Attenborough scaremongering?

Jimmy Garlic

gozunda wrote: »

Not the first or last time Attenborough courted controversy. In his last great crusade his main thesis was that overpopulation was killing the earth and this required drastic measures in those areas with highest population growth. He appears to have dropped that tagline for a new one involving doomsday scenarios of climate change.

As the "most trusted man in Britain' (sic) Tbh his business is creating dramatic documentaries. Something he apparently does quite well

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sorry-sir-david-attenborough-this-isn-t-the-way-to-tackle-over-population-8824385.html

He has also been accused of (bizarrely) of a belonging to era of "white men on TV explaining things" who are now redundant. Interstingly this insult is bandied about by some and on boards in the term "bacon" where he is representative of a generation of older white men pontificating to others. Ironically some throwing that idea around previously now appear to support Attenbourogh ... :rolleyes:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f05add7a-56df-11e8-9ed6-2a2b8ba208a7

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1027371/David-Attenborough-BBC-Blue-Planet-Newsnight

A fairly typical taste for eugenics, malthusianism and a barely concealed disdain for what they still see as peasants shared by the majority of British so called upper class. When they speak of too many people they are never including themselves.

Dakota Dan

Yurt! wrote: »

What does his family's social standing have to do with the issue of climate change? And why does it preclude him from speaking on something he (and most other scientists) believes to be grounded in fact?



I may as well say you own a pair of blue trousers - you're obviously peddling an agenda.

It’s fairly self explanatory, he’s blaming his generation but most of his generation were living in poverty while he never knew what poverty was.

Harry Palmr

and what has that got to do with anything in this thread? Should he go back in time and seek out his own imposed poverty so he can be a better person? And if he did and had the same views now would your denialist world view be any different?

Dohnjoe

Dakota Dan wrote: »

It’s fairly self explanatory, he’s blaming his generation but most of his generation were living in poverty while he never knew what poverty was.

Overpopulation is a serious issue

Climate change has turned out to be far more pressing serious issue (that is potentially easier to fix than the former)

Does a well-liked nature presenter irk you so much pointing out the obvious?

Dakota Dan

Harry Palmr wrote: »

and what has that got to do with anything in this thread? Should he go back in time and seek out his own imposed poverty so he can be a better person? And if he did and had the same views now would your denialist world view be any different?

I don’t know if you are being deliberately silly or just being sarcastic. He should stop blaming his generation for a problem they didn’t cause.

Harry Palmr

Does he say my generation? Maybe he is actually saying not this generation (ie teens). The post WW2 baby boom generation 1945-1965 has enjoyed the fruits of the earth more than any other. From birth to death things have only got better for them (in the developed world). Just a pity about the unpaid bill they are leaving their children and more particularly grand children

gozunda

It is interesting that Attenboroughs about face comes shortly after he was accused of not being alarmist enough.

From:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/07/david-attenborough-world-environment-bbc-films

https://www.ft.com/content/1e11b36c-e37e-11e8-8e70-5e22a430c1ad

To:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46398057

Hector Savage

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Is it ok to take action on emissions and the population and also take action on waste, or are we obliged to only concern ourselves with the absolute biggest problems?

The fact is most normal people have limited capacity to do anything about the huge issues beyond voting and demonstrating. Reducing waste is one of the few practical things they have direct control over, so as long as one does't happen at the expense of the other, what harm?

No, they DO have the power!!!

Instead of glueing their tits to the road.
Maybe people should - to name a few .. :


* Reduce Driving - walk/get abike/use public transport more...
* Stop ****ing flying every 2nd week!!!!
* Stop getting a new smartphone every year!!!
* Stop having so many ****ing kids ....
* Stop using tumble dryers, use the bloody clothesline ....

edit oh yeah, eat less meat, we eat way too much, we don't need to eat meat every day!!


If everyone did that, you would see a HUGE difference ...

Yurt2

Dakota Dan wrote: »

It’s fairly self explanatory, he’s blaming his generation but most of his generation were living in poverty while he never knew what poverty was.

He could've grown up living in a house made of gold bullion bars and ate cream of street urchin soup for supper every day, it doesn't preclude him from stating his case, nor does it effect the science of climate change.

As I said earlier, your name begins with a consonant - you have no right to an opinion on this issue. And if someone happens to have a name beginning with a vowel and they disagree with me, they also have no right to submit an opinion on the issue.

Yurt2

Hector Savage wrote: »

No, they DO have the power!!!

