for you, and they were wrong to claim we were heading for another ice age in the 1960s.
But I’m afraid you’ll never get to have a sensible discussion on here about other possible causes that may be triggering climate change. The usual suspects would prefer to laugh at you, ridicule you and claim that they know more than you do, selecting snippets from stuff they find on their selected websites that happen to be taken as proof they are right. And when you do the same to prove them wrong, they will ridicule the source of the news item, the author, or whatever they choose to satisfy themselves they are right. If all else fails, they will twist your words to mean something else or subtlety change the subject.
I’m sure that a lot of people watching the posts on this forum stay quiet rather than disagree because they don’t want to get shot down in flames for disagreeing.
What a waste of what could have been a really good debating site. Climate change is a really big issue for the planet, which is why it’s difficult to understand why people don’t want to discuss it, or even consider how unacceptable the population will find it when the power runs out and when they realise that they can’t afford all the rushed changes the politicians want to make to get to where they want to be.
They will find out soon enough. The sale of new petrol and diesel cars will be banned in 2030 under current plans and duel fuel cars from 2035. After seeing the public reaction to the extension of the ULEZ scheme in London, can you imagine the reaction from the public when these bans come into force? And that will be nothing compared to the rush to ban gas boilers in favour of heat pumps!
I’d just sit back and watch if I were you, Seph. It will be amusing to observe all the backtracking that will result.
|
Are you OK, OB?
You didn’t use "lefties" or "woke" in your diatribe…
btw, it’s obvious you’ve never worked with scientific researchers/professors - they never shut up about what they are doing, and they thrive on pointing out where previous research got things wrong/incorrectly interpreted; it’s how the scientific method works
Quote:
|
The reason that there is scientific ‘consensus’ is because those who question it have been silenced, with threats to their careers.
|
Now you’re talking absolute bolleaux - you are stating that every government in the world is suppressing information that shows Climate Change isn’t happening the way the established consensus shows.
Even the Scientists in the Oil companies got the same results as Academic researchers - are you saying the Oil companies suppressed them?
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...ence.%E2%80%9D
Quote:
Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.
In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.
“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”
|
You’ve moved on from the Telegraph to UnHerd & Spiked, haven’t you?
__________________
Thank you for calling the Abyss.
If you have called to scream, please press 1 to be transferred to the Void, or press 2 to begin your stare.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Last edited by Hugh; 14-08-2023 at 21:43.
|