M25 - Why?

[Nick]

How can a British PM achiece a consensus amongst global scientists to solve a local problem.

That is not open for debate, she did and it is documented in history.

[Borchester]

As I said, denying all the world's scientists in preference for some shit you found on the internet.

Actually, the chap in the video works at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. It could be he is cleaning the loos, but if not, well, MIT is the world's top university.

[srb7677]

Steve, pay particular attention at 4min 15sec, it's got your name all over it.

https://youtu.be/pwvVephTIHU

As I said, denying all the world's scientists in preference for some shit you found on the internet. This post just demonstrates and confirms that to me. What else did you think it would do? Convince me that the vast majority of scientists are more likelt to be wrong than you?

[srb7677]

And nowhere did I say he was a scientists.

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound-climate-alarm

Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to put climate change at the top of the agenda. Lord Lawson, her chancellor then, is now a mouthpiece for climate denial. So how does he explain her political support for the scientific consensus?

BRENDAN MONTAGUE investigates

Margaret Thatcher's contribution to the climate debate while British prime minister would cause her free market fellows considerable difficulty in the coming decades. They would spark speculation that the PM, in her prime, was 'taken in by environmentalists'.

[HIGHLIGHT]Lord Lawson[/HIGHLIGHT], then her chancellor, preferred to believe that Thatcher was engaged in a Machiavellian deception of the British public in order to justify her use of newly discovered North Sea gas to shut down most of the country's mining industry, with the loss of 100,000 jobs. But can this be true?


As I have said umpteen times, Thatcher gave birth of climate change to pull the rug from under the NUM, she succeeded and Left Wingers like you who hated her are all now singing her song, you know what, that's the best bit. 😂

https://youtu.be/sCDPLn7xRR8

What total conspiracy theorist claptrap. How can a British PM achiece a consensus amongst global scientists to solve a local problem. And the very fact that you are putting forth Lawson as an authority rather than any actual scientist is itself pathetic. You are so obviously one of those deluded denialists who believe shit you read on the internet,

[Nick]

So you think you know more than the vast majority of the scientific community? On what basis of knowledge can you make such an extraordinary claim? And do you think most scientists are simply wrong and you are right? Or do you hold some sort of conspiracy theory by which you believe global scientists are actively lying to us? And what motives do you suppose they might have for doing so?

Steve, pay particular attention at 4min 15sec, it's got your name all over it.

https://youtu.be/pwvVephTIHU

[Nick]

I have checked out his CV. Conservative politician and former chancellor who now sits in the house of lords. [HIGHLIGHT]Nowhere does it say that he is a reputed scientist of any kind, let alone a climatological one.[/HIGHLIGHT]

Enlighten me on his significance insofar as the science is concerned. Perhaps you could post a link to any peer reviewed scientific paper he has published, as opposed to denialist witterings similar to yours in the media.

Seems to me the only real significance he has in regards to the actual science is that he agrees with you without actually doing anymore than seeking out stuff he likes the look of from the internet echo chamber.

Check this out. Yes it is only a wikipedia article but it contains linksto many reputable sources and organisations. All of them rather more scientifically knowledgeable than some has been politician.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

But I doubt you will bother to read any of it because it does not confirm your bias.

And nowhere did I say he was a scientists.

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound-climate-alarm

Margaret Thatcher was the first world leader to put climate change at the top of the agenda. Lord Lawson, her chancellor then, is now a mouthpiece for climate denial. So how does he explain her political support for the scientific consensus?

BRENDAN MONTAGUE investigates

Margaret Thatcher's contribution to the climate debate while British prime minister would cause her free market fellows considerable difficulty in the coming decades. They would spark speculation that the PM, in her prime, was 'taken in by environmentalists'.

[HIGHLIGHT]Lord Lawson[/HIGHLIGHT], then her chancellor, preferred to believe that Thatcher was engaged in a Machiavellian deception of the British public in order to justify her use of newly discovered North Sea gas to shut down most of the country's mining industry, with the loss of 100,000 jobs. But can this be true?