Instead of glueing their tits to the road.
Maybe people should - to name a few .. :


* Reduce Driving - walk/get abike/use public transport more...
* Stop ****ing flying every 2nd week!!!!
* Stop getting a new smartphone every year!!!
* Stop having so many ****ing kids ....
* Stop using tumble dryers, use the bloody clothesline ....

edit oh yeah, eat less meat, we eat way too much, we don't need to eat meat every day!!


If everyone did that, you would see a HUGE difference ...

Do you think people would have reduced their usage of plastic bags or stopped burning smoky coal in urban areas if the government had just asked them nicely?

People are selfish for the most part, and particularly with the environment, they won't do the right thing unless they shoehorned into doing it. I.e, political solutions, backed by long-term political will.

And I'd bet my bottom dollar the protestors exhibit more of those positive behaviors you listed than the deniers on this thread.

Akrasia

StinkyMunkey wrote: »

Makes him 1000x more informed than you, or are you an expert?

Exactly. If Attenborough had done a 4 year correspondence course in zoology would he be more qualified than someone who has spent decades studying these animals, researching them, seeing their habitat change over the years, seeing how they are struggling to survive the damage humans are causing to their ecosystem, speaking to local and global experts in different species... Attenborough could very easily deliver PHD level lectures on what he has learned from his career. It's pathetic for any keyboard warrior to call him uninformed on this topic

Yurt2

gozunda wrote: »

Not the first or last time Attenborough courted controversy. In his last great crusade his main thesis was that overpopulation was killing the earth and this required drastic measures in those areas with highest population growth. He appears to have largely dropped that tagline for a new one involving doomsday scenarios of climate change.

As the "most trusted man in Britain' (sic) Tbh his business is creating dramatic documentaries. Something he apparently does quite well

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/sorry-sir-david-attenborough-this-isn-t-the-way-to-tackle-over-population-8824385.html

He has also been accused of (bizarrely) of a belonging to era of "white men on TV explaining things" who are now redundant. Interestingly this insult is bandied about by some and on boards to attack others with phrases such as "classic gammon" etc as in the term "bacon / gammon" where he is representative of a generation of older white men pontificating to others. Ironically some throwing that idea around at others now appear to actively support Attenbourogh

For clarity, a gammon is a right-wing (mostly but not always)middle aged male. Hates change and opinions that don't quite chime with his word view, but struggles to articulate why.

Frequently insults people and casts aspertions on others character, but is affronted when people turn the tables on him. A gammon is less an insult, and more of a lifestyle choice, a state of mind.

Remind you of anyone?

Akrasia

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

A fairly typical taste for eugenics, malthusianism and a barely concealed disdain for what they still see as peasants shared by the majority of British so called upper class. When they speak of too many people they are never including themselves.

Half the people arguing against climate change say 'But what about overpopulation, that's more important' and then when someone says 'overpopulation is a problem' they get called 'eugenicists'

It's all bait and switch, not honest discussion at all.

BTW, Attenborough still talks about overpopulation practically every chance he gets. And he has talked about climate change in every series he has made since at least 2005. and written articles calling for action like this one in 2006
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/attenborough-climate-change-is-the-major-challenge-facing-the-world-479459.html
But when the truth doesn't matter, it's easy to believe whatever you want about anyone or anything.

Akrasia

Yurt! wrote: »

Do you think people would have reduced their usage of plastic bags or stopped burning smoky coal in urban areas if the government had just asked them nicely?

People are selfish for the most part, and particularly with the environment, they won't do the right thing unless they shoehorned into doing it. I.e, political solutions, backed by long-term political will.

And I'd bet my bottom dollar the protestors exhibit more of those positive behaviors you listed than the deniers on this thread.

Here's how it works. If you are a normal person who calls for action on climate change, you're called a hypocrite because you have a car and can then be ignored. If you're someone who tries to live by example and doesn't drive or fly and is vegan etc, you're called a crusty or a hippy or a 'rent a crowd' who doesn't even pay tax, and can then be ignored.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

It is interesting that Attenboroughs about face comes shortly after he was accused of not being alarmist enough.

From:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/07/david-attenborough-world-environment-bbc-films

https://www.ft.com/content/1e11b36c-e37e-11e8-8e70-5e22a430c1ad

To:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46398057

About face? So he didn't care about climate change, got called out on it by George Monbiot, So he went back in time to 2006 and wrote this article

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/attenborough-climate-change-is-the-major-challenge-facing-the-world-479459.html

Dohnjoe

"Yeah I don't know, I just don't like how he's so preachy over something that threatens our survival, anyway what about all that overpopulation stuff that's still a problem, that he still mentions"

**** me

gozunda

Yurt! wrote: »

For clarity, a gammon is a right-wing (mostly but not always)middle aged male. ...
Remind you of anyone?

