Climate Change

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

There you go, never actually answering the points actually made. The only way you ever think you’ve won an argument is through ridicule. We see through you, jfman.

Now what about actually addressing the points I have made?

Where did you actually make any?

Who are this collective “we” you speak of? The voices in your head?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

Where did you actually make any?

Who are this collective “we” you speak of? The voices in your head?

More deflection…

[jfman]

You’ve offered nothing but speculation. No evidence. Only the ludicrous implication that you, and a tiny minority of scientists, are capable of establishing “facts” against long standing despite being unable to evidence them.

Who to believe you - who in a mere three threads is denying science, supporting the criminal destruction of traditional buildings and wanting to steamroller pay and conditions for the working people of this great nation. Or the 97% of scientists who think man made climate change is a thing.

Tough one.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

You’ve offered nothing but speculation. No evidence. Only the ludicrous implication that you, and a tiny minority of scientists, are capable of establishing “facts” against long standing despite being unable to evidence them.

Who to believe you - who in a mere three threads is denying science, supporting the criminal destruction of traditional buildings and wanting to steamroller pay and conditions for the working people of this great nation. Or the 97% of scientists who think man made climate change is a thing.

Tough one.

And you are denying the wealth of posts that went before this. You are all hot air and you never answer the actual points made. How do you get satisfaction out of this?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

And you are denying the wealth of posts that went before this. You are all hot air and you never answer the actual points made. How do you get satisfaction out of this?

Quote some. I’ll wait...

FFS, both of you stop, or i'll remove you from the topic.

All we're doing on here is citing other sources because none of us have first-hand information or are climate scientists. The argument comes down to who you believe and where you get that information.

I didn't study geology, the numbers I posted earlier I got from Wikipedia and NASA's website. I trust scientists who studied these things more than I trust people with degrees in humanities who write books on it.

There are two different debates to be had.

Is man-made global warming happening? I think this is a scientific debate that will have a factual answer made as accurate as possible given the information we have. I don't think people who aren't scientists can add much new information to that.

and

What do Governments do about it? This is a political debate where scientists are part of the discussion but not the authorities on it.

[Sephiroth]

I’ll address OB’s points (in my way). First, he’s absolutely right about climate change.

Second, and to Damien’s point about the scale of the Researchgate graph I posted: My point is that whatever’s happening on the magnified scale of the graph (which is what the doomsters always publish), is right at the top of the 140,000 year cycle. So, it’s gonna happen anyway.

Third, to jfman’s point about the oil giants. Yes, he’s right. The filthy lucre is all that big business cares about and there is no global legal framework that can control it. When the ocean warming (which is cyclical and not all down to man-made causes) knocks the Gulf Stream for six, then in our non-Volcanic region, heat pumps will be useless.

It’s the government that needs to join the dots (perhaps as well as certain others on this forum).

Old Seph.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

When the ocean warming (which is cyclical and not all down to man-made causes) knocks the Gulf Stream for six, then in our non-Volcanic region, heat pumps will be useless.

It appears you haven’t the faintest idea how heat pumps work, despite the information being freely available for personal research. As you haven’t bothered to fact check yourself on this I see no reason to value your opinions on the rest of it.

And, incidentally, that is the entire problem with this debate in the public square. It’s actually fairly technical and those who have trained in the relevant disciplines and studied the relevant data are all consistently saying the same thing. There are vanishingly few dissenters amongst those with relevant expertise. Yet the space is being crowded by people with no relevant skills, loudly demanding they be allowed to ‘debate’ the issue with those who have.

There’s more to this than having a GCSE in geography and thinking you know how to do graphs. And opinions are like anuses. Everybody has one - so what?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I’ll address OB’s points (in my way). First, he’s absolutely right about climate change.

Second, and to Damien’s point about the scale of the Researchgate graph I posted: My point is that whatever’s happening on the magnified scale of the graph (which is what the doomsters always publish), is right at the top of the 140,000 year cycle. So, it’s gonna happen anyway.

