The Politics of 'Climate-change'

[Wisbech Eagle]

Scientists tend to align themselves with their paymasters. Not a very scientific way to do things, but we all have bills to pay.
And guess what. ? people lie. And they'll lie a lot for money.
Scientists rarely get funding to tell the truth.

That’s cynical bs.

Of course people need to be paid but most research scientists are dedicated to discovering things. Not just the money. When they argue for funding it’s so they can discover more.

Of course people can lie. That’s why research is peer reviewed, both internally and externally. Mistakes can occur and they must be found. If anyone cheated they would lose their job and career so outright lies must be very rare.

Only when commercial interests get involved are there answers seeking evidence and the possibility of scientists compromising their ethics. I only know of one actual example and that was decades ago when the tobacco industry claimed that nicotine was not addictive. A claim that was blown away. By a scientist exposing the truth.

In this matter the commercial interests lie with the fossil fuel producers. I would not put it past some of them to be running a similar campaign to the tobacco industry, using pseudo science as their justification.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Science isn’t proven by majority decisions but as detailed above ,funding for science is.

Most funding for climate research is provided by governments. Governments who are always under cost restraints.

 

[cryrst]

Most funding for climate research is provided by governments. Governments who are always under cost restraints.

Clearly not this one ATM.
Have you seen the waste from 2TKs

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

No we don't. We need scientists to come up with a solution and politicians to back those solutions. The rest of us can't do anything. If buying an electric car makes you feel you're doing your bit then go for it despite the fact that 60% of the power needed to run comes from fossil fuels.

Science is working on solutions. Electric cars are getting more efficient every year. The power to operate them doesn’t have to come from fossil fuels and how quickly we can transform our generation capacity to wind, wave, tide, gravity, air and ground sources and nuclear is a separate issue.

We though need to be aware of the need for these changes and why we need to embrace them. Science needs to be pushing at an open door. Not one that some want to slam in its face.

 

[cryrst]

Your first line is almost certainly true. This is a highly technical and specialised area. The way the data is collected and interpreted requires specialist knowledge and experience. Unless you are actually involved there is little to no chance of being able to understand it.

Understanding the conclusions is a different matter. They are fairly straightforward. Which is confirmed by your last line. You wouldn’t argue that an electric boiler heats water! Some though want to argue that man made climate change isn’t heating the world.

Who said man made climate change isn’t real? If all of it being man made is say 100 and none is man made is 0.
What do you and your mate think the number is ?
Simple question for you as you know so much about it !

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Who said man made climate change isn’t real? If all of it being man made is say 100 and none is man made is 0.
What do you and your mate think the number is ?
Simple question for you as you know so much about it !

Nobody can tell the level of natural climate change whilst it’s happening. We won’t know until thousands of years later. We are currently about 12,000 years into an interglacial period which, over time, should lead to a very gradual cooling although there can be fluctuations on the way. It’s unnoticeable to us though. It is contributing next to nothing to the current problem.

Man made is completely different. It’s observable and measurable. To try and conflate the two phenomena is to misunderstand the situation completely.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Science is working on solutions. Electric cars are getting more efficient every year. The power to operate them doesn’t have to come from fossil fuels and how quickly we can transform our generation capacity to wind, wave, tide, gravity, air and ground sources and nuclear is a separate issue.

We though need to be aware of the need for these changes and why we need to embrace them. Science needs to be pushing at an open door. Not one that some want to slam in its face.

Embrace it or don't. It won't make any difference. This hearts and minds attitude is what creates barriers. Just leave everyone alone without trying to create a modern form of heresy. Anyone who is so concerned about what might happen to future generations must have a very easy life. Ask anyone starving or living in destitute poverty or under a repressive regime how much they're bothered.

 

[cryrst]

Nobody can tell the level of natural climate change whilst it’s happening. We won’t know until thousands of years later. We are currently about 12,000 years into an interglacial period which, over time, should lead to a very gradual cooling although there can be fluctuations on the way. It’s unnoticeable to us though. It is contributing next to nothing to the current problem.

Man made is completely different. It’s observable and measurable. To try and conflate the two phenomena is to misunderstand the situation completely.

So go on then give the measure of man made. It’s quite simple as you keep preaching about how bad it is.
From 0 to 100 how much is ours ?
The interglacial period will end as it’s happened 4-5 times in the last few 100,000 years. The poles melt and re freeze.
Blaming us for the current melt is lazy when it’s fact it happened before we started burning fossil fuels.

 

[grumpymort]

Total bs. If you truly believe that scientists devoted to finding the truth would allow themselves to be manipulated in the way you suggest you are nuts. I knew one of them and she held the highest ethics of anyone I have ever met. Her understanding of the data was amazing. Different, unrelated, research teams all over the world reached conclusions that means such a consensus became established that man made global warming is now regarded as a fact. Many of those teams reviewed each others work to both look for weaknesses and to improve their own methodology.

There’s nothing made up involved. You might want it to be untrue. You might not want to face the consequences of it being true. Neither though stop it being true, because it is.

I was a scientist for over 40 years so I know full well how it works you again showing you clearly do not.

I will explain it to you its about $$$ if you dont fall in line you wont ever receive any and your name will be discredited that is how it is. (In the modern age its even worse because of social media etc controlled by the people who don't want you to know the truth so you jump on the platforms provide data its removed)

You can understand data all you like and be good at it but if it made up which it is on this subject it's meaningless.