Btw forgot the usual 'white' reference which goes with that?

Hmmm - had a change of mind have we?

Yurt! wrote: »

What does his family's social standing have to do with the issue of climate change? ...

Yurt! wrote: »

He could've grown up living in a house made of gold bullion bars and ate cream of street urchin soup for supper every day, it doesn't preclude him from stating his case, nor does it effect the science of climate change.

To claim free speech regardless of race age ethnicity or class for some and then hypocritically choose to disparage and insult others because of these supposed characteristics - nice.

LOL This little piece

Frequently insults people and casts aspertions on others character, but is affronted when people turn the tables on him.

is certainly true of those who use what is in effect racist sexist and ageist language to disparage other opinions at every opportunity but scream blue bloody murder when people point out issues with them

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45633522

Can't present a coherent argument? Can't resort to discussion with out ad hominem? Then *insert personal insult*

Calling out the hypocrisy of this type of behaviour is fairly normal with regard to playing the ball and not the man. But there you go.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

About face? So he didn't care about climate change, got called out on it by George Monbiot, So he went back in time to 2006 and wrote this article

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/attenborough-climate-change-is-the-major-challenge-facing-the-world-479459.html

You do know I didnt write the articles detailing his change of opinions btw lol

Guess it just goes to show the mad inconsistencies of his media career...

Yurt2

gozunda wrote: »

Btw you forgot the 'white' reference which goes with that

Hmmm - had a change mind have we?





You claim free speech regardless of race age ethnicity or class for some and then hypocrically choose to disparage and insult others because of these supposed characteristics - nice

LOL This little piece

is certainly true of those who use what is in effect racist sexist and ageist language to disparage other opinions at every opportunity but scream blue bloody murder when people point out issues with them

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45633522

Calling out the hypocrisy of this type of behaviour is fairly normal with regard to playing the ball and not the man. But there you go.

Poor set-upon gozunda. Your opening salvo in the other thread contained references to 'wasters' and taking a cut at 'millenials.' And now you're all upset because someone gives it back to you in a tounge-in-cheek fashion? Perhaps the next time you go on a week-long bender slating people with a different opinions to you, you might take better care to play the ball yourself - lest you be accused of 'Hypocrisy.'

(New drinking game actually, every time a climate-change minimiser / denier says 'hypocrisy', you take a drink. Take two if they're guilty of the same 'hypocrisy' they're accusing others of. You'll be hammered by page two)

Only the thinnest of the thin-skinned would call gammon a racist / sexist term. I hear the National Tiny Violin Orchestra are playing in the parish hall down the road. Maybe you could attend to sooth your worried heart.

Charles Ingles

Bill Nye
Is a perfect example of how fake the climate change issues are.
The man is a spokesman for the climate change movement had no qualifications and calls for the jailing of ' climate change deniers'

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

You do know I didnt write the articles detailing his change of opinions btw lol

Guess it just goes to show the mad inconsistencies of his media career...

You used those links to support your argument that he has had an 'about face' on this issue. About face is a 180 degree turn. He has been extremely consistent since the mid 2000s that climate change is the biggest challenge facing us. He has been criticised for not putting it front and centre in his nature documentaries (although he has always mentioned it) because he wants to focus on educating people about nature, not lecturing them on sustainable environmentalism. Then when he does decide to make films specifically urging us to be sustainable, he's criticised again for overstepping his mark and for 'jumping on a bandwagon' or for being too alarmist etc.

Never are his actual arguments refuted properly (I mean with evidence not lies and propaganda which repeat proven falsehoods from start to finish)

gozunda

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Bill Nye
Is a perfect example of how fake the climate change issues are.
The man is a spokesman for the climate change movement had no qualifications and calls for the jailing of ' climate change deniers'

I saw an interesting piece on the psychology of this. Where the use of the word 'denial' mentally links those criticised for having different opinions or views in effect belonging to the same cohort as other deniers such as holocaust 'deniers' etc.

Its also interesting that freedom of speech with regard to criticism or comment on just about anything promoted by the more extreme left (and I'm not referring to the actual body of scientific work btw) is shut down with the use of such terminology as deniers, bacon etc etc.

For some reason they seem not to be able to differentiate any of the subtleties between criticism of an idea or a movement which has little to do with the actual science tbh and resorting to throwing around directed personal insults and shutting down discussion.

