1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

London Climate Protests

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by crinkleshoes, Apr 17, 2019.

  1. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,522

    OTOH, since the whole emphasis of these particular reports is clearly to imply that these high temperatures are as a result of a centuries worth of driving around in motor cars and burning coal, it would be interesting to see an explanation as to why it was so hot 70 years ago? :p
     
  2. Murphy

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Sep 16, 2018

    Posts: 2,402

    It wasn't, the average global temperature has increased 0.6°C in the last 70 years.
     
  3. jonneymendoza

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 7, 2008

    Posts: 14,946

    So our planet is safe and fine?
     
  4. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,487

    The planet is fine, we aren’t.
     
  5. flea.rider

    Hitman

    Joined: Aug 7, 2017

    Posts: 699

    it's not really the planet .. but those that live on it ..but the cold over the next 50 yrs will sort most of them out ..
    wood burning fires anyone ?
     
  6. jimjamuk

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 30, 2007

    Posts: 2,801

    Location: Bristol, UK

    agree, once we have gone the planet will be fine and we will be a speck on the planets timeline
     
  7. Mr Badger

    Soldato

    Joined: Dec 27, 2009

    Posts: 6,522

    The great filter awaits.
     
  8. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 42,479

    What agenda do you think there is here and why?

    What argument are you trying to make by citing individual data points?
     
  9. wesimmo

    Mobster

    Joined: Mar 19, 2012

    Posts: 2,609

    I think you were trying to imply that scientists are falsifying research to keep their funding.

    This is one of the most absurd lines of argument from climate change deniers. You very rarely see scientists with super yachts and gold plated Bugattis, so the question a rational person would ask is, who stands to lose more, financially, from climate change data being true?

    And the answer is obviously the oligarchs, sheikhs and "big oil". Those scientists who may drive Ferraris are probably on the payroll of the mega rich and taking a loose view on scientific morality in order to keep their job.
     
  10. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 21,487

    I love it when they use single data points as proof, when scientists are using aggregate numbers, it may not have been the April with the hottest day, but it could still be the ‘hottest April’.
     
  11. Vexr

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 15, 2018

    Posts: 1,047

    Reminds me of a friend a while back in the business of reviewing games - their access to exclusive pre-launch content that sells their rags was dependent on giving favourable reviews. Did they complain? No. Going along with it was good for business. Do those poor game journalists now ride around on super yachts and gold plated Bugattis? No, they kept their jobs.

    I've been in somewhat similar situations myself, when specifically tasked to misreport my experience in the NHS so they can down-band / cost-cut in various areas and asked me to give a detailed report justifying how'd they achieve this. My account showed that wasn't appropriate or likely to succeed - they weren't happy. I left shortly after that for another job realising what a trash duplicit immoral role I'd been given.

    I stated a good few pages back that I'd deliver my sources on exactly why I'm a sceptic on climate change, I see I shall have to deliver on that as the climate change-argument enablers, who inadvertently want average folk to pay extortionate prices on their energy usage and abandon their cars, are nauseating shills who will achieve nothing but make the worst polluters richer to the detriment of every regular person on this earth who's going to be denied their true birthright with the advances made with the invention of the lightbulb and central heating and such, because 'weather is variable' as the proof, and only Emma Thompson and upwards should be allowed energy usage so long as they're onboard with the message all should be impoverished in the name of a non-controllable environmental variable.
     
  12. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,412

    Location: London

    I accept your scepticism, and in the right amounts it's healthy to question, especially as there is indeed a lot of hypocrisy and double standards knocking about (do as I say, not as I do). But I would ask you this - if scientists are falsifying climate change research to make it look like climate change is more significant than it actually is, who are they working for and how are they benefiting their paymasters?

    Governments would prefer to carry on polluting and not have to spend money cleaning anything up. Large corporations and most companies would certainly prefer to carry on polluting and not have to incur the costs of going green. Even most of the public would prefer to be told they don't need to worry and can carry on consuming (and polluting) as normal. So who benefits from this climate change conspiracy exactly?
     
  13. Vexr

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 15, 2018

    Posts: 1,047

    I've wondered about this in roundabout inexpert ways. One theory is that it invites obsolescence of a lot of current technology, and those that will provide replacements to fill that hole with 'green' alternatives will make incredible amounts of money as we do away with otherwise working and and viable products in place of theirs.

