Gotta love Extinction Rebellion

[Archied]

13 minutes ago, Highgate said:

That's my point really. I have researched it.  I'm asking where you your idea from, as it's controversial to say the least.  

Ok start here, even though it’s much gentler on on the stat manipulation than lots of other stuff I’ve read , watched, heard it’s very clear this 97% figure trotted out as gospel is wrong and makes clear the motivation behind the misinformation being passed by climate crisis extremists 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=17075e5c1157

[Archied]

27 minutes ago, Highgate said:

And yet accumulated an impressive body of knowledge over time.  So much so that we are able to land a probe on a comet nearly a half a billion kilometres away from Earth.  How hard would that be without science?  

If you don't trust the scientists who do we believe when it comes to climate change?  

Really ? You know very well it’s not about trusting scientist’s it a question of trusting who funds they’re research , who pulls they’re funding if they don’t come up with the answers they want , trusting those who choose which scientist to publish , to give massive exposure to ,to de platform and slur , now I know your not naive enough to not know that’s how it works so I will assume your playing by the same rules because it’s what you want to hear ,

if you asked people in a survey if they believed human activity was having and effect on climate change im sure you would get at least 97% consensus and I would be among them , if you asked to what extent and how much we could stop climate change, then there would be no such thing as consensus, same with scientists ,

so come on your not foolish enough to not know it’s not just who you ask it’s about what question you ask and how you ask it , it’s very easy to manipulate this stuff

Edited November 5, 2022 by Archied

[Highgate]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Ok start here, even though it’s much gentler on on the stat manipulation than lots of other stuff I’ve read , watched, heard it’s very clear this 97% figure trotted out as gospel is wrong and makes clear the motivation behind the misinformation being passed by climate crisis extremists 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=17075e5c1157

Ok, so this lecturer in construction, thought in 2016 that the consensus was more likely between 80% and 90% rather than 97%.  Fair enough, although he seems to be at odds with more recent studies into the matter.  

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

But anyway, whatever about that, you aren't answering the question I asked.  I asked why do you think the sample is small, not do you believe the figures are accurate.

So again, why do you keep repeating that the sample size of climate scientists on the issue of climate change is small?  Where did that idea come from, because if were true, it would actually a reasonable point.  

 

[Highgate]

9 minutes ago, Archied said:

Really ? You know very well it’s not about trusting scientist’s it a question of trusting who funds they’re research , who pulls they’re funding if they don’t come up with the answers they want , trusting those who choose which scientist to publish , to give massive exposure to ,to de platform and slur , now I know your not naive enough to not know that’s how it works so I will assume your playing by the same rules because it’s what you want to hear 

Are you aware that climate change was basically confirmed first by scientists working for the oil industry?  People who were being paid in the hope that they would find out that the problem didn't exist.  But unfortunately for their employers they merely confirmed what was already suspected.

Are you aware that any climate scientist who could prove that anthropogenic climate change is not occurring would be celebrated and his/her reputation would be set for life.  Any scientist who can disprove an established consensus will only be too eager to do so.  

[Archied]

6 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Ok, so this lecturer in construction, thought in 2016 that the consensus was more likely between 80% and 90% rather than 97%.  Fair enough, although he seems to be at odds with more recent studies into the matter.  

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

But anyway, whatever about that, you aren't answering the question I asked.  I asked why do you think the sample is small, not do you believe the figures are accurate.

So again, why do you keep repeating that the sample size of climate scientists on the issue of climate change is small?  Where did that idea come from, because if were true, it would actually a reasonable point.  

 

As I say Research it if you are serious 

[Archied]

28 minutes ago, Highgate said:

Ok, so this lecturer in construction, thought in 2016 that the consensus was more likely between 80% and 90% rather than 97%.  Fair enough, although he seems to be at odds with more recent studies into the matter.  

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

But anyway, whatever about that, you aren't answering the question I asked.  I asked why do you think the sample is small, not do you believe the figures are accurate.