God help us that a free exchange of ideas and discussion should ever be allowed :rolleyes:

Akrasia

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Bill Nye
Is a perfect example of how fake the climate change issues are.
The man is a spokesman for the climate change movement had no qualifications and calls for the jailing of ' climate change deniers'

The man is a engineer by trade, he's not a 'spokesperson for the climate change movement' he is a self described science advocate and educator who talks about skepticism and how to think clearly using the best available evidence.

He is used as a 'spokesperson' for issues that he is invited to discuss on the media due to his popularity and there is absolutely nothing what so ever wrong with that, as long as he doesn't go beyond the evidence as published in respected academic literature.

Anyone, regardless of qualifications can discuss scientific issues as along as they base their arguments on the best available scientific evidence and don't try to pretend that they know more about these subjects than the scientific literature can support.

When you have a 'debate' on climate change in the media, it's often a scientist versus a panel of non scientists who dismiss the scientific data because of their own personal beliefs. Or we have think tank employees who are filtering everything through their own political lens so that all the research that supports free market laissez faire capitalism (for example) must be true, while everything else is wrong

And then we have the couple of once eminent scientists who have completely lost the confidence of the scientific community on this issue going one one with a media presenter telling them that only their scientific research is true, and all the other scientists are exaggerating their findings for [insert nonsense reason here]

The scientific community allows disagreement on interpreting uncertain evidence, It's a foundation of how the scientific process works. What it can not tolerate is repeated and unapologetic mis-representation of the published scientific literature. When this becomes a pattern in a scientists output, then they lose credibility and respect from their peers, and are free to 'go rogue' on the denialist blogsphere and lecture circuit

Yurt2

Because old gozzie was trying to have an earnest exchange on climate-change when he kicked-off slagging people off as wasters and lazy millennials.

Reactionary, bogus, dishonest. And best of all, he actually feels sorry himself at the end of it all, thinking his 'free speech' is being truncated.

I'd use the 'H' word but I'm afraid gozzie has had too much to drink this afternoon already.

Boo hoo.

kneemos

Akrasia wrote: »

The man is a engineer by trade, he's not a 'spokesperson for the climate change movement' he is a self described science advocate and educator who talks about skepticism and how to think clearly using the best available evidence.

He is used as a 'spokesperson' for issues that he is invited to discuss on the media due to his popularity and there is absolutely nothing what so ever wrong with that, as long as he doesn't go beyond the evidence as published in respected academic literature.

Anyone, regardless of qualifications can discuss scientific issues as along as they base their arguments on the best available scientific evidence and don't try to pretend that they know more about these subjects than the scientific literature can support.

When you have a 'debate' on climate change in the media, it's often a scientist versus a panel of non scientists who dismiss the scientific data because of their own personal beliefs. Or we have think tank employees who are filtering everything through their own political lens so that all the research that supports free market laissez faire capitalism (for example) must be true, while everything else is wrong

And then we have the couple of once eminent scientists who have completely lost the confidence of the scientific community on this issue going one one with a media presenter telling them that only their scientific research is true, and all the other scientists are exaggerating their findings for [insert nonsense reason here]

The scientific community allows disagreement on interpreting uncertain evidence, It's a foundation of how the scientific process works. What it can not tolerate is repeated and unapologetic mis-representation of the published scientific literature. When this becomes a pattern in a scientists output, then they lose credibility and respect from their peers, and are free to 'go rogue' on the denialist blogsphere and lecture circuit

All of the scientific literature would be compelling if it wasn't consistently wrong.

There's obviously room for interpretation.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

You used those links to support your argument that he has had an 'about face' on this issue. About face is a 180 degree turn. He has been extremely consistent since the mid 2000s that climate change is the biggest challenge facing us. He has been criticised for not putting it front and centre in his nature documentaries (although he has always mentioned it) because he wants to focus on educating people about nature, not lecturing them on sustainable environmentalism. Then when he does decide to make films specifically urging us to be sustainable, he's criticised again for overstepping his mark and for 'jumping on a bandwagon' or for being too alarmist etc.
Never are his actual arguments refuted properly (I mean with evidence not lies and propaganda which repeat proven falsehoods from start to finish)

Unless anyone is blind he has had numerous apparent about turns! And the major one appeared after some fairly heavy criticism in December 2018.

This from the links above - all pre December 2018

His new series, Dynasties, will mention the pressures affecting wildlife, but Attenborough makes it clear that it will play them down. To do otherwise, he suggests, would be “proselytising” and “alarmist”. His series will be “a great relief from the political landscape which otherwise dominates our thoughts”

We do have a problem . . . every time that image [of a threatened animal] comes up, do you say ‘Remember, they are in danger’? How often do you say this without becoming a real turn-off? It would be irresponsible to ignore it, but equally I believe we have a responsibility to make programmes that look at the rest of the aspects and not just this one,” he told the Observer newspaper....

