Lots of hot air

[Rorschach]

Saying population is the problem is a bit like looking down on the Titanic as it sinks and saying "I see what the problem here is - too many people in the water". True in a way, but not helpful.

That analogy makes no sense.

 

[Jacob]

Someone says something you don't agree with, therefore they must be wrong.......

No it's the way she says it. A rant and a guess. Compare and contrast it with the measured and thoughtful content of the other link.
CC scepticism, like anti vax, brings out the ranters and science goes out of the window.

 

[Jacob]

That analogy makes no sense.

Not to you maybe. Try thinking about it?

 

[Rorschach]

Not to you maybe. Try thinking about it?

Explain it to me. In your analogy you are implying Titanic sank because it had too many people on board?

Please note it is incorrect to say "the Titanic". Common mistake but worth correcting.

 

[Jacob]

...

So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust and why?
Bob

A bit like a jigsaw puzzle without the lid - the picture takes shape slowly. You might even have it upside down and may take some time to identify.
If you try to guess it from a few pieces you might be right but can very easily be wrong

 

[Jacob]

Explain it to me. In your analogy you are implying Titanic sank because it had too many people on board?

Please note it is incorrect to say "the Titanic". Common mistake but worth correcting.

Think on!

 

[Rorschach]

Think on!

I am trying to imagine it in Corbyns voice but it isn't helping, I just keep nodding off.

 

[Jacob]

I am trying to imagine it in Corbyns voice but it isn't helping, I just keep nodding off.

Well yes. A lot of people will take more notice of an old etonian with a loud posh voice barking nonsense.
You need to try and wake up!

 

[Phil Pascoe]

 

[Jacob]

Yes the 97% is rhetorical and unmeasured but doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of the scientific world do support the climate change hypothesis. Not a matter of choice, faith, guesswork, ulterior motives, cunning plots, but because, like a jig saw, they recognise that the parts fit the bigger picture.

 

[Rorschach]

Nothing to do with the fact that if you come out against man made climate change or even just the severity of the effects then your funding will be cut and you will be ridiculed by the establishment? Course not.

 

[hairy]

I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.

It seems that the only way for the human population to be supported in the future is for everyone to live so closely together that transport is only by foot. Food is bought to you "grown" whereever and however is cheapest. When I was a kid I read Judge Dredd, Megacity 1 where real meat was illegal.

 

[Jacob]

Nothing to do with the fact that if you come out against man made climate change or even just the severity of the effects then your funding will be cut and you will be ridiculed by the establishment? Course not.

Very silly argument. No change there!
Why would anybody fund the scientists of the world to falsify the science? Don't you think somebody would whistle blow or do you think they are all corrupt and in it together?
Cue - very silly answer coming shortly!

 

[Jacob]

I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.

It seems that the only way for the human population to be supported in the future is for everyone to live so closely together that transport is only by foot. Food is bought to you "grown" whereever and however is cheapest. When I was a kid I read Judge Dredd, Megacity 1 where real meat was illegal.

Communities in the past were much more self sufficient by having a diversity of crafts and trades close together. They didn't need 4x4s, EVs or heat pumps.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

Very silly argument. No change there!
Why would anybody fund the scientists of the world to falsify the science? Don't you think somebody would whistle blow or do you think they are all corrupt and in it together?
Cue - very silly answer coming shortly!

If you actually watched that video you might find how much of the "science" came about.

 

[Jacob]

If you actually watched that video you might find how much of the "science" came about.

I think I've got a pretty good idea about how the science came about and don't really want to spend 16 minutes listening to a few nutters.
If you think it matters can you summarise in a few words what they are saying?

 

[hairy]

I think that's a good point. I spent my working life as an academic scientist and in my experience scientists are pretty voracious when an anomaly appears - wow, I want a chunk of that. I might be made a Professor...

The world of academic science really isn't some sort of stitch-up trying to preserve accepted theories. In my experience at least. It's a bear pit of people looking for original ground breaking ideas.

If climate change denying scientists could come up with coherent and persuasive arguments they would surely be feted by the scientific community, but their arguments are thin and unsupported by verified observations. I was a peer reviewer for the Institute of Physics, and although I know nowt about polar bears I would have certainly have sent Susan Crockford's article back had she submitted it for publication. Not because I didn't agree, but because it lacks scientific rigour. I would also have corrected her spelling of 'breach'.

There is an interesting (to me) article in Physics in Perspective about how scientists accept theories. It's about Einstein's theory of relativity, but I think that there is content relevant to this debate. The author talks about the pressures experienced by scientists from various angles. It's about 30 pages, so a long read - I doubt that many people would have the stomach for that and even fewer with the iron-clad guts needed for a detailed critical reading of IPCC6.

So it becomes a matter of faith. Who do you trust and why?
Bob

If you go looking there are a number of scientists coming out to say there is minimal real research today because free thinking doesn't get funding. Industry will offer research into a tiny fraction of a tiny thing they are interested in, your interest and motives can't come into it. Some elder statesmen have wondered why, regarding covid in the instance I was most recently reading about, their pupils who know they know better still toe the official line despite it being nonsense. The head of the US tree in this respect supposedly has a very wide control on what gets paid for, therefore actually done and therefore said. If your funding, career, home, pension, community standing all depend on the source of that funding you will not be putting your head above the parapet if you disagree.

Any science saying we must literally throw away all our bad (in their opinion, other opinions are available) stuff and buy all new, equally dense with the earths precious resources, Things, is not believeable or sensible. This is true, I am awake.

If a fact isn't trustworthy then is it science?

 

[hairy]

Communities in the past were much more self sufficient by having a diversity of crafts and trades close together. They didn't need 4x4s, EVs or heat pumps.

But this community will, I'm sure, soon be told you can't burn anything or own a 4x4 to get to Tescos, the GP, the sports centre etc so no more community even if in many ways it is growing into a more self sufficient one.

 

[Jacob]

If you go looking there are a number of scientists coming out to say there is minimal real research today because free thinking doesn't get funding. ......

"Free thinking" and "talking nonsense" are not the same thing.
Absolute opposite of the truth. Anybody coming up with a half convincing new idea is very likely to get funding if it looks a good bet. Masses of research produces nothing much but most of what we know derives from researching the improbable, whether or not funded.

 

[John Brown]

I moved to a quiet little corner where I could actually afford a couple of acres to grow my own food and firewood which, with some with more land nearby who have sheep and cows, we could actually do. Especially as many of those still cut peat.
The road to me was gritted three times the winter before last, once last year, 4x4 needed. The cheapest EV will not get me to the food shops and back in winter. Shoe shop, goodness me no.
I may be a bit further away from things than most but land cost pushed me here.
The green lobby will still say in the near future I must buy an EV and increase my electric bill with adding a heat pump. A neighbour was just given a heat pump by the govt, maybe we can get that too even if we don't want it or need it.

It seems that the only way for the human population to be supported in the future is for everyone to live so closely together that transport is only by foot. Food is bought to you "grown" whereever and however is cheapest. When I was a kid I read Judge Dredd, Megacity 1 where real meat was illegal.

I believe a lot of EVs have AWD, which, while probably not as good as FWD, should help on slippery roads.