COP26: All talk or some real action on climate change?

[Rusty Nails]

I haven't forgotten climategate, with its revelation of groupthink and suppression of dissenting opinions. Have the problems since actually been remedied?

I am not sure that climategate is a good example to give in support of scepticism about climate change.

It was found that the conspiracy was organised and planned to cast doubt on the scientific findings that climate change was happening and was measureable, not the other way round.

 

[matticus]

Already gave one at #191: Thunberg - has often recently said nothing is being done about climate change.

Oh dear. A little bit of grandstanding, perhaps skipping a few details, to focus on the overall picture and push home the important message - is that really what fuels your Greta-scepticism?

 

[Unkraut]

Can you offer us any crumb to show you are sincere (as opposed to a denier with a love for long speeches)?

I'm going to drag religion into this, but only very briefly!

Theist - someone who believes in the existence of God
Agnostic - technically someone who says it is not possible to know, but I'll go with simply doesn't know
Atheist - (for the purposes of this discussion) someone who denies the existence of God

Everyone believes the climate changes, and that there has been small gradual warming of the planet for about 300 years, so I'll go for the question of problematic if not catastrophic global warming. I'd go for the agnostic designation on this. This was my position on this question years ago when it was first brought up here. Who do you trust to tell the truth with all the myriads of vested interests? Unless you are trained to a high level in a relevant scientific discipline you have to withhold judgment, at least to some extent.

I have something of a 'plague on both your houses' attitude to this, and I'll give one example as to why. The walruses jumping to their deaths. Is this due to a lack of ice due to global warming (Attenborough), or is it due to polar bears? Footage of the latter is also on YT (Net Zero Watch whoever they are) and the polar bears would appear to be a known phenomenon, so not necessarily due to global warming.

 

[matticus]

That is a load of evasive bunkum. Sorry. Sometimes you have to look at your house burning down, and even if you don't understand the physics of combustion, or how anything flammable got left lying around, you need to act; or your house will burn down.
The warming pattern is clear. You don't need to look for walrus videos to confirm this.
(google "precautionary principle" instead of obsessing with walruses and Greta.)

I don't know what motivates you - because I'm not telepathic - but it seems an absurd viewpoint, and frankly I think we've all been very polite in indulging your "scepticism" upto this point. Spreading this nonsense is part of the problem, so inevitably some people are going to be less polite. You've brought it on yourself.

 

[Unkraut]

I am not sure that climategate is a good example to give in support of scepticism about climate change.

I remember the release at the time. The scientists concerned did not deny their authenticity. I read a load of them. The groupthink and suppression of dissenting opinions was there to see. I hope measures were put in place to ensure this could not be repeated.

 

[Bromptonaut]

I remember the release at the time. The scientists concerned did not deny their authenticity. I read a load of them. The groupthink and suppression of dissenting opinions was there to see. I hope measures were put in place to ensure this could not be repeated.

The documents were genuine.

The issue is that they were leaked selectively so as to remove context.

 

[Unkraut]

The warming pattern is clear

Which I have just explicitly said.

You don't need to look for walrus videos to confirm this.

If Attenborough was lying about this, I'm not just going to ignore it. Similarly with Greta.

google "precautionary principle"

From above: A good place to start is to ask yourself what you want to believe. You then ask yourself if it is wise to believe that in the light of the evidence around you and a sensible precautionary principle.

 

[dutchguylivingintheuk]

Everyone believes the climate changes, and that there has been small gradual warming of the planet for about 300 years, so I'll go for the question of problematic if not catastrophic global warming. I'd go for the agnostic designation on this. This was my position on this question years ago when it was first brought up here. Who do you trust to tell the truth with all the myriads of vested interests? Unless you are trained to a high level in a relevant scientific discipline you have to withhold judgment, at least to some extent.

That climate changes is a fact, you can prove climate change with all the evidence we have at hand.
The point where discussions are about is man made climate change. Considering how the ozone layer has recoverd after banning cfk's damaging the ozone layer there is some proof that if you can stop harmfull emissions you can improve/stop the climate from declining further.
However the religion of climate change seem to be completely taken over by the call for heat pumps, battery cars etc. Who's going to believe the new doomsday scenario's in about XX years when all the old batteries form a serious environmental threat? Solving a problem is so much better then replacing it with a other one. (but replacing it with a other one is so much easy-er)

I have something of a 'plague on both your houses' attitude to this, and I'll give one example as to why. The walruses jumping to their deaths. Is this due to a lack of ice due to global warming (Attenborough), or is it due to polar bears? Footage of the latter is also on YT (Net Zero Watch whoever they are) and the polar bears would appear to be a known phenomenon, so not necessarily due to global warming.

In a other topic i already proved the narrative about Polar bears is wrong, their amounts are far from extinction as often falsely claimed.

 

[theclaud]

Already gave one at #191: Thunberg - has often recently said nothing is being done about climate change.

Oh dear. Are you affecting not to understand entirely commonplace rhetoric in order to traduce a young activist as dishonest? Cos it's not a good look.

