A fable for the fuel protesters ...

[st13phil]

yes we do have temperature data for millions of years

All based upon proxy data. Historic proxies are routinely revised and/or disputed. Yet some are willing to state them as factual and happily ignore the (inevitable) errors if they support their hypothesis.

If you’re happy with that, crack on. Many scientists are not, including many climate scientists. And for the avoidance of doubt, consensus amongst different scientists does not indicate a correct hypothesis.

It seems unlikely that I will convince you, and equally unlikely that you will convince me. The difference is that I don’t assert that you’re stupid, ignorant or blindfolded.

 

[ALFAitalia]

The difference is you are ignoring proven fact to promote unproven theories that abound on FB and the like!!!! "Many scientists" is less than 3 percent. I have some magic beans for sale if you want them!

9 ways we know humans triggered climate change

Tens of thousands of scientists have amassed an overwhelming amount of evidence pointing to a clear conclusion.

www.edf.org

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of...

skepticalscience.com

The Science of Climate Change Explained: Facts, Evidence and Proof

Definitive answers to the big questions.

www.nytimes.com

 

[poormansporsche]

My personal opinion.....

Social unrest from trying to reach some political "climate" goal is going to kill me and my children long before actual "climate change" so quite frankly I couldn't give a toss.

 

[st13phil]

promote unproven theories that abound on FB

Dear me.

 

[DrNick]

Dr Mann was unable to produce the data he used to create the hockey stick graph in a Canadian court of law who were tasked with settling a defamation case made by Dr Mann against another party, Dr Ball.

He was requested to produce the data behind the graph by a judge and he refused to do so. Dr Mann lost the case.

No data equals no science as science must be repeatable. Science based on fact checker findings, which are merely opinion, is laughable.

Part three: Hockey stick graph took pride of place in IPCC report, despite doubts

Fred Pearce: Emails expose tension between desire for scrupulous honesty, and desire to tell simple story to tell the policymakers

www.theguardian.com

ThAt article just shows scientific debate. They were just arguing about how steep the hockey stick was. Trouble is, 20 years later, there is still a hockey stick and the consensus is it is a real feature. There is loads of data out there, being analysed by many groups. The answer is always the same, it’s just the degree that is uncertain. Dismiss Dr Mann if you want but there are loads of other sources you can look at.

 

[Dippo]

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

 

[DSM10000]

All based upon proxy data. Historic proxies are routinely revised and/or disputed. Yet some are willing to state them as factual and happily ignore the (inevitable) errors if they support their hypothesis.

If you’re happy with that, crack on. Many scientists are not, including many climate scientists. And for the avoidance of doubt, consensus amongst different scientists does not indicate a correct hypothesis.

It seems unlikely that I will convince you, and equally unlikely that you will convince me. The difference is that I don’t assert that you’re stupid, ignorant or blindfolded.

Well said Sir.

 

[190]

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

A fundamental problem with the climate debate is that most of us gain our "knowledge" of global warming from the media. The media of course has zero interest in providing a balanced view of any subject. What they do is to seek out the "expert" with the view that suits the story line they want to run which is usually an extreme view in order that the quote will make a good story. There is no shortage of "experts" to pick from with extreme views. We saw this with Covid modellers. Even the BBC (or should that be especially the BBC ) continued to give one expert air time even though he had been thoroughly discredited because just about everything he had predicted in the past had been wildly inaccurate.

The real challenge these days is to find an unbiased view of just about anything.

 

[Railwayman]

Just popped out of the gulag to add, I have seen a few posts here saying that certain statements/facts have been "fact checked". May I ask who these fact checkers are?, have they come down from Mount Olympus to spread their wisdom amongst us plebes, what are their credentials?

Genuinely would like to know the answers, are they an individual, a body, a committee, and who arranges there formation, are they independent and not aligned with big business, and who fact checks them?

 

[ALFAitalia]

Some of the stuff on here and other places is so obviously nonsense to anyone with more than two brain cells that no fact checking is required unless you have the brains of a pork pie! But yes its valid point. Some fact check sites are from noted academic institutions or scientific ones.....and some others just seem to copy and paste their findings!! I think its a bit of a myth that all these vast majority (975 plus)of climate scientists are being paid by big business to prove what big business wants to promote. Its goes against most scientists basic principles. Also you would think most big companies would want to prove manmade climate change was NOT real as only a small number will make money from climate change.....the vast majority of companies will be paying out big to meet new carbon levels etc.

