Greta and the aristocrat sail the high seas to save the planet.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Same as what the MSM have been feeding the public
So what part of the video is not true?

It's a video on the veracity if the 97% claim.

It doesn't really talk about the issue, it talks about how that claim was wrong.

As I said yesterday on this thread, this is more than just a conversation about climate change and disasters (which are relevant), it's equally a story about sustainability. Focusing on the 97% is suggesting that that's the only reason people are concerned about the environment.

Our practices need to change to optimize this.

Tell me how wrote: »

Yeah, that video is completely unbiased.
Pinned comment by publisher opens with giving out about leftists.
Yeah. I'll change my opinion now alright.

Same as what the MSM have been feeding the public
So what part of the video is not true?

MarquisDeSad

It must be great to dismiss things with 'msm & fakenews'. Feelings...

Blueshoe

I have a solution that makes sense for all.
The government cuts social welfare spending (20 billion per year ) by 10% immediately and ringfence the 2 billion for green projects and the supporting infrastructure that's required

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Yeah, that video is completely unbiased.
Pinned comment by publisher opens with giving out about leftists.
Yeah. I'll change my opinion now alright.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Hardly surprising when state controlled media such as the BBC have a policy of denying airtime to anyone who questions the climate alarmist orthodoxy.

Nigel Farage has been on it, once or twice......

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yeah, theres a lot of people who will just take what politicians & MSM tell them as gospel so its good that theres independent reporters doing these sort of videos that tie everything together with facts.

Hardly surprising when state controlled media such as the BBC have a policy of denying airtime to anyone who questions the climate alarmist orthodoxy.

Orderofchaos wrote: »

Interesting video.

Yeah, theres a lot of people who will just take what politicians & MSM tell them as gospel so its good that theres independent reporters doing these sort of videos that tie everything together with facts.

Orderofchaos

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Interesting video.

Orderofchaos wrote: »

This guy :
John is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia and a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics. He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, and the 2016 college textbook Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Daniel Bedford. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

Yes even the scientists came out & said he was wrong. This is quite an interesting video about CC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgakkNTHwew

Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

But I guess their the wrong kind of scientist

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/#2cc71c693bb3

biko

https://shameplane.com/?fromCity=Paris&fromCode=CDG&toCity=Chicago&toCode=ORD&roundtrip=true&typeofseat=3

Now you too can feel guilty over using aeroplanes

Tell me how wrote: »

Polar Bear numbers have increased since hunting massively decreased following collaborative efforts in the 1970's.

The issue of ice (their natural habitat) decreasing is still of grave concern.

https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

Maybe the loss of ice will confound alarmist predictions also
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/24/strong-arctic-sea-ice-growth-this-year/

Orderofchaos

Help!!!! wrote: »

You do realise the 97% of scientists study was done by John Cook a cartoonist, not a climate scientist?

This guy :
John is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He holds a PhD in cognitive psychology at the University of Western Australia and a Bachelor of Science at the University of Queensland, achieving First Class Honours with a major in physics. He co-authored the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand with Haydn Washington, the 2013 college textbook Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis with Tom Farmer, and the 2016 college textbook Climate Change: Examining the Facts with Daniel Bedford. He also lead-authored the paper Quantifying the Consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature, which was tweeted by President Obama and was awarded the best paper published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You don’t seem to understand the the classification of endangered species.
The polar bear population is increasing despite emaciated polar bears clinging to a piece of fragmented ice becoming a poster child for climate alarmists.

The climate alarmists, including the subject of this thread are already using specific definitive dates in their propaganda, such as 12 years to save the planet.

Polar Bear numbers have increased since hunting massively decreased following collaborative efforts in the 1970's.

The issue of ice (their natural habitat) decreasing is still of grave concern.

https://arcticwwf.org/species/polar-bear/population/

Tell me how wrote: »

Ah, the latest in the line of climate change deniers who don't understand how debates work.

You can't just make empty statements and not back them up.

