Why the sudden hysteria over climate change?

Jimmy Garlic

blinding wrote: »

I think the Eu Elections show why we have had the Climate Change / Green Saturation for the last while .

The Eu Philes knew the Eu was going to get one hell of a Kicking in these Elections so they Promoted their very own Safety Valve . Pump up the Greens as that Safety Valve and let the people believe they are making a difference and then hijack a few of the Greens Ideas (especially the ones that can be used to raise tax )

I mean who doesn’t want to save the Planet ( and Virtue Signal while you are at it ) .

Eu-philes will steal a few policies and then after the “ Heat “ is off continue on their Merry Way .

Jean Claude Juncker recently said anyone who loves their country is stupid. Verhofstadt said the EU is an empire. You won't hear that on RTE or the rest of the lickspittle brown noseing media in Ireland. It's no wonder they want climate doomsday hysteria to be the main point of focus as they chip away at and eradicate what's left of national sovereignty in Europe.

blinding

It feels like the electorate have been fed a Climate change / Green agenda over the last while .

It just happened to “ Peak “ for the Eu Elections .

It smells like a manipulation of the electorate .

“ Loads of Coverage of a certain agenda by the establishment and the establishment media “

Harmless enough vote for the establishment as well . Just steal the Greens Clothes when it suits and the Greens policies are a Licence to Tax which is another bonus for the establishment .

Lets put it this way the establishment are well happy that this protest vote goes to the Greens . Probably the easiest Protest Vote to deal with .

blinding

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Jean Claude Juncker recently said anyone who loves their country is stupid. Verhofstadt said the EU is an empire. You won't hear that on RTE or the rest of the lickspittle brown noseing media in Ireland. It's no wonder they want climate doomsday hysteria to be the main point of focus as they chip away at and eradicate what's left of national sovereignty in Europe.

These people have no Interest in People having their Own Country .

Actually their Policies are to take Our Country away from Us .

20Cent

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Jean Claude Juncker recently said anyone who loves their country is stupid. Verhofstadt said the EU is an empire. You won't hear that on RTE or the rest of the lickspittle brown noseing media in Ireland. It's no wonder they want climate doomsday hysteria to be the main point of focus as they chip away at and eradicate what's left of national sovereignty in Europe.

Juncker didn't say that at all, it was spun as such by right wing media who think their audience is too stupid to check for themselves. Which is a correct assumption.

Seanachai

I remember being genuinely scared of the climate change disaster media in the 90's as a kid. At the time I thought we were more or less screwed, maybe a Mad Max type scenario or something. I'm highly sceptical about man-made global warming now though. The people pushing it as a religion seem seem to be implicated in all sorts of scams and agendas.

Dakota Dan

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Bill Gates has said stopping emitting carbon is not good enough, we need to find a way of reversing the damage we do, nevermind stopping emitting what we do.

As well intentioned as it is, doing things like you suggest is only an act to make ones self feel important. They are pointless.

But anyways, I'm not saying don't do that, if you want to do that fine. I have a problem when people are taxing things and taking more money from my already empty pockets. Extra tax on diesel and electricity will not make me use less of them. It won't make me buy an electric car. It will just make me poorer.

If Bill Gates says it then it must be true, surely :rolleyes:

McDermotX

Hail stones.

In May.

Love it.

blinding

McDermotX wrote: »

Hail stones.

In May.

Love it.

I bet that has often happened .

Jimmy Garlic

20Cent wrote: »

Juncker didn't say that at all, it was spun as such by right wing media who think their audience is too stupid to check for themselves. Which is a correct assumption.

“These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries,” Juncker told CNN. “They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away … we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in.”...

In reference to the EUs open door, no questions asked, we will let you in even if we don't know who you are,or where you came from, immigration policy.

blinding

Is this Climate Change / Green Agenda just Grooming / Radicalisation of young People .

Are very young People capable of questioning the bone fides of the propaganda they are being fed ?

Grayson

blinding wrote: »

Is this Climate Change / Green Agenda just Grooming / Radicalisation of young People .

Are very young People capable of questioning the bone fides of the propaganda they are being fed ?

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it is caused by humans.

That isn't propaganda, it's science. And letting young people know these facts isn't grooming, it's called education.

blinding

Grayson wrote: »

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it is caused by humans.

That isn't propaganda, it's science. And letting young people know these facts isn't grooming, it's called education.

Is there a settled plan to tackle Climate Change etc .

Is there a plan that will make an effective difference ?