 

[DrNick]

Just popped out of the gulag to add, I have seen a few posts here saying that certain statements/facts have been "fact checked". May I ask who these fact checkers are?, have they come down from Mount Olympus to spread their wisdom amongst us plebes, what are their credentials?

Genuinely would like to know the answers, are they an individual, a body, a committee, and who arranges there formation, are they independent and not aligned with big business, and who fact checks them?

The article I posted was a fact checking article by Reuters, who are a reputable news agency, so trained journalists. I'm not sure how anything can be proved absolutely. If you study philosophy you will know that this is a fundamental issue that has been studied for more than 2000 years. However, in order to function in the world, we have to be pragmatic and believe certain things, or what's the point?
I tend to look at as much evidence as I can and assess its provenance as well as I can and then apply critical evaluation to come to a conclusion based on that evidence. The more important the subject, the more evidence I try to acquire, and (importantly) I reassess the conclusions in the light of evolving information.
What you shouldn't do is just look for evidence that fits your theory and ignore all the rest. If there is conflicting evidence than you have to critically evaluate it and form a weighted opinion. Most things are not black and white. Also situations change because things are dynamic. DIre predictions may be made but then something is done about it and the dire predictions don't come true. Doesn't mean they wouldn't have! And I suspect most people would be pleased they didn't.

 

[st13phil]

I tend to look at as much evidence as I can and assess its provenance as well as I can and then apply critical evaluation to come to a conclusion based on that evidence. The more important the subject, the more evidence I try to acquire, and (importantly) I reassess the conclusions in the light of evolving information.
What you shouldn't do is just look for evidence that fits your theory and ignore all the rest. If there is conflicting evidence than you have to critically evaluate it and form a weighted opinion.

Bravo! This accurately describes a process that has served humanity well for many centuries.

Such a pity that there are so many noisy people who have either never learned how to do it, have forgotten how to do it, or their dogma prevents them from doing it.

 

[Swotty]

Probably started in the '70s, when kids in school started to be told WHAT to think, rather than HOW to think.

Many from that era and later seem to have more "trust" in govt. and MSM "information" than those of us from the previous generation who are imho mostly critical thinkers.

More latterly, the state has doubled down on taking over the parental role and so, bit by bit the young will perceive the state as the trusted parent. That happened in Germany in the 1930s.

The march through the institutions is proceeding apace.

 

[Phil1968]

All well & good but I'm still at a loss at how I'm deemed a child molester for not hanging on Greta's every last word?

 

[Swotty]

All well & good but I'm still at a loss at how I'm deemed a child molester for not hanging on Greta's every last word?

 

[Phil1968]

View attachment 126173

Racist paedo!

 

[grober]

Every mention of "Greta " in a post should be accompanied by a "Meme Warning"---- it's noticeable that her name is constantly used as a source of derision by Climate change skeptics but very rarely mentioned by proponents of climate change who generally tend instead to talk about the evidence for the phenomenon. Its ironic that the mere derogatory inclusion of her name in any post is a dead give away of bias in any accompanying arguement thus defeating its purpose.

 

[grober]

Greta Thunberg - Wikipedia

In many ways Greta Thunberg has become the exploited victim of both sides of the climate change argument having been diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism in her early teens and her individual opinion exploited by the same proponents and sceptics. A victim of her own success/notoriety?
However, if nothing else, merely her age serves to remind us that it's future generations that will inherit the planetary atmosphere we create by our actions today.

 

[st13phil]

In many ways Greta Thunberg has become the exploited victim of both sides of the climate change argument

I tend to agree. My view is that she is victim of child abuse - mainly by her parents.

 

[GeeJayW]

Is it really so hard to consider that the ever growing human population and growing exploitation of global resources for food, energy, accommodation, transport etc. etc., have an impact on our environment? The details of how and where that impact manifests itself is up for debate. In addition, because there are also naturally occurring events and circumstances that contribute to changes in environmental conditions, isolating the effects of human activity is not easy.

As for the fuel protestors; like all single issue political activists, their arguments are simplistic because they ignore for clarity, all of the other issues that are integrated with the issue they are protesting.

Just one simple observation from me; as long as we continue to have machines, we will need lubricants. Before the oil industry, we used whale oil as the basic ingredient for machine lubricants. If we get rid of the oil industry, what do we use for lubricants in the future?