As I have said umpteen times, Thatcher gave birth of climate change to pull the rug from under the NUM, she succeeded and Left Wingers like you who hated her are all now singing her song, you know what, that's the best bit. 😂

https://youtu.be/sCDPLn7xRR8

[T00ts]

I lack your faith but am not going to be critical of it here. I can see that the way things are going could be interpreted by believers as the early phases of the end of days. Your faith leads you to believe this to be inevitable and unstoppable. I believe that any problem being caused by us can be solved by us simply by ceasing to do what is causing the problem. Easier said than done I know.

Because you raise the valid problems of human nature such as the greed and selfishness. And there is much more, like short term thinking, stupidity, and denialism. And the tendency of many to believe that what is good for them personally is actually hatrmless and good for all. There are for example no greater deniers of climate change than those who work in the industries causing it. Selfishness is hardwired into us.

Of course, there are those who rise above such baseness and fight for the greater good and the long term future of humanity and the planet. But they always face an uphill struggle against the selfish hordes who can only be persuaded to do the right thing if it can be demonstrated to be in their own best interests. A battle of wills is being fought between those who recognise the danger and wish to avert it and those who don't want to see it. I can see already as I type this a degree of apparent resonation with themes of good versus evil that you believe are inherent to these times.

I simply do not see it in biblical terms at all and just a problem resulting from human nature. And the people prepared to accept the science and win the argument and get things done are fighting against selfish greed and political self interest. Thus words are big, all the right things are being said. But I don't think enough is actually being done in good enough time yet to head off an impending ecological disaster.

I differ from you in not believing that there is any higher entitity who will come and save us. We have to save ourselves and the rest of the planet by our own actions. Or our days truly are numbered.

Thank you I appreciate your sincerity. I actually do not believe that God will save us willy nilly. We do have to make an effort to save ourselves. It will not be down to science though but a change in that human nature that we have mentioned. I just wondered what would be the catalyst for that change. An interesting discussion.

[Borchester]

This is change in behaviour, in demands, in humility. It would need the cessation of the worship of wealth and greed and envy.

I am not to sure about that one Toots. There is an erroneous but none the less firmly held belief, that if you walk around with your arse out of your trousers you are somehow being virtuous. Right now much of the third world is destroying its environment in the scrambled for scarce resources and incompetent farming techniques

[Borchester]

Well like I said it doesn't matter anyway.

No it doesn't.  I think we are at the stage of the scholars a few hundred years ago. They suggested that the Ethiopians had enormous feet that could be used as umbrellas to protect them from the suns rays. All bollocks but harmless fun and it sold a lot of books which was the bit that counted.

We don't know if the world is getting warmer, colder or about to crash into the scarlet tower of Greater Helium. It would be nice if all the available information were pooled and we could find out. The trouble is that it would require a few competent filing clerks, rather than academics desperate to get a media by line and their hysterical followers in urgent need of a cause. And most of all, it would be nowhere near as much fun.

[srb7677]

I read you posts with interest and they are very clear and reasoned so it is difficult for me to disagree, but here I am.  I have no doubt that there is Global warming at this time, my conflict is that regardless of the science which I tend to feel follows rather than leads the investigation, we have oft repeated prophesies which are regularly consigned to the skip of understanding, which describes in detail just how this will happen and is already being proved by the circumstances which we see around us.

It is more than difficult for mankind to grasp the notion that they are not in control and I understand just how frightening that prospect would seem but for me although I have every respect for every effort to reverse the Global situation I feel deep down that it is pointless.
The degree of change required on this planet to withstand or reverse what is happening is clearly impossible. This is change in behaviour, in demands, in humility. It would need the cessation of the worship of wealth and greed and envy. It would need love of our fellow man to supersede all other things for a reversal or even a with-holding for a time of what is prophesied.
I know this is not the right section for faith but for me the very future of this planet depends much on our treatment of each other for in that lies the treatment of the planet.

I lack your faith but am not going to be critical of it here. I can see that the way things are going could be interpreted by believers as the early phases of the end of days. Your faith leads you to believe this to be inevitable and unstoppable. I believe that any problem being caused by us can be solved by us simply by ceasing to do what is causing the problem. Easier said than done I know.

