Greta Thunberg & Extinction Rebellion

[uttoxram75]

As a complete layman on the subject I try to analyse expert opinion on who pays them for the research. I'm probably too cynical but it seems that, much like the experts who used to say there was no proven link between smoking and cancer, those saying CO2 is not contributing to global warming seem linked to the coal, gas and oil industries.

Tbh, right at this very moment, I'm more worried about the Davies-Forsyth contribution to climatic change in our defensive capabilities.

[uttoxram75]

1 hour ago, Highgate said:

 

Can you see the difference between these two sentences?  If you can see the difference and understand it's significance then you'll be a lot closer to unraveling this whole global warming 'mystery' for yourself. 

I don't mean to be rude, but that's my last effort to persuade you.  I'm gone!

Please keep posting on the subject Highgate, You don't have to argue with others, just keep posting your very interesting and informative posts on a crucial subject that the national media seem very reluctant to go into in any detail.

My granddaughters are interested in the climate change debate and if we don't try to at least understand the science we are failing them.

For every poster that disagrees with you there may be 10 who read it and at least think about it.

[Bob The Badger]

9 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

As a complete layman on the subject I try to analyse expert opinion on who pays them for the research. I'm probably too cynical but it seems that, much like the experts who used to say there was no proven link between smoking and cancer, those saying CO2 is not contributing to global warming seem linked to the coal, gas and oil industries.

Tbh, right at this very moment, I'm more worried about the Davies-Forsyth contribution to climatic change in our defensive capabilities.

Youre totally tight that outliers that offer opinions that fly in the face of General accepted science are frequently financed by by far right organizations trying to prop up antiquated industries and methods on manufacturing. 
Trump will find it hard to get re-elected if the coal mines he promised to keep open Close. and the car plants from leaving the country do so. Plus the tariffs are still hurting midwestern farmers albeit not quite as much.  
The most depressing reason Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord was to save money - questioning the science is just obfuscation and to allow his supporters to glibly refer to it as a hoax. 

[dog]

I'd also like Highgate to keep posting. Although my background is social sciences I find the proper sciences so much more interesting, especially when approached with such clarity.

[GboroRam]

43 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

The most depressing reason Trump pulled out of the Paris Accord was to save money - questioning the science is just obfuscation and to allow his supporters to glibly refer to it as a hoax. 

That for me is the saddest and most troubling part of this. Tinram complained that solar energy hasn't saved any money on his electricity bill. But the discussion is far more than how much it costs. 

The public will choose cheap over clean, even if it destroys the planet. 

Saving the planet is all well and good, but what's the point unless someone can get rich doing it? 

[TimRam]

11 minutes ago, smiths_tavrn said:

Wind turbines for example are heavily subsidised. What's more they aren't as environmentally friendly as they'd have you believe. Vast areas of land have to be cleared of vegetation and wildlife. They catch fire , there is noise pollution and they kill birds and bats in their millions, often endangered species of birds. Their life span isn't that long and as far as I know they have no idea how to decommission them. Its the same with solar panels. they have a limited time span and they have no idea how to decommission them either. The environmentally unfriendly waste is often carted off to poorer countries and dumped there. 

 

Does not reduce bills but makes a lot of money for the investors/companies that build them.

[Comrade 86]

Reading some of these posts made me think of this...

 

[GboroRam]

1 minute ago, smiths_tavrn said:

But that's just it though. We are in danger of not being able to understand the science. We are being told that carbon dioxide is the problem. That's it, it's been proved, Anyone who disagrees, shut up and go away. It's in danger of being ramped up further with shut up or we'll make you go away. 

Did some bloke down the pub explain the finer points? 

Why are 98% of the scientists wrong but you are right?

[GboroRam]

27 minutes ago, TimRam said:

Does not reduce bills but makes a lot of money for the investors/companies that build them.

 

[Turk Thrust]

1 hour ago, dog said:

I'd also like Highgate to keep posting. Although my background is social sciences I find the proper sciences so much more interesting, especially when approached with such clarity.

For me, this is first and foremost a football forum for Rams fans. If he wants to leave the forum because people can't agree with him over a climate change issue, then good riddance

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

For me, this is first and foremost a football forum for Rams fans. If he wants to leave the forum because people can't agree with him over a climate change issue, then good riddance

Charming attitude to take to a fellow ram. 

I don't think he's planning on quitting the forum so put your bunting and streamers away for a bit. 

And if climate change gets you this worked up can I suggest you don't read this thread? 

[Comrade 86]

5 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

For me, this is first and foremost a football forum for Rams fans. If he wants to leave the forum because people can't agree with him over a climate change issue, then good riddance

Thanks for offering your opinion. Mine is that I’d much rather @Highgate remain a forum member as he is a much respected, well liked and valued poster. Your post is completely necessary and uncalled for IMHO. 

[RamNut]

The correlation between co2 levels, and temperature, is standard stuff which has been used to explain extinctions and evolutionary events going back over hundreds of millions of years for yonks.

just saying.

[Tyler Durden]

21 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Thanks for offering your opinion. Mine is that I’d much rather @Highgate remain a forum member as he is a much respected, well liked and valued poster. Your post is completely unnecessary and uncalled for IMHO. 

