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

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I get where you're coming from, but I just find the pretence that there is still some sort of doubt or uncertainty about man made climate change silly, particularly when it's based on lies and misrepresented data.

Certainly no argument from me on the incapability of our politicians to plan for the long-term.

I think that when you are dealing with projections based on scientific observation there is always some doubt. The data will always be questioned. Aside from the method, what rightly or wrongly makes people unsure is the tendency of scientists to avoid speaking out against the consensus and the fact that they are sometimes funded by those looking to push a particular agenda. For those reasons you will never have 100% certainty.
You have to accept that science has got it wrong in the past and might do again. I suspect that whether they have got it right this time will be academic since the people who need to listen are far more concerned with profit than preservation. Like I said before, we need to be preparing for the worst.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I think that when you are dealing with projections based on scientific observation there is always some doubt. The data will always be questioned. Aside from the method, what rightly or wrongly makes people unsure is the tendency of scientists to avoid speaking out against the consensus and the fact that they are sometimes funded by those looking to push a particular agenda. For those reasons you will never have 100% certainty.
You have to accept that science has got it wrong in the past and might do again. I suspect that whether they have got it right this time will be academic since the people who need to listen are far more concerned with profit than preservation. Like I said before, we need to be preparing for the worst.

Sure, but it's often not just the projections being doubted - it's the existence of man-made climate change at all.

I think the environmental movement has done a really shoddy job over the last few decades of communicating the issue in a way that brings people with them. Too often the message has been framed as if the current situation is the fault of Barry not recycling his coke bottles or using plastic straws.

That approach inevitably creates resistance. When people feel personally blamed or morally judged for a global problem, their instinct is often to push back against the entire premise rather than engage with it.

Because of that dynamic, I think most of the scepticism we see isn’t driven by people carefully analysing climate science, but rather from a feeling of being unfairly criticised, and they then look for scientific or cultural arguments that justify rejecting the narrative.

You don’t really see this level of widespread rejection of scientific consensus in most other areas. That suggests the root cause probably isn’t something inherent to the scientific process, groupthink, or conformity among researchers.

 

[McAhuna]

Sure, but it's often not just the projections being doubted - it's the existence of man-made climate change at all.

I think the environmental movement has done a really shoddy job over the last few decades of communicating the issue in a way that brings people with them. Too often the message has been framed as if the current situation is the fault of Barry not recycling his coke bottles or using plastic straws.

That approach inevitably creates resistance. When people feel personally blamed or morally judged for a global problem, their instinct is often to push back against the entire premise rather than engage with it.

Because of that dynamic, I think most of the scepticism we see isn’t driven by people carefully analysing climate science, but rather from a feeling of being unfairly criticised, and they then look for scientific or cultural arguments that justify rejecting the narrative.

You don’t really see this level of widespread rejection of scientific consensus in most other areas. That suggests the root cause probably isn’t something inherent to the scientific process, groupthink, or conformity among researchers.

Agree with a lot of that.

But I don't think that first sentence is correct. Even most sceptics accept that man (and other genders) have some influence on the climate. The debate isn't the 'existence of man made climate change at all' but the extent of that influence, the degree to which it needs to be addressed, the pros/cons of the preferred methods to address it and ...perhaps most worryingly...the degree to which the whole movement has been hijacked for nefarious purposes.

Being denied plastic straws pales into insignificance if we are facing a future of individual carbon credits, 15 minute city travel restrictions, social credit scores and climate lockdowns (all under serious discussion and early stages of implementation). Especially when these restrictions are driven by a clearly corrupt, parasite class who show no signs of wishing to curb their own excesses.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Agree with a lot of that.

But I don't think that first sentence is correct. Even most sceptics accept that man (and other genders) have some influence on the climate. The debate isn't the 'existence of man made climate change at all' but the extent of that influence, the degree to which it needs to be addressed, the pros/cons of the preferred methods to address it and ...perhaps most worryingly...the degree to which the whole movement has been hijacked for nefarious purposes.

