Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
Surely if you hold strong opinions, such as climate change is not man made, you should at least know WHY you hold them? You can't just hide behind 'it's my opinion'...
Current Affairs Australian Bush Fires
- Thread starter summerisle
- Start date
- Status
I have mentioned this earlier - The geological records show the Earth's temperature rises and falls in cycles. This has always been the case. This year and this decade may be the hottest on record, but the records only go back a couple of hundred years. Going back thousands of years, temperatures have been far higher, and a lot lower than they are now. That's basically it. I am not trying to change anyone's mind. I do believe we need to smarten our act up with emissions etc, but it isn't going to stop the temperature rising, but it will help with pollution and the environment. So that's not a bad thing is it.
I believe there is a lot of scaremongering in the Media. They cherry pick the facts to back their narrative, but ignore others that don't. It was going on when I was in my teens. I believed it. But nothing has happened when they said it would. There has been no global catastrophes. Coastal towns are not underwater etc. There has been extreme weather, but there always has been. So I am maybe a little more cynical now. And somebody is getting rich from it.
Bishop Thumpety-Thump
Player Valuation: £20m
The people getting rich are the people burning the fossil fuels mate, same as forever. They're also the ones successfully pulling the wool over your eyes.
And as previously mentioned on this thread, the overwhelming majority of scientists on this planet agree that climate change is man made. If you're dismissing their expertise based on your gut feeling, you're the same as the anti-vaxxers/moon landings didn't happen brigade IMO.
This is the thing - Who is telling you that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree? It's the same media that I believe are scaremongering. Also, it's not a gut feeling - the geological records, in my opinion, is the better data.
Earlier in the thread I asked someone to do a certain google search. It was "UK is heating up twice as fast". The results will tell you UK is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world. If you change "UK" for most other countries, or even "mountains" or "lakes" etc. You will get the same results. Now, in my opinion, how can it be that almost everywhere is heating up twice as fast as everywhere else? There are other google searches that you can do, unrelated to global warming, that also throw up very odd results. None of it proves anything - it just makes me ask questions.
Also - Having an opinion on Global Warming does not make me the same as the anti vaxxers/moon landing didn't happen brigade. Those are two completely separate issues. I am also not a flat-earther. I have an opinion regarding global warming and scaremongering in the media. It's different from yours. I don't offer an opinion on what I think of you - I don't know you. I only know your opinion on global warming. You also don't know me.
You might want to look into that a bit more mate. The number is often quoted as 97%. It is closer to 80%.
I'll be honest here - I don't even feel that strongly about climate change. It's not something I am that interested in. I have not claimed to be an expert. I have an opinion. That's all. Nobody has changed that opinion with the arguments put to me. I haven't changed anyone's mind with my arguments. It was never the intention. I just want it to stop now haha. I am available for controversial opinions with regards to Maddie McCann, 9/11, JFK and of course The Contras. But I am binning this off now. Enjoy you evening mate.
Right, but even if it was just 80%, that is still overwhelming. Studies also suggest that the closer scientists are to the field of climate study, the percentage is even larger. It's odd that you have to keep stating it's just your opinion. We know. It's our opinion that your opinion is based on absolutely nothing but your gut and flies in the face of almost every single actual expert on the matter. There is considerable evidence that backs that up
Woolly Blue
Player Valuation: £80m
Can't lie.
Saw the thread title, and immediately thought of Jenny Agutter in Walkabout.
Saw the thread title, and immediately thought of Jenny Agutter in Walkabout.
It's not 80% though, it's quite an overwhelming number, up near 97% (see HERE, and HERE), and those remaining 3% are often non-climate scientists, often with ties to the fossil-fuel industry managing to publish flawed studies in either good journals or publishing flawed studied in crappy journals.
But that is the point - Even it is just 80% - Why are the media banging on about 97%? Is that not scaremongering? 20% of scientist not agreeing with the narrative, does throw some doubt into it. If the figure is only 3%, it makes those not agreeing appear to be just disagreeing because they have an ulterior motive. I also have stated that I am not going off my gut, I am choosing to go with the geological records. I'm choosing to go with what I've read from sources that are not the ones you are going with. I am choosing not to believe the scaremongering.
I can do that:-LINK
For every link you provide, I can provide one that will back my opinion up. Not much point really is there.
Degs62
Player Valuation 10"
Ahhh, the quoting of statistics to support an argument.
I was always told that there are lies, damned lies and then statistics, @verreauxi those two 'HERE' links are a perfect demonstration that even with their analysis the 97% consensus is only based on a very small percentage of the total papers.
There is no 'overwhelming consensus' because the science currently does not support one.
Here's a thought for all you climate alarmists, has any one of the vast number of studies established what is an acceptable level for the global surface temperature or percentage of atmospheric CO2? The answer is no BTW, so how can all these scientific papers provide such consensus?
I'm Australian and luckily in a part of Queensland that hasn't been devastated like NSW and Victoria although through late November, early December we had our own smaller scale devastation. The fires are NOT caused by climate change (which by the way is a real thing and always has been) they are caused by mainly dry lightning, accidental human ignition and deliberate human ignition. They have been made so much worse by forestry mismanagement as a result of the environmental policies put into place by State Governments, whilst Scott Morrison has his many faults (as all politicians do) he and his government should not be lambasted for the current state of emergency.
I like all Australians hope that we have now seen the back of the devastation through the rain we are now experiencing.
I was always told that there are lies, damned lies and then statistics, @verreauxi those two 'HERE' links are a perfect demonstration that even with their analysis the 97% consensus is only based on a very small percentage of the total papers.
There is no 'overwhelming consensus' because the science currently does not support one.
Here's a thought for all you climate alarmists, has any one of the vast number of studies established what is an acceptable level for the global surface temperature or percentage of atmospheric CO2? The answer is no BTW, so how can all these scientific papers provide such consensus?
I'm Australian and luckily in a part of Queensland that hasn't been devastated like NSW and Victoria although through late November, early December we had our own smaller scale devastation. The fires are NOT caused by climate change (which by the way is a real thing and always has been) they are caused by mainly dry lightning, accidental human ignition and deliberate human ignition. They have been made so much worse by forestry mismanagement as a result of the environmental policies put into place by State Governments, whilst Scott Morrison has his many faults (as all politicians do) he and his government should not be lambasted for the current state of emergency.
I like all Australians hope that we have now seen the back of the devastation through the rain we are now experiencing.
Who cares? That 97% came from one peer reviewed paper, but almost all of them agree that it is somewhere between 90 and 100. It's impossible to be completely precise when determining a consensus, but even the lowest percentage you accept, and it is likely to be a lot more, is 80%. That is still huge. Your gripe seems to be with Greta and Noels Edmonds and the media, so I presume if they told you the earth was round you'd go the other way on that?
The outlets that push climate denial are almost routinely institutes and think tanks run by lawyers and lobbyists for fossil fuel companies. What does your gut tell you about that?
- Status