News & Politics ........ random improvised discussions

[Wisbech Eagle]

Im not seeing any real changes in the position this morning. After Hesketh’s recent speeches about intensive action yesterday I was expecting a big leap. If anything Iran is upping the ante.
It’s almost like Trump was just bullshiting to steady the markets.

I guess most investors with more than half a brain would have jumped to that conclusion the moment he spoke and not reacted!

After all, he does have a well deserved reputation for lying every time he speaks.

 

[silvertop]

How can you be remotely qualified to present such a conclusion?

Is there any other field of science where you can, without qualification, dismiss the near-unanimous conclusion of the qualified?

Why do you trust the analysis of a single TV botanist over thousands of climate scientists?

You are wasting your time.

They have completely swallowed the whole right wing populist fossil fuel funded dogma of climate change denial

The factual response would have been that climate does fluctuate and indeed we are believed to be still in an ice age but sitting in an inter glacial warm spell. If true the temperature will fall precipitously and we will once again be buried under deep ice.

The point is that is likely to be in tens of thousands of years at best. It is the rate of change that is unprecedented in the records. The current change correlates precisely with industrialization with the rate to date showing a change in mere centuries that would previously have taken aeons; and with future projections mapped in only decades.

One question. Do you honestly think a command economy like China with all its current economic issues would institute collosal reform at crippling cost if climate change was based on the work of some sandal wearing lefties with a political agenda?

Climate change denial is the stuff of tin foil headed flat earth types. I don't agree with a lot of the populist dogma you guys embrace, but because you are closely aligned on issues like immigration it does not mean you have to agree the entire manifesto. Especially obviously specious crap like this which has been funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Think for yourselves!

 

[McAhuna]

Think for yourselves!

Oh the irony.

NO - You don't get to use that line. Not while obediently parroting the mainstream position. The mainstram position that is practically a modern form of blasphemy to even question.

The mainstream position that is also promoted by every Epstein Island attendee, and such noted free-thinkers like the British Royal family, Davos, the Bilderberg Group and the BBC.
Did it ever occur to you that that group might also have an agenda? Or is that not somewhere your thoughts are permitted to go without short-circuiting?

Funny how their agenda neatly aligns with measures to control the global populace - carbon credits, restrictions on travel, restrictions on freedoms, 15-minute cities, etc, etc.

All the while they fly around the world on private jets to lecture the plebs. All the while they snap up seafront properties while warning about rising sea-levels.
Ever feel like you've been cheated?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Oh the irony.

NO - You don't get to use that line. Not while obediently parroting the mainstream position. The mainstram position that is practically a modern form of blasphemy to even question.

The mainstream position that is also promoted by every Epstein Island attendee, and such noted free-thinkers like the British Royal family, Davos, the Bilderberg Group and the BBC.
Did it ever occur to you that that group might also have an agenda? Or is that not somewhere your thoughts are permitted to go without short-circuiting?

Funny how their agenda neatly aligns with measures to control the global populace - carbon credits, restrictions on travel, restrictions on freedoms, 15-minute cities, etc, etc.

All the while they fly around the world on private jets to lecture the plebs. All the while they snap up seafront properties while warning about rising sea-levels.
Ever feel like you've been cheated?

It's the mainstream position that the earth is round or that gravity exists. The Royal Family and Davos probably also think the earth is round.

Does that mean the earth isn't round?

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

The oil producing countries have got together and are massively increasing output. They are going to produce another 400M barrels a day, which should be enough to power all the tractors in London for at least 2 hours.

 

[McAhuna]

It's the mainstream position that the earth is round or that gravity exists. The Royal Family and Davos probably also think the earth is round.

Does that mean the earth isn't round?

Obviously not.
But equally, you don't get to label yourself a 'free-thinker' for believing the world is round.

I am sure if Davos and the Royal Family, etc saw a benefit to themselves in convincing us the world was flat, then they would do so, and make it heretical to question.
I am equally sure there are people, not unlike yourself, who would be going along with it unquestioningly within a couple of generations.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Obviously not.
But equally, you don't get to label yourself a 'free-thinker' for believing the world is round.