Being denied plastic straws pales into insignificance if we are facing a future of individual carbon credits, 15 minute city travel restrictions, social credit scores and climate lockdowns (all under serious discussion and early stages of implementation). Especially when these restrictions are driven by a clearly corrupt, parasite class who show no signs of wishing to curb their own excesses.

You are probably correct that the debate is more around the extent of human influence on the climate, but I think when people try to present this as effectively nil, or present that human action makes negligible difference (I'm thinking when people start talking about ice age cycles and natural warming patterns etc. etc.), they are in effect arguing that man-made climate change is irrelevant to the point of not mattering, which is clearly untrue.

I think discussion around addressing the issue, and indeed the bad actors who now exploit concern in this space, are very interesting and reasonable ones.

 

[silvertop]

The fact that you begin with a character assassination of Trump, even though we weren't previously talking about him, tells me everything. It is fairly obvious that ideological TDS and it's UK equivalent is your true, core motivation.

The irony is, there is little science here - but hints of prejudices throughout. References to 'blue collar voters' and 'blokes with sandwich boards' are very revealing of a pseudo-intellectual snobbish mindset that has an inbuilt assumption of righteousness, which negates any need to properly investigate or verify.

Did you write this bit with a straight face? "You reference the outcome but take it at face value that the pollster was scrupulously independent; that the questions were fair; that the responses have been properly assessed, reported and so on". We must all be questioning of all sources, of course. But the irony is that this is something you and the climate alarmists are self-evidently far more guilty of, due to their ideological zeal. What objective analytical rigour did Saturn apply when he dismissed several scientific papers with a reply within 3 minutes? Its laughable really.

There are several logical fallacies you make. For example; one can be supportive of renewable energy initiatives, without necessarily accepting the more alarmist prediction of man-made climate change.
Renewables may simply be a more cost-efficient long-term option, given the political instability affecting supplies of fossil fuels. Similarly, addressing pollution is wise because of the benefits to human health and protecting valuable ecosystems.
Conflating these issues is a 'smoke and mirrors' slight of hand played all too regularly by climate alarmists. It's one step removed from 'Trump wants to kill the polar bears'. Thankfully more and more see through it.

I didn't and, indeed, justified his position (and that adopted by those arguing against climate change as some woke heresy).

Trump's position preserves blue collar jobs and puts coin in the pocket of the average American who really need it now. That is what I said in plain English. Read it again.

But the science he dismisses is as close to unarguable as it is possible to be. The advantage he has is that the truly devastating impact will (PROBABLY?!) not be felt in his generation.

Finally, could I respectfully request that posters do not attack other posters based on what you believe the pother poster's belief system is but what they have actually written.

I will pick on Hrolf by way of example.

Me: That's a good point Hrolf and hard to disagree.

Hrolf: A typical lefty smart ar*e reply that I have come to expect from you. Your type (!) won't be happy until this country is ruled by gay Muslim clerics.

Me: Er, weren't we talking about interest rates?

 

[McAhuna]

Finally, could I respectfully request that posters do not attack other posters based on what you believe the pother poster's belief system is but what they have actually written.

A noble sentiment.
But one that might perhaps carry a bit more weight if you yourself didn't keep bringing in 'witch words' as if they were some sort of winning ace card to denigrate alternative viewpoints, even within your same post making the above appeal. E.g. Trump supporters, populists, Farage supporters, anti-woke heresy, blue-collar voting blocks, etc, etc, etc.
I don't recall aligning with any of them. They don't seen particularly relevant to a science based discussion. So perhaps start by applying this noble aim to yourself.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Sure, but it's often not just the projections being doubted - it's the existence of man-made climate change at all.

I think the environmental movement has done a really shoddy job over the last few decades of communicating the issue in a way that brings people with them. Too often the message has been framed as if the current situation is the fault of Barry not recycling his coke bottles or using plastic straws.

That approach inevitably creates resistance. When people feel personally blamed or morally judged for a global problem, their instinct is often to push back against the entire premise rather than engage with it.