Critics say that the characteristic Attenborough feel-good approach, which focuses on awe and inspiration rather than a call to action, does a disservice to his viewers...

To this ...

Right now, we are facing a man-made disaster of global scale. Our greatest threat in thousands of years. Climate change.

"If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon."

These are taken out of context by the way- I'm extracting only for example. - there are many more tbh. Including the one you linked from over a decade previously

I believe the problem here is not that these words and the differing opinions are of special importance rather he is a presenter of the media and is paid to promote what is the flavour of the day and / or what he is paid to create for television. Nothing more.

maccored

gozunda wrote: »

"If we don't take action, the collapse of our civilisations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizon."

He's right

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

I saw an interesting piece on the psychology of this. Where the use of the word 'denial' mentally links those criticised for having different opinions or views in effect belonging to the same cohort as other deniers such as holocaust 'deniers' etc.

Do you know what's also an interesting observation on the psychology of this? You only mentioned 'holocaust denier' in your one item list of 'deniers'

Who else are referred to as 'deniers'. Well, we have vaccine deniers, flat earthers are called science deniers, evolution denial, Aids denial and climate change denial.

The thing that links all these people is not that they're all nazi sympathisers. It's that they have access to the same evidence as everyone else, but they choose to ignore reality, and instead only focus on the uncertainties in the evidence for reality, and elevate any crumbs of doubt into valid reason to believe any number of crazy hypothesis that contradict reality.

The use of the word denier is not for people with just 'different views'. It's for people who insist on holding beliefs that are the complete opposite to reality because they choose to deny that the mountains of evidence for reality are all unreliable while any crumbs of 'evidence' that challenges reality are automatically credible and deserving of attention.

Its also interesting that freedom of speech with regard to criticism or comment on just about anything promoted by the more extreme left (and I'm not referring to the actual body of scientific work btw) is shut down with the use of such terminology as deniers, bacon etc etc.

Rubbish. There are lots of left wing issues that are never shut down by the use of 'denier' or 'gammon'. How many times have you been called a 'trade union denier' or a 'minimum wage' denier, or (given that you said extreme left) "a workers control of the factors of production denier"

The term science denier and the assorted subcategories relate specifically to the people I defined above. Those that deny the overwhelming mountains of evidence in favour of their own pet theory with no credible evidence to support it.

For some reason they seem not to be able to differentiate any of the subtleties between criticism of an idea or a movement which has little to do with the actual science tbh and resorting to throwing around directed personal insults and shutting down discussion.

God help us that a free exchange of ideas and discussion should ever be allowed :rolleyes:

The 'they' you refer to is your own self defence mechanism clouding your sense of embarrassment on the suspicion that you may have fallen into the same category of intellectual as the anti vaxxers, flat earthers and creationists.

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

The man is a engineer by trade, he's not a 'spokesperson for the climate change movement' he is a self described science advocate and educator who talks about skepticism and how to think clearly using the best available evidence.

He is used as a 'spokesperson' for issues that he is invited to discuss on the media due to his popularity and there is absolutely nothing what so ever wrong with that, as long as he doesn't go beyond the evidence as published in respected academic literature.

Anyone, regardless of qualifications can discuss scientific issues as along as they base their arguments on the best available scientific evidence and don't try to pretend that they know more about these subjects than the scientific literature can support.

When you have a 'debate' on climate change in the media, it's often a scientist versus a panel of non scientists who dismiss the scientific data because of their own personal beliefs. Or we have think tank employees who are filtering everything through their own political lens so that all the research that supports free market laissez faire capitalism (for example) must be true, while everything else is wrong

And then we have the couple of once eminent scientists who have completely lost the confidence of the scientific community on this issue going one one with a media presenter telling them that only their scientific research is true, and all the other scientists are exaggerating their findings for [insert nonsense reason here]

The scientific community allows disagreement on interpreting uncertain evidence, It's a foundation of how the scientific process works. What it can not tolerate is repeated and unapologetic mis-representation of the published scientific literature. When this becomes a pattern in a scientists output, then they lose credibility and respect from their peers, and are free to 'go rogue' on the denialist blogsphere and lecture circuit

And there are also those who believe that climate change is real but who take the body of scientific research and parcel it into end of the world doomsday scenarios and use it for fear and scare tactics, whether deliberate or just misinformed (who knows)

That said there is a close line between criticism and discussion (there will always be dissenters on both sides) and jailing people for percieved thought crime - one is part of a democratic society - the other is not..