If it's so straight forward someone should be able to show clear evidence that humans have been the cause they can't because it's not true. (Have we contributed yes but not the cause)

I bet you are one of the people who belief the nonsense about cows being a massive contributing factor to it as well.

Are you vegan or vegetarian by any chance?

At the end of the day we already know you are one of these sheep who listens to authority you did the same when the scamdemic was happening trying to quote about studies you do not even understand which was again based of epidemiology which is not valid science and real scientist knows this.

 

[cryrst]

I was a scientist for over 40 years so I know full well how it works you again showing you clearly do not.

I will explain it to you its about $$$ if you dont fall in line you wont ever receive any and your name will be discredited that is how it is. (In the modern age its even worse because of social media etc controlled by the people who don't want you to know the truth so you jump on the platforms provide data its removed)

You can understand data all you like and be good at it but if it made up which it is on this subject it's meaningless.

If it's so straight forward someone should be able to show clear evidence that humans have been the cause they can't because it's not true. (Have we contributed yes but not the cause)

I bet you are one of the people who belief the nonsense about cows being a massive contributing factor to it as well.

Are you vegan or vegetarian by any chance?

At the end of the day we already know you are one of these sheep who listens to authority you did the same when the scamdemic was happening trying to quote about studies you do not even understand which was again based of epidemiology which is not valid science and real scientist knows this.

Look you are not as good a scientist as wissies girl mate ok. She’s right you’re wrong 😂

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Grumpymort was obviously a low-ranking scientist and not privvy to the vast databanks of scientific research and discovery held in ultra-tight security in the SW England Bowls Club.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

I was a scientist for over 40 years so I know full well how it works you again showing you clearly do not.

I will explain it to you its about $$$ if you dont fall in line you wont ever receive any and your name will be discredited that is how it is. (In the modern age its even worse because of social media etc controlled by the people who don't want you to know the truth so you jump on the platforms provide data its removed)

You can understand data all you like and be good at it but if it made up which it is on this subject it's meaningless.

If it's so straight forward someone should be able to show clear evidence that humans have been the cause they can't because it's not true. (Have we contributed yes but not the cause)

I bet you are one of the people who belief the nonsense about cows being a massive contributing factor to it as well.

Are you vegan or vegetarian by any chance?

At the end of the day we already know you are one of these sheep who listens to authority you did the same when the scamdemic was happening trying to quote about studies you do not even understand which was again based of epidemiology which is not valid science and real scientist knows this.

What science were you involved in? There are many categories. Not all is genuine research.

Were you responsible for obtaining funding?

Some commissioned by vested interests may well generate some weird investigations.

Climate science isn’t like that. It’s real.

I haven’t studied the contribution of farm animals but they must make one. How big I defer to the experts.

I am neither vegetarian nor vegan and think both are daft.

You cynicism about Covid destroys any credibility you might have on other subjects. It is simply untrue.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

What science were you involved in? There are many categories. Not all is genuine research.

Were you responsible for obtaining funding?

Some commissioned by vested interests may well generate some weird investigations.

Climate science isn’t like that. It’s real.

I haven’t studied the contribution of farm animals but they must make one. How big I defer to the experts.

I am neither vegetarian nor vegan and think both are daft.

You cynicism about Covid destroys any credibility you might have on other subjects. It is simply untrue.

Sounds like the way some used to talk about religion. Some still do, of course, but this subject has become the secular equivalent. Denier = Heretic. The end is nigh.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

Proper scientists, voicing impartial opinions are about as rare as qualified gas engineers in the SW.

 

[Forest Hillbilly]

When oil runs out, by the end of this century, then climate change will be a moot point. I'll be OK because I've got solar panels, which aren't going to be impacted at all by the constant pall of smoke obscuring the sun, as we race to the bottom, burning all the oil reserves as quickly as possible.
We won't have enough food , as there'll be no pesticides, or mechanised industry.
It's all inevitable.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Proper scientists, voicing impartial opinions are about as rare as qualified gas engineers in the SW.

You might be very surprised. There are plenty of both.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

When oil runs out, by the end of this century, then climate change will be a moot point. I'll be OK because I've got solar panels, which aren't going to be impacted at all by the constant pall of smoke obscuring the sun, as we race to the bottom, burning all the oil reserves as quickly as possible.
We won't have enough food , as there'll be no pesticides, or mechanised industry.
It's all inevitable.

Keeping the reserves of oil for the production of things like pesticides makes sense. Mechanical things can work on electricity, which can be generated without fossil fuels.

Having solar panels might help you at home, but life involves a lot more. We are all in this together.

 

[Wisbech Eagle]

Sounds like the way some used to talk about religion. Some still do, of course, but this subject has become the secular equivalent. Denier = Heretic. The end is nigh.

Ridiculous analogy!

Climate change doesn’t depend on an unprovable belief in something.

It’s a verifiable fact. Denier = Idiot.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Ridiculous analogy!

Climate change doesn’t depend on an unprovable belief in something.

It’s a verifiable fact. Denier = Idiot.

Once again 2 + 2 = ?
What I mean is the zeal with which non believers are pursued. Look at how you're reacting to your faith not being followed. Call everybody idiots and selfish and everything else. See how far that gets you.

 

[HKOwen]

Proper scientists, voicing impartial opinions are about as rare as qualified gas engineers in the SW.

10,000 reasons to laugh at this.