Because you raise the valid problems of human nature such as the greed and selfishness. And there is much more, like short term thinking, stupidity, and denialism. And the tendency of many to believe that what is good for them personally is actually hatrmless and good for all. There are for example no greater deniers of climate change than those who work in the industries causing it. Selfishness is hardwired into us.

Of course, there are those who rise above such baseness and fight for the greater good and the long term future of humanity and the planet. But they always face an uphill struggle against the selfish hordes who can only be persuaded to do the right thing if it can be demonstrated to be in their own best interests. A battle of wills is being fought between those who recognise the danger and wish to avert it and those who don't want to see it. I can see already as I type this a degree of apparent resonation with themes of good versus evil that you believe are inherent to these times.

I simply do not see it in biblical terms at all and just a problem resulting from human nature. And the people prepared to accept the science and win the argument and get things done are fighting against selfish greed and political self interest. Thus words are big, all the right things are being said. But I don't think enough is actually being done in good enough time yet to head off an impending ecological disaster.

I differ from you in not believing that there is any higher entitity who will come and save us. We have to save ourselves and the rest of the planet by our own actions. Or our days truly are numbered.

[T00ts]

You are correct to point out that just because the vast majority of scientists after a process of measurement, experimentation and theorising based upon what we already know come to a certain conclusion is does not guarantee they are right. Most once thought the Sun orbited the Earth along with everything else. Later most were convinced by the efficacy of Newtonian gravity, in spite of anomalies that could not be explained by it, notably discrepancies in the observed orbit of Mercury. Then Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and gravity was entirely rethought. And the reason we speak of broken hearts with matters of lost love is because there was once a time when most scientists of the day believed that emotions were generated by the heart.

So consensuses can be wrong, though it always takes gifted scientists in their field with peer reviewed groundbreaking science or new theories backed by observation to overturn them. Consensuses are unlikely to be overturned by some Joe on a politics forum selectively reading stuff on the internet. Scientific consensuses are never overturned by Joe public versus the scientists but by the groundbreaking work of other scientists. Most of the time the consensus becomes accepted as correct precisely because scientists follow the evidence.

So unless it is demonstarbly proven to be wrong all the evidence coming in thus far does seem to point to global warning with human activities themselves being a primary contributor. Certainly most scientists currently believe the evidence suggests this, and unless evidence so compelling that it clearly proves them wrong comes along - which would change the consensus - I think it wiser to trust the judgement of professional climatologists, than random bods on a political forum selectively reading the internet.

I read you posts with interest and they are very clear and reasoned so it is difficult for me to disagree, but here I am.  I have no doubt that there is Global warming at this time, my conflict is that regardless of the science which I tend to feel follows rather than leads the investigation, we have oft repeated prophesies which are regularly consigned to the skip of understanding, which describes in detail just how this will happen and is already being proved by the circumstances which we see around us.

It is more than difficult for mankind to grasp the notion that they are not in control and I understand just how frightening that prospect would seem but for me although I have every respect for every effort to reverse the Global situation I feel deep down that it is pointless.
The degree of change required on this planet to withstand or reverse what is happening is clearly impossible. This is change in behaviour, in demands, in humility. It would need the cessation of the worship of wealth and greed and envy. It would need love of our fellow man to supersede all other things for a reversal or even a with-holding for a time of what is prophesied.
I know this is not the right section for faith but for me the very future of this planet depends much on our treatment of each other for in that lies the treatment of the planet.

[srb7677]

That's a perfectly reasonable and well thought out post.
However, you are arguing on the one hand that the level of education is immaterial to a person's understanding of a topic.
On the other hand you are saying that scientists should not be challenged by laymen.

OK, let's remember that not all scientists agree on whether AGW exists. Even if it is less than 10% of scientists, they could be right, because they are scientists. Being in the majority does not make an opinion correct.

If only 90% of scientist said 10 squared is 100 and another 10% said it makes 1000, you would know something is wrong.
We all know 10 squared is 100 so we can agree with the 90%.

For those reasons the reliance on CO2 for the global warming argument, the jury must still be out.

