Dakota Dan wrote: » But it wouldn’t be safe
MarquisDeSad wrote: » Would you jump off a cliff if a scientist told you? Why scientist tell someone jump off a cliff in the first place? Stupid is stupid.
Dakota Dan wrote: » No bungee cord
Akrasia wrote: » People jump off bridges all the time using bungee cords that are scientifically validated Science is the best way we have of knowing what is the nature of our reality. Conspiracy theories and gut feelings are infinitely less reliable
Pa ElGrande wrote: » Geocentricism was the peer reviewed scientific consensus for a long time. Then Copernican heliocentrism theory takes over. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS-1Q0dl648
Tell me how wrote: » Yes, if the produced a peer reviewed consensus why it was safe to do so. Would you?
Dakota Dan wrote: » Would you jump off a bridge if a scientist told you?
gozunda wrote: » Agreed it is widely accepted that the peer review system has some major issues / flaws and needs to be significantly overhauledhttps://www.biospace.com/article/the-mess-that-is-peer-review-and-what-should-be-done-about-it-/ Regarding concensus - ditto for example- In 1933 the national socialist party achieved the majority vote in 33 german electoral districts. Only 2 districts voted otherwise...
jackboy wrote: » You have too much faith in the peer review system. There are lots of issues with this, it is far from foolproof. There are also risks with consensus. Consensus are useful for information but dangerous when actions are taken based on them. Consensus implies that all the facts are not known.
joe40 wrote: » So the IPCC aren't scientists. This is bigger than greta thurberg.
joe40 wrote: » It really is amazing the amount of people that downplay or refuse to accept the opinions of the vast majority of scientists engaged in climate research. I don't claim to understand all the science but I'm also pretty sure very few here do. Watching youtube clips doesn't count. Quite simply if I was going to cross a Bridge and 100 engineers told me it was dangerous, but one said it was fine they're just scaremongering, I would find an alternative route. This anti science, narrative at play in large sections of the public is quite alarming.
gozunda wrote: » On social media today like a pig in ****e. She has her own dedicated media guy with her to help publicise the journey ... Otherwise According to the captain of the vessel Boris Hermann* Or according to Gretas tweets Who knows *https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/17/greta-thunberg-four-days-into-atlantic-crossing
Blueshoe wrote: » It's not the people in Europe I'm talking about.
suicide_circus wrote: » on the water charges thread you have people saying they wont pay for excess usage while others are unmetered and can use as much as they want. its the same logic at play here.
vladmydad wrote: » Yes actually I believe we should do absolutely NOTHING. If the US and China are not cutting emissions the why would a tiny rock do so. How will the eclectic grid handle millions of electric vehicles and electric heating systems ?? How many billions will that cost. How do We make up for the billions that will be lost to our agricultural sector. What about the hundreds of thousands of jobs that could be lost in “environmentally unfriendly” industry’s. Do you really believe people will ever give up cheap airfare ? And if more people means more emissions then why the **** do leftists keep push mass immigration ?? And why is our government pushing for another One million people over the next 15 years ?
Tell me how wrote: » By the same logic, no one would pay taxes because some big business pay very little. Your posts just read as you not wanting to change anything about your life. No one is suggesting China will copy Ireland as such (bye bye strawman) but if you are a member of an international agreement you should aim to fulfil the responsibilities you signed up to.
vladmydad wrote: » No I believe in science and if it’s indicating that, globally, we need to reduce consumption of fossil fuels then so be it. What I’m saying is the climate doesn’t discriminate. If Ireland dramatically cuts it’s emissions but China, India Russia Brazil US, continue to increase theirs, the climate doesn’t say “oh wait Ireland did its bit so no extreme weather for them”. That’s ridiculous, we’ll suffer regardless. And this ridiculous notion by Irish climate campaigners, that if we make an effort then China will follow us lol, are they listening to the west regarding human rights or Hong Kong ??
vladmydad wrote: » And this ridiculous notion by Irish climate campaigners, that if we make an effort then China will follow us lol, are they listening to the west regarding human rights or Hong Kong ??
Some 344 Chinese cities were found to have solar systems producing energy at lower prices than the grid, without any subsidies, according to the research published in the journal Nature Energy. China has made huge progress in developing solar projects and pledged to invest 2.5 trillion yuan ($367 billion) in renewable power generation — solar, wind, hydro and nuclear — from 2017-2020.
joe40 wrote: » You have raised plenty of legitimate problems to moving away from fossil fuels. But out of curiosity do you mean we should do nothing because any actions will be ineffective or unworkable. Or do you mean we should do nothing because fossil fuels aren't a problem and climate change is a hoax.
joe40 wrote: » No one said she was a scientist, and I will accept the greta thing is a for publicity and awareness, but the message is sound.I never heard anyone say the world would end in 12 years, but there is enough scietific opinion from the IPCC and others for me to accept that we are having a profound and irreversible effect on global climate. There is no easy answer but growing public awareness is a start.I get it, some people here do not accept there is any problem, thats your choice, and nothing I say will change your mind. Its like the people who think meditation or diet will cure their cancer. They're anti science no amount of reason or logic will have any influence.