    There's also the carbon credit 'conspiracy' argument, where slowly over time you can ensure energy usage is diverted to polluting industry owned by the mega-rich, and it'll be the consumer paying an enormous premium on their slightest energy usage that ensures CO2 emissions decline overall, and every lemming will happy-clap about it, and then demand more of it once the weather turns out to still be variable with a hurricane or something, because hurricanes and tsunamis never happened on this planet before man started industrialising itself.

    I'm sure some of my old sources went in to greater and more plausible detail about this than I can off the top of my head. Either way, I remember the 90s and early 2000s where they told us sea levels would have risen several metres by now and the world would have run out of oil, etc. Good memory I seem to have, while others forgive this horrific misreporting and scaremongering, along with the BSE scare, millenium bug, Iraqi WMDs, and God knows what else (I was only a youngung at the time when the supremely ridiculous and unchallenged BS MSM spouted their best work) - hell I remember my parents buying gas masks and a reasonable supply of canned food because of Bird Flu or some ****. ******* ridiculous.
     
  14. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,224

    I remember at school in the late 80s/early 90s we had a big poster (properly printed out glossy thing not sure the source but it was put over as fact by the teachers) which had peak oil as 2005 and that we'd have severe rationing by 2015 and it would all be gone entirely by 2055.
     
  15. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,412

    Location: London

    Yes there's scaremongering and exaggeration (mostly by the media not the scientists themselves), profiteering and bandwagoning, hypocrisy and vested interests. But like all conspiracy theories, it all starts to fall apart when you consider the sheer number of people who need to be 'in' on the conspiracy for it to function. Think about the broad consensus the climate change movement now has among scientists, most governments (with some notable exceptions), international bodies and increasingly corporations too. That's one big conspiracy. Just for what? To sell a bit more green technology? Really?

    Yes there's the issue of obsolescence - but business doesn't need an excuse like climate change to keep pushing new technology on the marketplace. Yes I agree there's some bandwagoning here though and lots of companies are claiming green credentials because it's on trend. And yes, carbon credits are in many cases a bit of a scam.

    Yes there's the chance to charge consumers more for energy, as has been happening. But this is going to happen with or without renewables. In the longer run renewables should be cheaper anyway. Low energy products are a wise investment if and when you need to replace, regardless.

    Major weather events have always existed and we don't have accurate data on anything more than a century or so ago, but it's pretty clear from the evidence to hand that weather events are becoming more extreme.

    BSE was a genuine threat and the farming industry needed to clean up its act (and did). Yes the media hyped it too.

    Millenium Bug was genuine, the reason it didn't have the threatened impact is because a huge amount of work and money went into preventing it. And yes some profiteering too.

    Iraqi WMDs. No conspiracy as such, just some dirty great big lies told by Blair et al to justify the warmongering. If you want to believe in a conspiracy theory here, it's the opposite of what you seem to be claiming as this one would have been for the oil.

    Bird Flu. Another major flu pandemic of the size of the Spanish Flu in 1918 that killed tens of millions is long overdue. It's estimated 500 million were infected back then, with around 50 milion deaths. We have better healthcare now and vaccinations, but flu can still be a major killer. Gas masks are a tad extreme, but surgical masks and gloves would be a wise investment if there's a pandemic.

    It's certainly good to be sceptical, questioning and cynical, there's a lot of dishonesty on all sides and the media always want to hype stuff up to sell their stories. But once you step over the line into conspiracy theories the logic is always going to start to fall apart. It seems to be a human need to assume there's always a reason for everything, always someone or something driving the agenda, be it divine or human.
     
  16. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 64,224

    With the ***** poor attitude towards minimising potential spreading you need more like complete containment :(
     
  17. Vexr

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 15, 2018

    Posts: 1,047

    Aye, heard something similar but with a much earlier estimate of when it'd all run out. And yet, far from rationing oil and scraping some dregs together with the futuristic technology of fracking, the OPEC lot are able to glut the market to suit whatever economic condition they prefer, with no end in sight regarding their capacity to continuing to do this.