Because of that dynamic, I think most of the scepticism we see isn’t driven by people carefully analysing climate science, but rather from a feeling of being unfairly criticised, and they then look for scientific or cultural arguments that justify rejecting the narrative.

You don’t really see this level of widespread rejection of scientific consensus in most other areas. That suggests the root cause probably isn’t something inherent to the scientific process, groupthink, or conformity among researchers.

There is a lunatic fringe that rejects science completely, which is clearly absurd, however I always think that healthy scepticism is a good thing. Part of the issue is that almost all information we receive is via other people, so you immediately have a degree of uncertainty. The question in this case is, do you trust scientists? Well, that is a personal choice. You could ask, do you trust doctors? Well I don't trust all of them for sure. Some are hopeless. It is for the individual to make that assessment.

Perhaps some people don't like to feel responsible for messing up the planet and they aren't responsible individually in the main. Certain ones certainly should take responsibility of course. Those who have the power to change things. One could say that polluting the planet and stripping its resources along with any side effects were inevitable as soon as humans became so dominant. Too many people results in ultimate decline.

Can we fix things by convincing people both intelligent and stupid that man made climate change is real?
Unlikely. It is those who control the planets resources and therefore much of everything who can decide to act, not the average citizen. We have seen green pressure groups for decades and it has made no almost significant difference to the attitudes of the big polluters. Will they surrender their profits and invest in viable clean energy in time to reverse the process? Do they simply deny the problem, do they know something we don't, or are they just not able to see past the dollar?

The trend for maximum temperatures is still up in Britain, so I would expect temperatures to rise naturally for some time regardless of man, so we better get used to it. In the grand scheme of things man will be toast anyway, and all this will be under 2 miles under ice again eventually. That rather nihilistic and yet realistic view might also be a driver in the indifference of polluters and in general population.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I didn't and, indeed, justified his position (and that adopted by those arguing against climate change as some woke heresy).

Trump's position preserves blue collar jobs and puts coin in the pocket of the average American who really need it now. That is what I said in plain English. Read it again.

But the science he dismisses is as close to unarguable as it is possible to be. The advantage he has is that the truly devastating impact will (PROBABLY?!) not be felt in his generation.

Finally, could I respectfully request that posters do not attack other posters based on what you believe the pother poster's belief system is but what they have actually written.

I will pick on Hrolf by way of example.

Me: That's a good point Hrolf and hard to disagree.

Hrolf: A typical lefty smart ar*e reply that I have come to expect from you. Your type (!) won't be happy until this country is ruled by gay Muslim clerics.

Me: Er, weren't we talking about interest rates?

Stop whining like a little girl.

 

[McAhuna]

In the grand scheme of things man will be toast anyway, and all this will be under 2 miles under ice again eventually. That rather nihilistic and yet realistic view might also be a driver in the indifference of polluters and in general population.

Err ....I am pretty confident that that is the view of a very small minority.

Most people intrinsically care about the welfare of their children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and descendants. Altruism for future generations is pretty standard and basic across all creeds and cultures.

There are outliers to this of course - Doomsday cultists, extremists groups, very low IQ individuals, spiritually bankrupt individuals, atheist fundamentalists, sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, the mentally ill and Richard Dawkins.
But thankfully we can ignore all of them.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Err ....I am pretty confident that that is the view of a very small minority.

Most people intrinsically care about the welfare of their children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews and descendants. Altruism for future generations is pretty standard and basic across all creeds and cultures.

There are outliers to this of course - Doomsday cultists, extremists groups, very low IQ individuals, spiritually bankrupt individuals, atheist fundamentalists, sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, the mentally ill and Richard Dawkins.
But thankfully we can ignore all of them.

We won't be toast that soon hopefully.

Some people will be lucky enough to have children to care for, some grandchildren and in less cases great grand children, but how much further ahead can you concern yourself with? It's not like the vast majority can affect the future beyond a certain point. Kind thoughts won't get you diddly.

Richard Dawkins is one of the most sensible and rational people on the planet. Only someone deluded by religious mumbo jumbo would think otherwise. Next you be having a go at Darwin.