You do realise the 97% of scientists study was done by John Cook a cartoonist, not a climate scientist?

Tell me how wrote: »

It seems the false and exaggerated claims are within your post.

Where were we told the arctic would be ice free by 2019? It is 10% less this year than it was in the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.
Polar bears are listed as a threatened species already (i.e at risk of extinction)
The Gulf Stream has indeed slowed down.

So, it seems your problem is not that bad things are happening but that we are unable to say definitively when they will occur?

Do you see how ridiculous that position is?

You don’t seem to understand the the classification of endangered species.
The polar bear population is increasing despite emaciated polar bears clinging to a piece of fragmented ice becoming a poster child for climate alarmists.

The climate alarmists, including the subject of this thread are already using specific definitive dates in their propaganda, such as 12 years to save the planet.

Help!!!! wrote: »

You can check all of these for yourself

Ah, the latest in the line of climate change deniers who don't understand how debates work.

You can't just make empty statements and not back them up.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Many of the projections of the climate alarmist industry have been shown to be false or exaggerated.

Such as the Arctic Ocean being ice free by now, it isn’t, polar bears verging on extinction by now, they aren’t and the ocean conveyer which carries the Gulf Stream shutting down, it hasn’t.

Do you really believe the 10 years to doom predictions peddled by Greta and co?

It’s alarmist headline grabbing nonsense similar to the acid rain and millennium bug nonsense. It will make some people incredibly famous and wealthy but in 10 years time things will be much the same as they are now.

It seems the false and exaggerated claims are within your post.

Where were we told the arctic would be ice free by 2019? It is 10% less this year than it was in the 30 years from 1981 to 2010.
Polar bears are listed as a threatened species already (i.e at risk of extinction)
The Gulf Stream has indeed slowed down.

So, it seems your problem is not that bad things are happening but that we are unable to say definitively when they will occur?

Do you see how ridiculous that position is?

Pa ElGrande

Akrasia wrote: »

In science the previous best hypothesis is replaced with a better hypothesis when the evidence supports it. With climate change, the best hypothesis is the current scientific consensus. The alternative explanations are a bunch of half baked mutually contradictory conspiracy theories that have virtually zero scientific credibility or evidence to support them

The current consensus CAGW hypothesis has been round for decades it has no reliable predictive power and it has become a vehicle for several disparate groups to resurrect the failed ideas of Malthus (population control) and Marx (top down planned economy), and income redistribution to vested interest groups via the state. (chiefly subsidies to unreliable energy systems and playing market with carbon credits). All this has required new taxation and has become a wealth transfer from lower income groups to those who have successfully lobbied the state.

It is not CAGW that will collapse the current welfare state model a combination of debt default, high taxation and unreliable expensive energy systems will do that much more effectively than the weather ever will.

If you want to change to an all electric future then then go ahead. Stop pretending you are going to maintain the same or better standard of living or change the weather pursing the current policies based on the CAGW hypothesis.

Two Studies and Henrik Svensmark versus man-made Climate Change 2019–08–07

Both studies and Svensmark’s previous findings are already calling the prevailing narrative of man-made climate change into question. Even if one is not ready to give up the assumption of manmade climate change one should not ignore the findings.

At the same time both studies draw criticism because they were not peer reviewed. However this should deny neither the central theses that have been published by Svensmark their attention. At least Svensmark’s findings have been proven and already question the ruling narrative of man-made climate change.

source

Tell me how wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030 - Stop getting caught up on the 12 year thing, the message is that we are running out of time, whether it is 12 or 50 or 100 years, is insignificant in terms of the actual impact
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded - Who else is going to fund research which doesn't immediately produce a product or service?
The 98% of scientists report was debunked - By who? Where?
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America - What hoops are Irish farmers jumping through because of CC?
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages - Rate of change is the issue
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con - Do you have any of this common sense?

Roman Britain was exporting wine to the rest of the Roman Empire. Vineyards were present in northern England. There isn’t a lot of Newcastle Grand Cru on the shelves of my local SuperValu despite the climate alarmists.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Many of the projections of the climate alarmist industry have been shown to be false or exaggerated.