Third, to jfman’s point about the oil giants. Yes, he’s right. The filthy lucre is all that big business cares about and there is no global legal framework that can control it. When the ocean warming (which is cyclical and not all down to man-made causes) knocks the Gulf Stream for six, then in our non-Volcanic region, heat pumps will be useless.

It’s the government that needs to join the dots (perhaps as well as certain others on this forum).

Old Seph.

Ah but is it Old Seph? He would provided objective proof and reasoned argument why Climate Change is not a clear and present danger.

This prompts the wider, more fundamental question: why is it that intelligent people do not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it that:

a) the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong. In this case, the evidence that persuaded them he consensus is wrong is easily put forward. Of course, the next question is that why this clear, authoritative evidence has not convinced the people who dedicated their lives to this science?

b) they are fearful of being personally less wealthy if we address the issue

c) <insert excuse here>

You missed out

d) Own the Libs...

e) someone else's problem...

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

This prompts the wider, more fundamental question: why is it that intelligent people do not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it that:

a) the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong. In this case, the evidence that persuaded them he consensus is wrong is easily put forward. Of course, the next question is that why this clear, authoritative evidence has not convinced the people who dedicated their lives to this science?

Because intelligent people are sceptical and if the message is all one way traffic, debate is shut down, the MSM obviously pushing a narrative. Then intelligent people will do their own due diligence.

b) they are fearful of being personally less wealthy if we address the issue

Of course.

Do you know who isn’t having this discussion? Africa, India and much of Asia, South America. Because they aim to have our standard of living and our level wealth.

To attain that they need cheap energy, as we have enjoyed for decades.

Proposals for net-zero will make us less wealthy and prevent developing countries from attaining wealth.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Ah but is it Old Seph? He would provided objective proof and reasoned argument why Climate Change is not a clear and present danger.

This prompts the wider, more fundamental question: why is it that intelligent people do not agree with the overwhelming scientific consensus? Is it that:

a) the overwhelming scientific consensus is wrong. In this case, the evidence that persuaded them he consensus is wrong is easily put forward. Of course, the next question is that why this clear, authoritative evidence has not convinced the people who dedicated their lives to this science?

b) they are fearful of being personally less wealthy if we address the issue

c) <insert excuse here>

Au contraire. The climate change is a clear & present danger. It was going to happen anyway

Btw, your second paragraph is irrelevant political dogma.
.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Au contraire. The climate change is a clear & present danger. It was going to happen anyway

Btw, your second paragraph is irrelevant political dogma.
.

You seem to be proving my point. You make an assertion that is contrary to the overwhelming mass of climate scientists yet do not provide any objective, scientific evidence to disprove said consensus.

"It's my reality and I will cry if I want to" ...

---------- Post added at 14:20 ---------- Previous post was at 14:16 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Because intelligent people are sceptical and if the message is all one way traffic, debate is shut down, the MSM obviously pushing a narrative. Then intelligent people will do their own due diligence.



Of course.

Do you know who isn’t having this discussion? Africa, India and much of Asia, South America. Because they aim to have our standard of living and our level wealth.

To attain that they need cheap energy, as we have enjoyed for decades.

Proposals for net-zero will make us less wealthy and prevent developing countries from attaining wealth.

You said the quiet bit out loud "I am too intelligent to listen to scientific consensus so I will disregard it" So, having intelligently done your "due diligence", where is the evidence that the consensus is wrong?

Again, thank you. You have also confirmed that, at least for you, it is all about the money.

[Sephiroth]

@ian

I don’t think I’m saying anything fundamentally contrary to the scientists who are predicting various degrees of doom arising from climate change.

I’m merely presenting proof (the researchgate graphs) that this was always going to happen.

To that extent, I may be at odds with some of them in so far as what’s happening is, and always has been, irreversible. Stopping oil, gas etc will not stop this.