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

Do you know what's also an interesting observation on the psychology of this? You only mentioned 'holocaust denier' in your one item list of 'deniers'

Christ - does everyone have to supply every example in the dictionary! That's what an example is ffs! And that's what the piece discussed. Maybe take it up with them?

Who else are referred to as 'deniers'. Well, we have vaccine deniers, flat earthers are called science deniers, evolution denial, Aids denial and climate change denial.

Modifying things to make a point perhaps?

Well if you choose to start adding the handle 'denial' to other commonly used terms - I'm sure you could tag lots as akin to holocaust 'deniers' such as those normally referred to as Anti-vaxers, flat earthers, creationists etc - and you do - see below lol.

Akrasia newspeak dictionary

• anti vax deniers
• flat earthers deniers
• creationists deniers

Wot?

The 'they' you refer to is your own self defence mechanism clouding your sense of embarrassment on the suspicion that you may have fallen into the same category of intellectual as the anti vaxxers, flat earthers and creationists.[/b]

All a bit obsessive no?

Like many others in that camp and as pointed out previously there's seems to a praternatural tendency to resort to ad hominem when it is perceived the argument has been lost. But there you go.

Charles Ingles

Man made climate change is just a theory nothing else

Panrich

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Man made climate change is just a theory nothing else

We better not change our ways in case it is wrong so.

xckjoo

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Man made climate change is just a theory nothing else

Like evolution?

mcmoustache

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Man made climate change is just a theory nothing else

So is gravity but I doubt you'll be jumping out of any 10th storey windows any time soon.

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Christ - does everyone have to supply every example in the dictionary! That's what an example is ffs! And that's what the piece discussed. Maybe take it up with them?

You didn't even provide a link to the thing you read recently.

Modifying things to make a point perhaps?

Well if you choose to start adding the prefix 'denial' to other commonly used terms - Im sure you could tag lots as akin to holocaust 'deniers' such as those normally referred to as Anti-vaxers, flatt earthers, creationists etc - and you do - see below lol.

These are all covered under the general 'science denial' category Have you ever heard of the term science denial?

Akrasia newspeak dictionary

• anti vax deniers
• flat earthers deniers
• creationists deniers
• etc.

All sharing the common theme, science denial. None of them very related to Nazi sympathisers.

All a bit obsessive no?

Like many others in that camp and as pointed out previously there's seems to a praternatural tendency to resort to ad hominem when it is perceived the argument has been lost. But there you go.

Heaven forbid I refer to you while replying to a post you made. It is pretty funny though that you think simply referring to you directly is a form of ad hominem. I'm no psychologist, but you seem to have a low opinion of yourself.

You keep thinking that I perceive i have lost an argument. I assure you, If i think I have been beaten in an argument, I'm more than happy to put my hands up and admit I was wrong. It's happened before and it will certainly happen again.

On this matter however, you have barely referred to any of my actual arguments in order to defeat them. You seem to be skirting around the edges looking for reasons to not to have to engage with them

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

These are all covered under the general 'science denial' category. Have you ever heard of the term science denial?

Are they? In a special dictionary? :pac:

All sharing the common theme, science denial. None of them very related to Nazi sympathisers.

Alola - yet none of those terms include the word 'denial' - funny that

Btw does that include your use of the slur 'denier' in a discussion where there was a refusal to believe any scientists had made a link between water vapour and warming. Even where a scientific link was provided - there was no 'hands up' but rather a lash out with a slur instead because the argument was lost ?

Heaven forbid I refer to you while replying to a post you made. It is pretty funny though that you think simply referring to you directly is a form of ad hominem. I'm no psychologist, but you seem to have a low opinion of yourself.
...

And from previous

"Akrasia wrote:

The 'they' you refer to is your own self defence mechanism clouding your sense of embarrassment on the suspicion that you may have fallen into the same category of intellectual as the anti vaxxers, flat earthers and creationists.

Not ad hominem no? Ok so. But yes it's good to keep the discussion on the topic and not vere off into silly asides about whose writing what. I will agree on one thing though - You're correct that's definitely not psychology .

Btw the norm is play the ball and not the man. But hey most people know that.

Akrasia

And just in case you think I'm making up this science denialism thing, here's just one paper from 2009 that discusses the shared characteristics of science deniers

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780

They refer to Aids denial, denial of the smoking link to cancer, creationism and of course climate change

The paper discusses 5 characteristics of science denialism. I've outlined them below in exerpts from the paper, you can read it in more detail in the link above

1. The identification of conspiracies
When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes that something is true, it is argued that this is not because those scientists have independently studied the evidence and reached the same conclusion. It is because they have engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy.....

