Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is not a political construct. A simple Google will prove you are spouting bks (again).

Prove otherwise.

Oh ok. So let’s explore many of the greatest scientific advancements that involve a single scientist railing against orthodoxy (or indeed religion). Consensus is a political not a scientific construct. In science there are a number of ‘laws’, many theories and myriad hypotheses. Guess where MMGW exists on that spectrum?

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

[Diderot]

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is not a political construct. A simple Google will prove you are spouting bks (again).

Prove otherwise.

Oh ok. So let’s explore many of the greatest scientific advancements that involve a single scientist railing against orthodoxy (or indeed religion). Consensus is a political not a scientific construct. In science there are a number of ‘laws’, many theories and myriad hypotheses. Guess where MMGW exists on that spectrum?

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Oh dear, as I postulated earlier, you have no idea what a hypothesis is. You are also blinded by political governance of science; ie funding, and manipulation by ownership (IPPC and Google). CF ‘We own the science’ and I paraphrase, we are ‘working with Google’.

Maybe you need to do some legwork and actually do some research. Hints: Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Boyle, Leibnitz, Einstein, Curie, Fleming. Fairly insignificant figures in the history of science but of course you are correct.

Keep praying.

[PRTVR]

mike9009 said:

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Scientific consensus in climatology is different, we have seen over the years adjustments to keep the politicians happy, there was a pause in the temperature rising, peer reviewed papers were submitted that the missing heat was in the deep oceans, job done or not as it turns out, adjustments to oceanic temperature measurements and like magic no need for the peer reviewed papers.

Because CO2 is a trace gas and we humans add a small addition to it ,CO2 we never going to be a heavy lifter in the temperature rise, it required feedback from things like the disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic, over the years scientists have predicted the demise of the sea ice on multiple occasions, all have been wrong, but all they do is push the date back 50 or so years, all part of the ammunition for the politicians, even though it is documented that it nearly disappeared without the aid of CO2 in the 1800s.

Environmentalists driving science, scientists driving politicians.

( I am sure it's just coincidence that climate change gives the like of green peace their desired outcome)

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

mike9009 said:

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Scientific consensus in climatology is different, we have seen over the years adjustments to keep the politicians happy...

Pretty much everything in your post is factually wrong and anyone can check but this bit is debatable.

How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain
• It spans long timescales
• It needs people to change their behaviour
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Pretty much everything in your post is factually wrong and anyone can check but this bit is debatable.

How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain - NOPE - more CO2 means bad things happen
• It spans long timescales - NOPE - the climate is already changed beyond recognition and will only get worse. Attribution studies can prove within a matter of hours that CO2 is to blame.
• It needs people to change their behaviour - YEP - tax is an effective tool to achieve this.
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour - YEP - increase costs and/or move abroad
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle - YEP - but you can hide the cost, at least until the next lot are in power

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

It’s also a topic that can be blamed for everything, so the politicians themselves don’t have to take the blame.

[Essarell]

Kawasicki said:

It’s also a topic that can be blamed for everything, so the politicians themselves don’t have to take the blame.

Exactly, politicians love the concept, it’s taxable, can’t really be proved either way and gives them the moral high ground.

[PRTVR]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

mike9009 said:

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Scientific consensus in climatology is different, we have seen over the years adjustments to keep the politicians happy...

Pretty much everything in your post is factually wrong and anyone can check but this bit is debatable.

How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain
• It spans long timescales
• It needs people to change their behaviour
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

But they are dealing with it?
What bit is wrong, was there no pause in temperatures ? Did they not find it in the deep oceans ? Have not scientists predicted the end of ice in the Arctic? If not why all the worry about polar bears?
Edit to add questions.

Edited by PRTVR on Monday 1st July 09:27

[Diderot]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

mike9009 said:

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Scientific consensus in climatology is different, we have seen over the years adjustments to keep the politicians happy...

Pretty much everything in your post is factually wrong and anyone can check but this bit is debatable.

How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain
• It spans long timescales
• It needs people to change their behaviour
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

MMGW =

Tax raising scheme par excellence
control over the populace
a powerful geopolitical weapon all wrapped up in a fluffy, cuddly, save-the-polar-bears onesie
gravy train for troughers guaranteed to keep rolling on for decades at national and international levels
mechanism to ensure the 3rd world remains underdeveloped
money making opportunities for wealthy friends and families


It’s the gift that keeps on giving, hence why the politicians are so desperate to exert absolute control over the narrative, shut down debate, own the science and spew propaganda at every opportunity.

[durbster]

PRTVR said:

durbster said:

...
How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain
• It spans long timescales
• It needs people to change their behaviour
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

But they are dealing with it?

Yes, exactly.

Despite it being a pain in the arse politically they are* dealing with it because - unlike people posting on internet threads - they can't afford the convenience of ignoring all the evidence and simply pretending it doesn't exist.

*sort of

[durbster]

Essarell said:

Kawasicki said:

It’s also a topic that can be blamed for everything, so the politicians themselves don’t have to take the blame.

Exactly, politicians love the concept, it’s taxable, can’t really be proved either way and gives them the moral high ground.

Oh I agree it's a great thing to blame stuff on but that's circumstantial. Having an excuse for not getting a digger in to clear the village pond is hardly a good basis to devise a vast, complicated, global conspiracy around.

Here's a question then - the physics of climate change go back 200 years and the fossil fuel industry scientists proved AGW was real in the 1970s. If it really is this wonderful political weapon, why was it decades later before there was any political action?

Did any major political party around the world make more than a mention of it, until the last ten years or so?

[Randy Winkman]

durbster said:

PRTVR said:

mike9009 said:

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Scientific consensus in climatology is different, we have seen over the years adjustments to keep the politicians happy...