 

[BoldonLad]

That climate changes is a fact, you can prove climate change with all the evidence we have at hand.
The point where discussions are about is man made climate change. Considering how the ozone layer has recoverd after banning cfk's damaging the ozone layer there is some proof that if you can stop harmfull emissions you can improve/stop the climate from declining further.
However the religion of climate change seem to be completely taken over by the call for heat pumps, battery cars etc. Who's going to believe the new doomsday scenario's in about XX years when all the old batteries form a serious environmental threat? Solving a problem is so much better then replacing it with a other one. (but replacing it with a other one is so much easy-er)

In a other topic i already proved the narrative about Polar bears is wrong, their amounts are far from extinction as often falsely claimed.

Usually, in my experience, it is beneficial to be sure you have actually identified the problem, and, have an understanding of the problem, before trying to solve it.

 

[Deleted member 49]

She makes untrue statements that are simply believed by her fans.

Not convinced in this quote....I'd say she's on the side of truth a lot more than the ones in power.

You've missed what I was getting at. I wasn't looking for it and doing five bar gates, but I noticed on discussions here and interviews at demos that almost without exception girls were involved. Looking at the footage of Thunberg (I didn't want to put words in her mouth) I noticed the same thing. Doesn't gel with the current 'equality' agenda.

Is there an' empowerment of women' agenda going on here, which is nothing to do with 'the science'?
Do women care more?
Are women more susceptible to the fear-mongering propaganda?

I'm not sure what your point is though ? Does it matter if it's women or men.On a subject so relevent to all does gender really come into it.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I remember the release at the time. The scientists concerned did not deny their authenticity. I read a load of them. The groupthink and suppression of dissenting opinions was there to see. I hope measures were put in place to ensure this could not be repeated.

As @Bromptonaut just said they were selectively quoted and released so as to take them out of context and to sow the seeds of doubt.

I suggest that your putting more emphasis on "groupthink" and "suppression of dissenting opinions" shows the success of the sowing of those seeds among those more ready to believe, rather than the subsequent debunking of those concerted conspiracy theories.

 

[FishFright]

Confirmation bias is a problem inherent right across this issue. A good place to start is to ask yourself what you want to believe. You then ask yourself if it is wise to believe that in the light of the evidence around you and a sensible precautionary principle.

The problem then is, who do you trust when looking for evidence. The fossil fuel industry and it lackeys, or scientists enjoying an unlimited gravy train of government funding? The prostitition of science for money can be true of both sides.

I have never liked the denier kind of sceptic. My scepticism about the sincerity of those taking a sceptical view has increased in recent years. Some of those taking the sceptical line are not sincere - and yes I do think they want 'business as usual' come what may.

This has not, however, led to an increased acceptance of the credibility of the doomsday predictors. I haven't forgotten climategate, with its revelation of groupthink and suppression of dissenting opinions. Have the problems since actually been remedied?

Then there is the creation of a climate (sorry) of fear and panic. The latter smacks of manipulation, and even if things are as serious as claimed panic will not help but a cool (also sorry!) head.

My current thinking fwiw is that this is a cause for concern, but not panic.

It passed panic a few years back when we passed the tipping point, but if you squint really hard it can be made to look fine.

 

[mjr]

Co-Leader, spokesperson and strategist for XR will come up as introducing who Skeena Rathor is if you google her name. It's nothing to do with Piers Morgan.

Using a more robust search engine, the entries saying that are coverage of the Morgan interview. Higher up the page is that she "co-leads the Vision Sensing circle in Extinction Rebellion" and that she's a former district councillor.

But anyway, like I wrote, co-leader covers hundreds and XR has not appointed a spokesperson to GMB.

I also find this old article interesting in context of recent posts: https://www.theguardian.com/comment...thunberg-right-environmental-activist-attacks

 

[Unkraut]

I also find this old article interesting in context of recent posts:

I have read some quite appalling abuse of Thunberg, which is inexcusable, but also inexcusable for her parents to have exposed her to this in the first place.

I don't, however, think she should be above criticism.

Try this open letter for size:

"Dear Greta,

You have done the world an invaluable service by managing almost single-handedly to finally make climate protection in politics and society what it should be when viewed soberly: the greatest human problem of the 21st century. Precisely because you have achieved something almost 'unbelievable' for your age, you should also be subject to thorough criticism when you are wrong. No, we haven't destroyed your youth. We have created a world that offers better life chances for young people than ever before in history.

For as long as mankind has existed, it has been plagued by three great scourges: Hunger, epidemics and wars. The proportion of undernourished people worldwide has fallen from 28% to 11% since 1970. Diseases such as smallpox and plague have been eradicated. While almost a hundred million people were killed in wars in the 20th century, there have been less than two million war casualties in the last 20 years. In 1800, the life expectancy of a newborn was only 30 years. Today, the length of time a person likely to live is 72 years. Infant mortality worldwide has fallen from 44% to 4% in the same period.

These almost unbelievable achievements are the fruit of planned action in complex and networked systems. States, institutions and companies work hand in hand for better living conditions for people. Yes, we have lost sight of the well-being of the natural world in the process. Ecosystems are in danger. Climate change threatens us all. We should heed you in taking immediate and decisive action instead of continuing to sleep - like our government. But we must not panic, because we may then destroy the very structures on which the majority of humanity depends for its life, and which we will also need to stop climate change."