2. The use of fake experts.
These are individuals who purport to be experts in a particular area but whose views are entirely inconsistent with established knowledge...

3. Selectivity.
Drawing on isolated papers that challenge the dominant consensus or highlighting the flaws in the weakest papers among those that support it as a means of discrediting the entire field....

4. The creation of impossible expectations of what research can deliver.
For example, those denying the reality of climate change point to the absence of accurate temperature records from before the invention of the thermometer. Others use the intrinsic uncertainty of mathematical models to reject them entirely as a means of understanding a phenomenon

5. The use of misrepresentation and logical fallacies.
For example, pro-smoking groups have often used the fact that Hitler supported some anti-smoking campaigns to represent those advocating tobacco control as Nazis (even coining the term nico-nazis),26 even though other senior Nazis were smokers, blocking attempts to disseminate anti-smoking propaganda and ensuring that troops has sufficient supplies of cigarettes.....

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

Are they? Is that in your special dictionary? :pac:



Alola - yet none of those terms include the word 'denial' - funny that :pac:

Btw does that include your use of the slur 'denier' in a discussion where there was a refusal to believe any scientists had made a link between water vapour and warming. Even where a scientific link was provided - there was no 'hands up' but rather a lash out with a slur instead because the argument was lost ?



Lordy an ad hominem derived from an original ad hominem. Lol. I will agree on one thing though - You're correct that's definitely not psychology .

I never said there was no link between water vapour and climate change
I said the scientific consensus was that water vapour is a feedback not a driver of climate change. This is still the consensus scientific view, and I provided a newer paper edited by the author of the paper you presented which describes stratospheric water vapour as a feedback not a driver. (which you seem to have ignored)

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

And just in case you think I'm making up this science denialism thing, here's just one paper from 2009 that discusses the shared characteristics of science deniers

https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/19/1/2/463780

They refer to Aids denial, denial of the smoking link to cancer, creationism and of course climate change

The paper discusses 5 characteristics of science denialism. I've outlined them below in exerpts from the paper, you can read it in more detail in the link above

It's typical of people with no relevant points to try and drag it off-topic into areas like perceived language usage. Expect an antagonistic response to evoke an emotional reaction and keep the waters muddy

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

And there are also those who believe that climate change is real but who take the body of scientific research and parcel it into end of the world doomsday scenarios and use it for fear and scare tactics, whether deliberate or just misinformed (who knows)

That said there is a close line between criticism and discussion (there will always be dissenters on both sides) and jailing people for percieved thought crime - one is part of a democratic society - the other is not..

Can you please provide us with what you believe to be the plausible worst case scenario should we not take action to prevent climate change?

We can then compare your version of the worst case scenario, with the 'doomsday scenarios' and see which of them have more basis in evidence.

Akrasia

xckjoo wrote: »

It's typical of people with no relevant points to try and drag it off-topic into areas like perceived language usage. Expect an antagonistic response to evoke an emotional reaction and keep the waters muddy

I don't expect much from the response, but I could be pleasantly surprised.

xckjoo

Akrasia wrote: »

I don't expect much from the response, but I could be pleasantly surprised.

The weird thing is there's nearly a discussion going on but one side is more interested in antagonising and trying to show off their "superior intellect".

gozunda

xckjoo wrote: »

It's typical of people with no relevant points to try and drag it off-topic into areas like perceived language usage. Expect an antagonistic response to evoke an emotional reaction and keep the waters muddy

Yeah I agree with that completely lol. Imagine trying to add on bits of words to other words to make a point. Muddy waters is right :rolleyes:

xckjoo

gozunda wrote: »

Yeah I agree with that completely lol. Imagine trying to add on bits of words to other words to make a point. Muddy waters is right :rolleyes:

Nice one. Now that you see what you're doing can you figure out how to stop?

gozunda

Akrasia wrote: »

I never said there was no link between water vapour and climate change. I said the scientific consensus was that water vapour is a feedback not a driver of climate change. This is still the consensus scientific view, and I provided a newer* paper edited by the author of the paper you presented which describes stratospheric water vapour as a feedback not a driver. (which you seem to have ignored)

This is the relevant discussion and the use of slur of 'denier' because you wouldnt believe any other opinion - science based or otherwise .

Akrasia wrote: »

You can't mitigate against evaporation because of warmer air from global warming. In a house, we build extractor fans to blow that moisture away. What do you want to do, build a continent sized de-humidifier (powered by the bullsh1t and hot air coming from climate change skeptics)

The only way to stop the water vapour feedback from being significant, is to stop CO2 from amplifying the greenhouse effect and allowing the atmosphere to hold more humid air.