FTFY

[Tyler Durden]

33 minutes ago, Turk Thrust said:

For me, this is first and foremost a football forum for Rams fans. If he wants to leave the forum because people can't agree with him over a climate change issue, then good riddance

They'd be no one left on here if everyone who disagreed with other people's opinions on football especially decided to do one.

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Turk Thrust said:

For me, this is first and foremost a football forum for Rams fans. If he wants to leave the forum because people can't agree with him over a climate change issue, then good riddance

I have no intention of quitting the forum or even stopping talking about climate change in general.  I just meant I was leaving that particular dialogue  involving @smiths_tavrn It was going nowhere and becoming ridiculous.  I'm glad I did now otherwise I could have been obliged to listen to Ted Cruz!

I could have phrased my post differently in hindsight....but seeing as I posted immediately afterwards on another thread it was  never my intention to leave the forum.

[Bob The Badger]

2 hours ago, smiths_tavrn said:

But science isn't always neutral. Supposing there is no problem. If you dish out £millions in research grants to prove global warming then don't be surprised if the research points in that direction with them needing more funds of course to confirm it. Plus of course you are backing your future albeit unwittingly. So called green energy is heavily subsidised making fuel bills more expensive for everyone. This will hit the less well of in society disproportionally. Wind turbines for example are heavily subsidised. What's more they aren't as environmentally friendly as they'd have you believe. Vast areas of land have to be cleared of vegetation and wildlife. They catch fire , there is noise pollution and they kill birds and bats in their millions, often endangered species of birds. Their life span isn't that long and as far as I know they have no idea how to decommission them. Its the same with solar panels. they have a limited time span and they have no idea how to decommission them either. The environmentally unfriendly waste is often carted off to poorer countries and dumped there. 

The debate is now becoming highly charged and some people have been whipped up into mass hysteria. Some would say it's becoming like a religion / cult. Those who raise doubts are being treated with disdain and seen as heretics. There's even calls from some to have them silenced. This atmosphere unfortunately could get a whole lot more charged with more people scared rigid to voice an opinion disagreeing with the orthodoxy until we get hegemony. 

There also could be unintended consequences from this. Remember when Macron tried to put extra taxes on fuel. This gave rise to the gilets jaunes. 

I *think* for the most part we have to trust most scientists.

Their are lobbyists paying out millions and think tanks  and shadowy foundations being handed hundreds of millions of dollars under the assumption that they will only look for evidence that supports their course.

I've no doubt it happens on the opposite side, just to nothing like that scale. Because there just isn't the financial will or wherewithal to do it.

By and large, at least in the US. the coffers of far right organizations intent on guiding governmental policy to suit their short-term desires dwarf those of the left

The far left are very poor at organizing this kind of thing and large individual donations are far more likely to be giving to organizations that are fighting climate change, groups like the ACLU and more normal charitable organizations like Habitat For Humanity, Red Cross, Salvation Army.

Conservatives want more bang for their book and want to see a return on their investment, rather than just get a warm fuzzy feeling.

In any case all donations are declining because when Trump gave the tax cut to the rich last year he forgot to shout from the rooftops that he's just removed almost all the tax deductions for charitable donations. (I only found out when I had $2,000 of tax relief wiped off by the new law)

Soooo, the rich got a big tax cut. The poor got a tiny tax cut and the real charities that rely on donations got shafted.

I listened to a scientist being interviewed about a year ago on a panel show looking at CC. One guy who was a denier said something to her like, 'your divorced from the real world with your 6-figure salaries and tenured positions.

She then pointed out she earned just less than $40k and didn't have tenure. She followed up by saying the scientists who are earning six figures are almost all being funded by lobbyists.

[Highgate]

12 hours ago, uttoxram75 said:

Please keep posting on the subject Highgate, You don't have to argue with others, just keep posting your very interesting and informative posts on a crucial subject that the national media seem very reluctant to go into in any detail.

My granddaughters are interested in the climate change debate and if we don't try to at least understand the science we are failing them.

For every poster that disagrees with you there may be 10 who read it and at least think about it.

And that's why there is still some reason for optimism.  The younger generations are so much more interested and informed about climate change and indeed about environmental issues in general.

Getting back to Greta, plenty of people have been annoyed and put off by her public displays at anger which she directed at politicians and world leaders who have been consistently dragging their feet on climate change. I don't know if her anger is productive or counter productive but surely it's justified and understandable. The recent COP25 in Madrid was just another depressing procrastination by those in charge of policy.  Why shouldn't the younger generations be anger at our continued mismanagement of the planet for so long?  Hopefully things will be better when they are in charge.  Hopefully.

[Bob The Badger]

59 minutes ago, smiths_tavrn said:

Senator Cruz round 2

 

Ah, Ted Cruz the man from Texas who has been funded by oil Super PACS all his political career.

PACS who raised $37m for him in one week in 2016.

No conflict of interest there then when the oil industry keep him in power.

There are about 5 honest Senators, the rest are just saying what they need to say to hold on to power. 

In all seriousness, this country is utterly corrupt. It's just corrupt in plain sight.

[Bob The Badger]

11 minutes ago, smiths_tavrn said:

Now why wouldn't you listen to what Ted Cruz has got to say? Is it because he's a Republican? Go on open your mind just a little. The first video is only 9 minutes long. 

The Republican element is largely irrelevant, it's that his entire life is built on money given to him by oil Super PACS.

If that was a law court in the UK he wouldn't even be allowed to testify because he would be seen as an unreliable witness.