    I appreciate your civil response and addressing several points / examples I'd made, though I have to disagree with them.

    I cannot accept the idea of all being 'in consensus' regarding climate change when it's been pointed out that some key figures/institutions who are onboard the climate change theory and are quoted to this day, have been proven to have falsified their data, for reasons not made explicit or any acknowledgement of the error in MSM.

    I'd suggest that businesses do have an interest in marketing products that are greener than their previous offerings - perhaps some consumers won't be convinced to go from their 1080p TV to a 4K one, but as energy prices ramp up, just maybe consumers will be extra-justified going for a slightly more energy efficient 4K offering. I'm no expert, but I suspect this energy-efficiency/obsoletion theory is working right now for those who would otherwise stick with what they've got until it fails.

    The idea BSE and the millennium bug were 'genuine' is a poor example, and obviously never warranted the weight they ended up carrying through fear-mongering to the public that it did. I'll add bird / swine flu to that category. The only exception I can think of is possibly regarding the ozone layer and CFCs IIRC. I'd need to investigate that myself to verify, but it sounds like it was the only justified MSM alert we've had for decades.

    As I said before, I'll drop some sources that convinced me of my climate-change scepticism. I'm sure I'm poorly equipped to represent those arguments and the evidence behind them, and I'll do my best to dig them up when I get a decent chance and offer them for public scrutiny (hopefully I can still find them... or something equivalent).
     
  18. Cern

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 3, 2008

    Posts: 3,412

    Location: London

    You seem rather caught up in how the MSM report things rather than what's actually being said in scientific journals, expert research etc. The MSM have always over-hyped and over-simplified issues, it's what they do, it's how they make their money. It doesn't mean the actual science is at fault a lot of the time, rather how the media choose to report and portray it. I hope you bear that in mind when digging up your 'sources'.

    I'm not sure why you feel a major flu pandemic isn't a serious possibility and risk? Because it hasn't happened in your lifetime? Well we should all be thankful for that and hope it doesn't because 1918 was truly horrific. 50 million dead, it makes all our other health 'scares' pale into insignificance. Should such a pandemic strike again I don't think hiding behind 'it's all media hype' is going to be much defence.

    Generally I agree with you about some companies jumping on the green bandwagon to push new products and tech, the benefits are often marginal. This is a lot more tangible when it comes to certain electronics though, why would anyone want to burn several kilowatts of power to run a computer or an overpowered vacuum or incandescent lightbulbs when you could be doing it for a significant reduction in energy costs with up to date products? Yes, don't replace for the sake of it, but when you need to replace it's sensible to go green for lots of reasons.

    By the way, comparing 1080p to 4k isn't really a good example here, the difference is night and day. I'm someone who is very much in the 'use it until it fails' camp (doggedly so in some cases) and recently had to replace a failed 1080p TV. I opted for 4k for various reasons, but the one reason I didn't expect would make such an impact on me, but did, was the stunning picture.
     
  19. Vexr

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 15, 2018

    Posts: 1,047

    It'll be conflicting for me as some of my current major 'sources' of opinion, like the economist Paul Craig Roberts and Caitlin Johnson, who are CTists by most definitions of the word, who I agree with about virtually everything and yet they seem to be taken in with some sort of climate change agenda... so I must claim to know better going by my 2011-esque sources that are very convincing over them. Very tricky to resolve in my mind.

    I'll sling my sources up for public scrutiny, as I said before, until then I'm extraordinarily sceptical there's anything to be had regarding the green agenda/MSM/climate change.
     
  20. Orionaut

    Soldato

    Joined: Aug 2, 2012

    Posts: 6,522


    The 1918 experience was that you cannot stop flu from spreading. (Almost everybody, including remote Inuit villages in northern Greenland was eventually exposed)

    What you can do is slow down the rate of spread so that you minimize the number of people who are actually sick/dying all at the same time.

    The big problem today is air travel.

    Back in 1918 it took months and in some areas years for the flu to spread around the world and infect everybody. Today that could happen in as little as 24 hours

    back in 1918, a third of the global population laid down by flu and a couple of percent dying was bad, but it wasnt catastrophic because it was spread out over 18 months or so.

    The same thing today could happen within weeks.

    And that would be a global health (And social, and economic) disaster.