So again, why do you keep repeating that the sample size of climate scientists on the issue of climate change is small?  Where did that idea come from, because if were true, it would actually a reasonable point.  

 

So you agree this set in stone 97% of climate scientists that is constantly peddled as irrefutable fact by climate change extremists is not fact at all ?

Edited November 5, 2022 by Archied

[I am Ram]

3 hours ago, Highgate said:

And yet accumulated an impressive body of knowledge over time.  So much so that we are able to land a probe on a comet nearly a half a billion kilometres away from Earth.  How hard would that be without science?  

If you don't trust the scientists who do we believe when it comes to climate change?  

It is healthy to have a base of scepticism, until proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody is denying climate change, just the root cause and how much we affect it. For example, when i was at school, all the scientists were talking up a new ice age. 

[ariotofmyown]

Some incredible pics on here...

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/05/20-climate-photographs-that-changed-the-world

[cstand]

 

https://www.nationalgrid.com/stories/energy-explained/how-much-uks-energy-renewable

Germany and Poland have about 100 coal powered power stations we have about 4.

Drax ships in biofuel from the US 

Edited November 5, 2022 by cstand

[Highgate]

6 hours ago, Archied said:

So you agree this set in stone 97% of climate scientists that is constantly peddled as irrefutable fact by climate change extremists is not fact at all ?

I agree that any such figure is going to be, by necessity, an estimate and will be determined by the various parameters, such as the dates covered by the analysis, and how you define climate scientist and so on.  However having said that, I think that the latest analysis would seem to suggest that the 97% figure is, if anything, a conservative estimate. 

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

6 hours ago, Archied said:

As I say Research it if you are serious 

It is seems clear that, despite your willingness to make specific quantitative claims about climate change, you steadfastly refuse to defend them when challenged.  As I have already pointed out, I have researched this and that is precisely why I believe your claim about 'small sample size' is entirely invalid. 

[Highgate]

4 hours ago, I am Ram said:

It is healthy to have a base of scepticism, until proven beyond reasonable doubt. Nobody is denying climate change, just the root cause and how much we affect it. For example, when i was at school, all the scientists were talking up a new ice age. 

With respect I think you are several decades behind the curve here.  

The fact that humans cause climate change is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. 

And even if your skepticism managed to persist after evaluating the opinions of those qualified to judge on this issue (i.e. climate scientists), what error would you like us to make as a society?

To switch to clean domestic energy sources, with no air pollution, when it wasn't necessary for climate change purposes?  Or to stick with fossil fuels when the scientists turned out to correct about climate change all along?  

The point here is, while predicting our precise climatic future is a difficult computational problem given the complexity of climate, the simplicity of the greenhouse effect means that knowing that the planet is going to warm up due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere is a slam dunk.  There is simply no way around it, the only debate is...by how much?  

[I am Ram]

11 minutes ago, Highgate said:

With respect I think you are several decades behind the curve here.  

The fact that humans cause climate change is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. 

And even if your skepticism managed to persist after evaluating the opinions of those qualified to judge on this issue (i.e. climate scientists), what error would you like us to make as a society?

To switch to clean domestic energy sources, with no air pollution, when it wasn't necessary for climate change purposes?  Or to stick with fossil fuels when the scientists turned out to correct about climate change all along?  

The point here is, while predicting our precise climatic future is a difficult computational problem given the complexity of climate, the simplicity of the greenhouse effect means that knowing that the planet is going to warm up due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere is a slam dunk.  There is simply no way around it, the only debate is...by how much?  

I'm not several decades behind at all (respect lol), sorry for not 'believing all science', sorry i had an opinion that differs from yours. I am not a denier, i know we contribute ghg\fossil fuels etc, but the earth has been warming for 11,700 years we are in an interglacial period. Truly with respect, there are many different theories and scientific studies out there, yours is the mainstream narrative at this present time, but it comes with a political undertone, hence a slight skepticism. I will leave you peacefully to debate on.

[Archied]

5 hours ago, Highgate said:

With respect I think you are several decades behind the curve here.  

The fact that humans cause climate change is proven beyond any reasonable doubt. 