Such as the Arctic Ocean being ice free by now, it isn’t, polar bears verging on extinction by now, they aren’t and the ocean conveyer which carries the Gulf Stream shutting down, it hasn’t.

Do you really believe the 10 years to doom predictions peddled by Greta and co?

It’s alarmist headline grabbing nonsense similar to the acid rain and millennium bug nonsense. It will make some people incredibly famous and wealthy but in 10 years time things will be much the same as they are now.

There are more polar bears now than there were in the 70s
This is the reason China isn't cutting their emissions until 2030;);)
They know people will have woken up by then

recedite

Help!!!! wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030

Per person, the Arabs are by far the worst culprits.
USA, Canada and Australia in second place.
China and most European countries are a good bit further down the list.

But you don't get a free pass just because you live in a small country.
Similarly its unfair to single out the Chinese just because there are a lot of them in one country. They are doing a lot more than us in terms of developing and deploying renewable energy.

Tell me how wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030 - Stop getting caught up on the 12 year thing, the message is that we are running out of time, whether it is 12 or 50 or 100 years, is insignificant in terms of the actual impact
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded - Who else is going to fund research which doesn't immediately produce a product or service?
The 98% of scientists report was debunked - By who? Where?
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America - What hoops are Irish farmers jumping through because of CC?
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages - Rate of change is the issue
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con - Do you have any of this common sense?

You can check all of these for yourself

joe40 wrote: »

So just to be clear on your views relating to climate change are you of the opinion the warnings are either false or exaggerated due to some sort of shady international conspiracy.

Science advances on the basis of testable hypotheses based on the best evidence available. Consensus does change, that is the strength of science.

So in this instance do you think the consensus is wrong and what is the basis for that assumption.

Many of the projections of the climate alarmist industry have been shown to be false or exaggerated.

Such as the Arctic Ocean being ice free by now, it isn’t, polar bears verging on extinction by now, they aren’t and the ocean conveyer which carries the Gulf Stream shutting down, it hasn’t.

Do you really believe the 10 years to doom predictions peddled by Greta and co?

It’s alarmist headline grabbing nonsense similar to the acid rain and millennium bug nonsense. It will make some people incredibly famous and wealthy but in 10 years time things will be much the same as they are now.

Help!!!! wrote: »

Yes then was followed by a mini ice age

1.1.7 Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present. Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures (Fig. 8.14).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period#targetText=1.1.7%20Medieval%20Warm%20Period,8.14).

Ok, have we established that you believe what the scientists say so?

Car99 wrote: »

Was it? Reference ?

Yes then was followed by a mini ice age

1.1.7 Medieval Warm Period (900–1300 AD) The Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a time of warm climate from about 900–1300 AD, when global temperatures were somewhat warmer than at present. Temperatures in the GISP2 ice core were about 2°F (1°C) warmer than modern temperatures (Fig. 8.14).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period#targetText=1.1.7%20Medieval%20Warm%20Period,8.14).

Help!!!! wrote: »

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded
The 98% of scientists report was debunked
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con

So CC will be irreversible if we dont cut our carbon within the next 12 years yet China who emits twice as much emissions as America can increase its emissions until 2030 - Stop getting caught up on the 12 year thing, the message is that we are running out of time, whether it is 12 or 50 or 100 years, is insignificant in terms of the actual impact
The vast majority of scientists who are pro CC are government funded - Who else is going to fund research which doesn't immediately produce a product or service?
The 98% of scientists report was debunked - By who? Where?
Irish farmers have to jump through hoops because of CC yet the EU are now going to import beef from South America - What hoops are Irish farmers jumping through because of CC?
The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages - Rate of change is the issue
Surely common sense tells you the whole CC is a con - Do you have any of this common sense?

Car99

Help!!!! wrote: »

The world was 2degrees hotter during the middle ages

Was it? Reference ?