I am sure if Davos and the Royal Family, etc saw a benefit to themselves in convincing us the world was flat, then they would do so, and make it heretical to question.
I am equally sure there are people, not unlike yourself, who would be going along with it unquestioningly within a couple of generations.

Just highlighting the logical fallacy.

The evidence for climate change doesn’t come from Davos or the BBC.

If every politician disappeared tomorrow, the data would still point to the same conclusions - it’s not worried about whether Davos attendees believe it or not.

Is a free thinker someone who just buys every conspiracy their social media algorithm throws up, or how does it work?

 

[Common Sense Club]

Just highlighting the logical fallacy.

The evidence for climate change doesn’t come from Davos or the BBC.

If every politician disappeared tomorrow, the data would still point to the same conclusions - it’s not worried about whether Davos attendees believe it or not.

Is a free thinker someone who just buys every conspiracy their social media algorithm throws up, or how does it work?

The data may be the problem. What data is being used and how historic is it when using a base level start point?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The data may be the problem. What data is being used and how historic is it when using a base level start point?

This is a much better critique of climate models than just pretending it’s not real.

There’s an enormous amount of data supporting climate change - funny enough that’s why there’s such agreement about what’s happening!

Examples would include temperature records, sea levels, CO2 monitoring, arctic sea ice decline, thousands of automated weather stations - all of it lends itself to the same conclusion, which makes the idea that it’s all fundamentally wrong very, very unlikely.

 

[McAhuna]

If every politician disappeared tomorrow, the data would still point to the same conclusions - it’s not worried about whether Davos attendees believe it or not.

Is a free thinker someone who just buys every conspiracy their social media algorithm throws up, or how does it work?

I'd say that a free thinker might ask some basic questions.

Like who pays for and sponsors the data?
What happens to the companies and scientists who produce the 'wrong' data?

Or how about this one...
Why have you almost certainly not heard of the former head of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who now believes the climate change agenda is a scam?
Meanwhile, how/why did an unqualified 14 year old school girl funded by Epstein Island regular Bill Gates become a household name and international figure whose views we have all heard?

Objectively considering such questions might be a good start.

 

[Common Sense Club]

This is a much better critique of climate models than just pretending it’s not real.

There’s an enormous amount of data supporting climate change - funny enough that’s why there’s such agreement about what’s happening!

Examples would include temperature records, sea levels, CO2 monitoring, arctic sea ice decline, thousands of automated weather stations - all of it lends itself to the same conclusion, which makes the idea that it’s all fundamentally wrong very, very unlikely.

So, let’s look at a hypothetical situation to perhaps explain the distrust of the data.
Let’s assume that the base scientific readings are from 1800, when, say 100 pieces of equipment were used at various points around the world. How many pieces of equipment are used today? The same 100? 1000? 10000? 100000?…and are they the same pieces of equipment that were originally used? I’d guess that they aren’t. So, today we are collecting more accurate data from more accurate pieces of technology from considerably more locations around the world. You will get considerably different data today than in 1800. What we don’t know is if we’d kept only using those original 100 today what the science would show us.
Think offside in the premier league. Are we getting more offside decisions today than 20 years ago, and is it because of a more accurate measuring system in VAR that wasn’t available 20 years ago?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I'd say that a free thinker might ask some basic questions.

Like who pays for and sponsors the data?
What happens to the companies and scientists who produce the 'wrong' data?

Or how about this one...
Why have you almost certainly not heard of the former head of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, who now believes the climate change agenda is a scam?
Meanwhile, how/why did an unqualified 14 year old school girl funded by Epstein Island regular Bill Gates become a household name and international figure whose views we have all heard?

Objectively considering such questions might be a good start.

There is no one body or organisation collecting or paying for data - we’re talking thousands and thousands of individuals, companies and devices, across the globe.

Does the question of funding also extend to Patrick Moore and other sceptics? He looks to have made a pretty good career for himself ‘consulting’ for industry. Good work if you can get it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

So, let’s look at a hypothetical situation to perhaps explain the distrust of the data.
Let’s assume that the base scientific readings are from 1800, when, say 100 pieces of equipment were used at various points around the world. How many pieces of equipment are used today? The same 100? 1000? 10000? 100000?…and are they the same pieces of equipment that were originally used? I’d guess that they aren’t. So, today we are collecting more accurate data from more accurate pieces of technology from considerably more locations around the world. You will get considerably different data today than in 1800. What we don’t know is if we’d kept only using those original 100 today what the science would show us.
Think offside in the premier league. Are we getting more offside decisions today than 20 years ago, and is it because of a more accurate measuring system in VAR that wasn’t available 20 years ago?