Again, the fact that you don't understand this should be embarrassing to you. Go and educate yourself, and when you discover that you were wrong, question your other incorrect beliefs that led you to become a science denier.

Akrasia wrote: »

Water vapour is not a driver of climate, it is a feedback

.

Akrasia wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. If you are in fact a qualified scientist i hope you kept the receipt for whatever course you did because you should look for a refund.

Show me a single paper that says water vapour is a driver of climate change rather than a feedback.

And heres the WMO bulletin (2016) provided in reply stating just that:

gozunda wrote: »

....

As detailed in a previous comment- much of what is known is contradictory and is far from an absolute. I had already included this by way of example.

What reseach out there is conflicting at best. tbh eg

"These findings show that stratospheric water vapour is an important driver of decadal global surface climate change."

https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/observing-water-vapour
...

Note*: The paper you posted in reply was not 'newer' btw - it was published in 2013. This was already pointed out ...

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110042389&postcount=513

Hold up of promised hands? Yeah right.

And counting - waiting for yet another round of gratuitous as hominim :pac:

Thanks but you're on your own.

gozunda

xckjoo wrote: »

Nice one. Now that you see what you're doing can you figure out how to stop?

Yeah you're right. No point encouraging them tbh. But what's good for the goose is good for the gander eh? - there we go.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

xckjoo

gozunda wrote: »

Hold up of promised hands? Yeah right.

And counting - waiting for yet another round of gratuitous as hominim :pac:

Thanks but you're on your own.

Here you go sweet cheeks. I'll save Akrasia the effort of reposting it. Maybe give the Word of the Day calendar a break too.

Akrasia wrote: »

Firstly, when people refer to water vapour as a major greenhouse gas, it's mostly Tropospheric water vapour that they're talking about. Water vapour in the stratosphere is a trace gas and it's contribution to the earths atmospheric radiative forcing is small compared to the other factors.

That paper has been superceeded by others that show increases in water vapour, even in the stratosphere is a positive feedback, not a driver, like this one which was edited by the lead author of your study
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/45/18087

SWV levels can increase as a consequence of warmer air, just like in the troposphere, this is a climate change feedback. Sometimes stratospheric water vapour levels fall due to interdecadal oscillation, as discussed in your link, this is linked to internal climate variability, but regardless the changes to radiative forcing in the stratosphere are much lower compared to the amplifying feedback caused by tropospheric increases in water vapour concentration

There is a scientific consensus that water vapour is a feedback, and a major positive feedback that amplifies the consequences of human CO2 equivalent emissions

Dakota Dan

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Does he say my generation? Maybe he is actually saying not this generation (ie teens). The post WW2 baby boom generation 1945-1965 has enjoyed the fruits of the earth more than any other. From birth to death things have only got better for them (in the developed world). Just a pity about the unpaid bill they are leaving their children and more particularly grand children

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2019/04/my-generation-has-done-terrible-things-sir-david-attenborough.html

Akrasia

gozunda wrote: »

This is the relevant discussion and the use of slur of 'denier' because you wouldnt believe any other opinion - science based or otherwise .








Hold up of promised hands? Yeah right.

And counting - waiting for yet another round of gratuitous as hominim :pac:

Thanks but you're on your own.

The entire discussion leading up to that statement related to atmospheric water vapour from evaporation which you yourself, correctly describe as 'the most important greenhouse gas'. But you then said "Surely as the most abundant greenhouse gas - these emissions should be targeted first and foremost. "

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110038112&postcount=465

Which is total bullsh1t. In the troposphere, where water vapour is indeed the most abundant greenhouse gas, it is 100% a feedback because it's a low residence time measured in hours rather than years, rather than a driver of climate change like CO2 and Methane. The only debate is whether it's a positive or negative feedback, and even then, that debate is mostly settled.

Then you go and google the words water vapour and 'driver' and eventually get a reference to stratospheric water vapour being a 'driver' and went with that quote, despite that very paper describing water vapour as a feedback and not a driver earlier in the paper and only considers water vapour in the stratosphere as a potential driver due to some unreliable data that shows there might be decadal trends in atmospheric Water Vapour concentrations.

Stratospheric water vapour has nothing to do with your original point which I was responding to.

Dohnjoe

xckjoo wrote: »

The weird thing is there's nearly a discussion going on but one side is more interested in antagonising and trying to show off their "superior intellect".

It's a hobby for some.