 

[McAhuna]

We won't be toast that soon hopefully.

Some people will be lucky enough to have children to care for, some grandchildren and in less cases great grand children, but how much further ahead can you concern yourself with? It's not like the vast majority can affect the future beyond a certain point. Kind thoughts won't get you diddly.

Richard Dawkins is one of the most sensible and rational people on the planet. Only someone deluded by religious mumbo jumbo would think otherwise. Next you be having a go at Darwin.

I don't think one necessarily has to have children or grandchildren to car about the future wellbeing of the planet. Nor do they need to be religious. I don't really see it in that nuts and bolts sort of way, nor is there a time-limit. I don't think the passing of my time on here as particularly significant - I care as much about the time after I'm gone.

I am not sure how someone can appear to care passionately about the future survival of the nation, but not the wider planet. Perhaps I am missing something.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

I don't think one necessarily has to have children or grandchildren to car about the future wellbeing of the planet. Nor do they need to be religious. I don't really see it in that nuts and bolts sort of way, nor is there a time-limit. I don't think the passing of my time on here as particularly significant - I care as much about the time after I'm gone.

I am not sure how someone can appear to care passionately about the future survival of the nation, but not the wider planet. Perhaps I am missing something.

You can care as much as you like, but it won't make any difference. I care about those in the here and now and their futures. Bearing that in mind, I'd like to keep Britain for the British and preserve what made it a great country.
The human race in general is not of great concern. I will be dead and so will everyone else at some point. What is there to worry about?

 

[McAhuna]

People not thinking about the positives of climate change

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

People not thinking about the positives of climate change
View attachment 3048

Well you could create an alternative channel. It's not like they don't have the money.

 

[ASCPFC]

Well you could create an alternative channel. It's not like they don't have the money.

What? Like some kind of canal or something? That could never be done.

 

[PalazioVecchio]

People not thinking about the positives of climate change

a nice warm climate for Scotland. Becoming more like Brittanny. That could be very nice indeed.
Although it might harm their winter skiing industry.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

What? Like some kind of canal or something? That could never be done.

The problem is that any alternatives like pipelines etc are still targets for attack. They are creating some now I think.

The best thing is for oil producing and receiving countries to control the Straits.

 

[silvertop]

A noble sentiment.
But one that might perhaps carry a bit more weight if you yourself didn't keep bringing in 'witch words' as if they were some sort of winning ace card to denigrate alternative viewpoints, even within your same post making the above appeal. E.g. Trump supporters, populists, Farage supporters, anti-woke heresy, blue-collar voting blocks, etc, etc, etc.
I don't recall aligning with any of them. They don't seen particularly relevant to a science based discussion. So perhaps start by applying this noble aim to yourself.

Oh, I see your point.

I am aware that, in Venn diagram terms, there does not exist a single circle encompassing populists and those who do not accept the human - caused climate change argument.

However, I hear comments from Trump (which are aped by Farage and others) that this is a myth. I believe this point is advocated for economic and political reasons, not because it is supported by good science.

Like it or not, there is a vast body of opinion who have taken a position against human caused climate change based not on immediate self interest, or the prevailing science, but because charismatic politicians are saying it and they are believing it without question.

This is not just a nice academic debate like the causes of WWI. It has genuine consequences for the future of our world and species.

Trump stands for small and efficient government, low taxes, a defended border and a fresh break from entrenched, elitist tribal government. I have (more or less) no problem with any of that. Domestic issues and none of our business.

But a rejection of green policies from the world's largest polluter is something we really need to be concerned about, especially if this is likely to be repeated here and elsewhere by mirroring governments.

Small wonder the rise of the Greens.

 

[McAhuna]

You can care as much as you like, but it won't make any difference. I care about those in the here and now and their futures. Bearing that in mind, I'd like to keep Britain for the British and preserve what made it a great country.
The human race in general is not of great concern. I will be dead and so will everyone else at some point. What is there to worry about?

You don't see any contradictions in that worldview?

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Small wonder the rise of the Greens.

You mean the Greenslamists?