This stuff is already accounted for in climate science - the limitations of old equipment, unreliability of readings etc, is very much factored in - in fact the revised data often shows less warming than the original historic data did!

But the overall trend is still the same.

I do also think it’s mental to think that advanced science reaches the conclusions it does without basic considerations like this.

 

[Common Sense Club]

This stuff is already accounted for in climate science - the limitations of old equipment, unreliability of readings etc, is very much factored in - in fact the revised data often shows less warming than the original historic data did!

But the overall trend is still the same.

I do also think it’s mental to think that advanced science reaches the conclusions it does without basic considerations like this.

Well it would be nice if it did interrogate its own data as well as previous data collected. But if you want to get a point across you use the worse case scenario; you know, like Saddam Hussain being only 45 minutes away from launching chemical weapons against the UK.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

war in the middle east

 

[Common Sense Club]

war in the middle east

Isn’t that over yet?!

 

[cryrst]

war in the middle east

Yup which will help make the co2 figures worse even only temporary
More tax yay.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

Middle East crisis live: three ships hit in strait of Hormuz as ‘largest ever’ oil reserve release agreed by 32 countries

Thai navy responds to attack on bulk carrier; sources say Iran has deployed a dozen mines in the strait

www.theguardian.com

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

You are wasting your time.

They have completely swallowed the whole right wing populist fossil fuel funded dogma of climate change denial

The factual response would have been that climate does fluctuate and indeed we are believed to be still in an ice age but sitting in an inter glacial warm spell. If true the temperature will fall precipitously and we will once again be buried under deep ice.

The point is that is likely to be in tens of thousands of years at best. It is the rate of change that is unprecedented in the records. The current change correlates precisely with industrialization with the rate to date showing a change in mere centuries that would previously have taken aeons; and with future projections mapped in only decades.

One question. Do you honestly think a command economy like China with all its current economic issues would institute collosal reform at crippling cost if climate change was based on the work of some sandal wearing lefties with a political agenda?

Climate change denial is the stuff of tin foil headed flat earth types. I don't agree with a lot of the populist dogma you guys embrace, but because you are closely aligned on issues like immigration it does not mean you have to agree the entire manifesto. Especially obviously specious crap like this which has been funded by the fossil fuel industry.

Think for yourselves!

The obvious response is that you need to tell that to the biggest producers of greenhouse gases. China, The USA and India. Britain contributes a miniscule amount.

Certainly having a range of energy resources is advantageous, but there is no hope of producing enough energy for our increasing requirements by building more wind farms and covering the place with solar panels. I would begin a program of building nuclear power plants immediately or somewhere down the line, our national grid will not cope. As it is, we have to get energy from France every so often because they got their act together. Meanwhile, the government is determined to get everyone driving electric vehicles. Where is the energy coming from?

We can bleat all you like about global warming but here is the thing. This country will not suffer a much as countries nearer the equator. Sure we will have more extreme weather and there is a risk warming could actually make Britain much colder if the Atlantic cycle shuts down. The biggest risk however, will be migrants moving north and food supply. This is why current government policy is so bonkers. They have to stop the flow of migrants before it becomes a torrent, and we have to become more self-sufficient in food before crops abroad are adversely affected by drought or seasonal disruption.

Filling the country with windmills ain't gonna cut it. We will just get poorer.
The richest countries take advantage of their natural resources. The Arabs didn't get rich from solar panels or by allowing their countries to be overrun by immigrants. One quarter of immigrants are currently unemployed in the UK. So much for boosting the economy.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Middle East crisis live: three ships hit in strait of Hormuz as ‘largest ever’ oil reserve release agreed by 32 countries

Thai navy responds to attack on bulk carrier; sources say Iran has deployed a dozen mines in the strait

www.theguardian.com

The Guardian. Enemies of this country.