Pretty much everything in your post is factually wrong and anyone can check but this bit is debatable.

How on earth is climate change good for politicians?

• It's complicated to explain
• It spans long timescales
• It needs people to change their behaviour
• It needs businesses to change their behaviour
• It's incredibly expensive to tackle

I can't think of a worse topic for politicians to have to deal with.

I'm with you 100%. It would be way, way easier for current politicians and those looking for power to give us the easy option, let us buy stuff, consume and use fuel however we want. Same for businesses too. Just give people what they want is the easy, quick way to get power and money. Explanations to the contrary just seem complicated and contrived.

[Essarell]

durbster said:

Oh I agree it's a great thing to blame stuff on but that's circumstantial. Having an excuse for not getting a digger in to clear the village pond is hardly a good basis to devise a vast, complicated, global conspiracy around.

Here's a question then - the physics of climate change go back 200 years and the fossil fuel industry scientists proved AGW was real in the 1970s. If it really is this wonderful political weapon, why was it decades later before there was any political action?

Did any major political party around the world make more than a mention of it, until the last ten years or so?

That’s the crux of the matter, is human activity the cause of climate change? Or does humanity find itself embroiled in a period of Earths development that promotes stable life on earth? Using data points to the Industrial Revolution is therefore meaningless, essentially junk given the planetary cycles that have seen life on earth ebb and flow over billions of years.

We had years of religious sanctimony towards Covid that followed a similar narrative to that of CC. Believe or be barred from society, fear is the the new tool in the politico environment.

[ChevronB19]

Well this *is* the political thread, so wondered what people thought about the following (please no ‘it’s the Guardian’ comments and also note deletions and backtracking from those mentioned).

(Yes, I believe in AGW, and have an academic background [a long time ago] in geological climate change and a professional background in short/medium/extreme long term impacts of climate change, whether natural/anthropogenic or a combination of both, but as an olive leaf I will say I hadn’t realised the term had changed from ‘warming’ to ‘heating’).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/...

[Diderot]

ChevronB19 said:

Well this *is* the political thread, so wondered what people thought about the following (please no ‘it’s the Guardian’ comments and also note deletions and backtracking from those mentioned).

(Yes, I believe in AGW, and have an academic background [a long time ago] in geological climate change and a professional background in short/medium/extreme long term impacts of climate change, whether natural/anthropogenic or a combination of both, but as an olive leaf I will say I hadn’t realised the term had changed from ‘warming’ to ‘heating’).

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/...

They over-egged the pudding five years hence:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/1...

Methinks they doth protest too much.

[durbster]

Essarell said:

durbster said:

Oh I agree it's a great thing to blame stuff on but that's circumstantial. Having an excuse for not getting a digger in to clear the village pond is hardly a good basis to devise a vast, complicated, global conspiracy around.

Here's a question then - the physics of climate change go back 200 years and the fossil fuel industry scientists proved AGW was real in the 1970s. If it really is this wonderful political weapon, why was it decades later before there was any political action?

Did any major political party around the world make more than a mention of it, until the last ten years or so?

That’s the crux of the matter, is human activity the cause of climate change? Or does humanity find itself embroiled in a period of Earths development that promotes stable life on earth? Using data points to the Industrial Revolution is therefore meaningless, essentially junk given the planetary cycles that have seen life on earth ebb and flow over billions of years.

None of this has anything to do with the question.

Essarell said:

We had years of religious sanctimony towards Covid that followed a similar narrative to that of CC. Believe or be barred from society, fear is the the new tool in the politico environment.

The argument is that an existential threat that can only be tackled by implementing large scale changes to the public and businesses that are very expensive is great for politicians.

You've brought up COVID which was a good example of how the opposite is true. The scientific evidence gave politicians with an absolute nightmare scenario to deal with, and on a much shorter timescale.

[mike9009]

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Diderot said:

mike9009 said:

Kawasicki said:

I’m not really impressed or convinced by consensus.

An alternate has been presented for the current warming. It’s partly natural/partly man made.

Could you post a link??

We must agree to disagree about consensus.

Consensus is a political construct, not a scientific one. It’s been weaponised as a tool to convince the gullible that MMGW is the truth, fact, and not merely a hypothesis.

Scientific consensus is not a political construct. A simple Google will prove you are spouting bks (again).

Prove otherwise.

Oh ok. So let’s explore many of the greatest scientific advancements that involve a single scientist railing against orthodoxy (or indeed religion). Consensus is a political not a scientific construct. In science there are a number of ‘laws’, many theories and myriad hypotheses. Guess where MMGW exists on that spectrum?

Scientific consensus is not political.

A single person (or group) proposes a hypothesis, then the scientific community have a scientific consensus ( if majority agree with the hypothesis/ research paper).

If that is then agreed with by politicians (majority) there is then political consensus, as well and action is taken. If political consensus did not agree then action probably would not be taken. Obviously, it could fall apart if either the scientific consensus is wrong or politically it becomes untenable.......

Oh dear, as I postulated earlier, you have no idea what a hypothesis is. You are also blinded by political governance of science; ie funding, and manipulation by ownership (IPPC and Google). CF ‘We own the science’ and I paraphrase, we are ‘working with Google’.

Maybe you need to do some legwork and actually do some research. Hints: Galileo, Newton, Copernicus, Boyle, Leibnitz, Einstein, Curie, Fleming. Fairly insignificant figures in the history of science but of course you are correct.

Keep praying.

Please explain why my interpretation of a hypothesis is incorrect?

My current hypothesis is your post makes absolutely no sense at all

Edited by mike9009 on Monday 1st July 12:57