And even if your skepticism managed to persist after evaluating the opinions of those qualified to judge on this issue (i.e. climate scientists), what error would you like us to make as a society?

To switch to clean domestic energy sources, with no air pollution, when it wasn't necessary for climate change purposes?  Or to stick with fossil fuels when the scientists turned out to correct about climate change all along?  

The point here is, while predicting our precise climatic future is a difficult computational problem given the complexity of climate, the simplicity of the greenhouse effect means that knowing that the planet is going to warm up due to increased GHGs in the atmosphere is a slam dunk.  There is simply no way around it, the only debate is...by how much?  

You your stuck on your view ,, change the statement humans cause climate change to humans contribute to climate change ,it’s then accurate and not the guff that produces rabid unhinged extremists to be pouring poo on statues and screaming for I’ll thought out changes that cause death and suffering in the now and a switch to rape of the planets minerals rather than rape of fossil fuel and cause every bit as much pollution , are these minerals recyclable, will they not run out just like fossil fuels ? Are we not being exploited by the owners ,shareholders and producers of this stuff just like oil companies?

pose the question of how much humans contribute to climate change , how much can we stop it by this insane net zero money spinner , by this headlong scramble to destroy our food chain and your settled science goes out the window,

by all means progress, by all means work towards a better plan on preserving our planet but not at the cost of causing starvation, energy starved deaths in the now and stored up pollution problems in the future, it’s like asking do you want the planet to die from cancer or heart failure ,take your pick

[Archied]

if a political party appears in this country that wants to scrap these crazy net zero targets they will have my vote and I’m pretty sure the votes of millions , this net zero madness is the biggest threat to the lives of people in this country since covid policy, but hey who cares about death , hunger , cold and misery of the less well off if it saves mythical lives of the future in this wonderful dreamy utopia ??‍♂️

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

if a political party appears in this country that wants to scrap these crazy net zero targets they will have my vote and I’m pretty sure the votes of millions , this net zero madness is the biggest threat to the lives of people in this country since covid policy, but hey who cares about death , hunger , cold and misery of the less well off if it saves mythical lives of the future in this wonderful dreamy utopia ??‍♂️

I'm not fully aware of what net zero is, or why it is often called madness. Could you briefly sum up the aim of net zero, why it's such a threat to people's lives and why it's madness? Ideally in about a paragraph, using facts rather than opinions. Cheers.

[Archied]

21 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I'm not fully aware of what net zero is, or why it is often called madness. Could you briefly sum up the aim of net zero, why it's such a threat to people's lives and why it's madness? Ideally in about a paragraph, using facts rather than opinions. Cheers.

Ohhh Grow up , we are all fully aware of policies , timescale targets that by the way labour want even shorter , if we want to play silly buggers all the time , why don’t you sell it to me , tell me how many degrees or percentage of a degree the planet temp will drop by if the U.K. achieves these net zero policies ( they are splashed over every platform pumped out by government if you really need them explained which we both know you don’t ) 

then tell me the cost to the U.K. population 

then tell me the cost and pollution impact of the switches forced on the population 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

Grow up 

I'm not sure why you responded like that. As I said, I don't really know much about net zero and I really don't know why it's regularly described as madness. I'll look it up myself instead if you are unable to give me a brief synopsis, that clearly shows how it's so dangerous to us all. 

[Archied]

8 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

I'm not sure why you responded like that. As I said, I don't really know much about net zero and I really don't know why it's regularly described as madness. I'll look it up myself instead if you are unable to give me a brief synopsis, that clearly shows how it's so dangerous to us all. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy

hope that helps 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Archied

[ariotofmyown]

I've just read the Executive Summary on the government's Net Zero strategy and it all seems good common sense. Perhaps the devil is in the detail, but it doesn't seem to be oozing madness. With what has happened to energy supply since last October, it looks even more sensible to pursue this approach.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy

[ariotofmyown]

4 minutes ago, Archied said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/net-zero-strategy

hope that helps 

Haha! I just read that myself, thanks!