You are correct to point out that just because the vast majority of scientists after a process of measurement, experimentation and theorising based upon what we already know come to a certain conclusion is does not guarantee they are right. Most once thought the Sun orbited the Earth along with everything else. Later most were convinced by the efficacy of Newtonian gravity, in spite of anomalies that could not be explained by it, notably discrepancies in the observed orbit of Mercury. Then Einstein came along with his theory of relativity and gravity was entirely rethought. And the reason we speak of broken hearts with matters of lost love is because there was once a time when most scientists of the day believed that emotions were generated by the heart.

So consensuses can be wrong, though it always takes gifted scientists in their field with peer reviewed groundbreaking science or new theories backed by observation to overturn them. Consensuses are unlikely to be overturned by some Joe on a politics forum selectively reading stuff on the internet. Scientific consensuses are never overturned by Joe public versus the scientists but by the groundbreaking work of other scientists. Most of the time the consensus becomes accepted as correct precisely because scientists follow the evidence.

So unless it is demonstarbly proven to be wrong all the evidence coming in thus far does seem to point to global warning with human activities themselves being a primary contributor. Certainly most scientists currently believe the evidence suggests this, and unless evidence so compelling that it clearly proves them wrong comes along - which would change the consensus - I think it wiser to trust the judgement of professional climatologists, than random bods on a political forum selectively reading the internet.

[Barry]

Neither of us can claim to be a scientist or know more about scientific stuff than scientists. Mind you, same can be said for Nick but it doesn't stop him trying.

Yes, many years ago at the time you got your degrees you would have been more scientifically knowledgeable than me. perhaps. But most of my knowledge is self taught since leaving school. I know a lot more now than I did then. The fact that you have an ancient degree means little unless you have spent the years since then working as a scientist and are currently active as such. As for me sitting on a checkout, if you think that defines the limit of my intellect you are merely showing your own social ignorance and pomposity.

As for my responses to Nick, you might make a better support act if you challenged my basic points instead of trying to be a snob. Because the fact remains that regardless of yours or my scientific knowlegede and who knows more than who, I am not trying to say that the vast majoity of scientists are wrong. Anyone who does claim to be more knowledgeable than the scientists are the ones that need to demonstrate their credentials and offer a convincing reason why they know more, The fact that I work on a checkout means nothing. I am not trying to claim I know better than the scientists. Those that are making such arrogant claims are the ones who need to show why they know more than the scientists do. If you believe that the vast majority of scientists, most of them working in their field all their adult lives, are wrong, you are going to need a lot more than an ancient degree in physics to back you up. Otherwise you will just look as silly as all the other denialists.

That's a perfectly reasonable and well thought out post.
However, you are arguing on the one hand that the level of education is immaterial to a person's understanding of a topic.
On the other hand you are saying that scientists should not be challenged by laymen.

OK, let's remember that not all scientists agree on whether AGW exists. Even if it is less than 10% of scientists, they could be right, because they are scientists. Being in the majority does not make an opinion correct.

If only 90% of scientist said 10 squared is 100 and another 10% said it makes 1000, you would know something is wrong.
We all know 10 squared is 100 so we can agree with the 90%.

For those reasons the reliance on CO2 for the global warming argument, the jury must still be out.

[srb7677]

No he wasn't questioning your intellect he clearly said your logic,I don't think many on here would question your intelligence.

However you are happy to assume.

Well like I said it doesn't matter anyway.

[cromwell]

Borchester's comments were open to interpretation but I am not going to labour the point because it doesn't matter. I am not trying to claim to know better than the vast majority of scientists. Those that do make such extraordinary claims are the ones who need to back it up.

As for Nick, I am not doubting his intellect. I am doubting his wisdom in this area, seeing as he seems to assume he knows more than about the climate than the vast majority of lifelong climatologists.

And in my experience people who do that generally rely on selective reading on the internet, seeking out confirmation of their bias. Which is why I suspect Nick will not read what I supplied. But he is welcome to prove me wrong.

No he wasn't questioning your intellect he clearly said your logic,I don't think many on here would question your intelligence.

However you are happy to assume.