KSU

Grayson wrote: »

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.

This is misleading

That 98% figure comes from a 2013 study on quantifying consensus of global warming

In that study 11,944 abstracts were taken (66.4% expressed no position, 32.6% for and 0.7% against positions of climate change

So realistically 98%% (actually 97.1%) endorses the 32.6% of studies in the area.

Not the same thing. This also included self rating of papers

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

SirGerryAdams

Dakota Dan wrote: »

If Bill Gates says it then it must be true, surely :rolleyes:

If a 15 year old autist says you should strike, then we should all strike :rolleyes:

Grayson

KSU wrote: »

This is misleading

That 98% figure comes from a 2013 study on quantifying consensus of global warming

In that study 11,944 abstracts were taken (66.4% expressed no position, 32.6% for and 0.7% against positions of climate change

So realistically 98%% (actually 97.1%) endorses the 32.6% of studies in the area.

Not the same thing. This also included self rating of papers

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

You picked one study. There have been many that corroborate this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

KSU

[HTML][/HTML]

Grayson wrote: »

You picked one study. There have been many that corroborate this.

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

I picked a meta analysis of studies examining 12,000 peer reviewed studies funnily enough which includes the studies cited in your link

Example the Oreske 2004 paper from 2004 only had 75% endorsement from 928 papers in its review

The Doran/Zimmerman paper was a 2 question survey of which only 5% of participants were actual climate scientist (approx 150 people)

Will I go on?

Stick to facts

xckjoo

KSU wrote: »

This is misleading

That 98% figure comes from a 2013 study on quantifying consensus of global warming

In that study 11,944 abstracts were taken (66.4% expressed no position, 32.6% for and 0.7% against positions of climate change

So realistically 98%% (actually 97.1%) endorses the 32.6% of studies in the area.

Not the same thing. This also included self rating of papers

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

While that is the methodology of how the number was originally arrived at, that finding of 97% has been repeated numerous times and has turned out to be quite consistent. The sampling methodology they used is indeed an appropriate way of looking at the problem, even if it seems a bit odd at first glance

Grayson

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

If a 15 year old autist says you should strike, then we should all strike :rolleyes:

If the best argument you can come up with against needing to do something about climate change is to start insulting autistic people, then you e lost the argument. And don't say you weren't insulting them. You specifically said Autist to give your statement meaning.

SirGerryAdams

Grayson wrote: »

If the best argument you can come up with against needing to do something about climate change is to start insulting autistic people, then you e lost the argument. And don't say you weren't insulting them. You specifically said Autist to give your statement meaning.

Of course I said autist to give it meaning.

How often do you take scientific advice by someone with a mental disability?

vriesmays

Grayson wrote: »

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it is caused by humans.

That isn't propaganda, it's science. And letting young people know these facts isn't grooming, it's called education.

Science is based on induction and no-one believes that's fully accurate.

xckjoo

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Of course I said autist to give it meaning.

How often do you take scientific advice by someone with a mental disability?

Probably daily. Have you met many scientists?

KSU

xckjoo wrote: »

While that is the methodology of how the number was originally arrived at, that finding of 97% has been repeated numerous times and has turned out to be quite consistent. The sampling methodology they used is indeed an appropriate way of looking at the problem, even if it seems a bit odd at first glance

The 97% figure originally arose from the Zimmerman and Doran paper and it is flawed. (see why as per below) the fact that it is repeatedly cited in further research papers creates issues in credibility.

This was followed up by the J Cook paper with the 97% figure, however in 2013 former director for climate research in Delaware, David R Legates and the co author of the original paper reviewed this paper and found that only 41 papers (of the 4014 that expressed and opinion) and that has since been debunked.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

(whether you support this or not it definitely influences consensus levels)

I am not denying the science what I am saying is that the consensus levels spouted are alarmist and misleading.

xckjoo

KSU wrote: »

The 97% figure originally arose from the Zimmerman and Doran paper and it is flawed. (see why as per below) the fact that it is repeatedly cited in further research papers creates issues in credibility.

The figure originated in the paper, but has been independently corroborated multiple times. You haven't shown it to be flawed. They used a valid sampling technique.

KSU

xckjoo wrote: »

The figure originated in the paper, but has been independently corroborated multiple times. You haven't shown it to be flawed. They used a valid sampling technique.

But Cooke has been debunked

Oreske shows 75 percent endorsement (when you take out 66% of studies with no definitive position)

Zimmerman and Doran is based on a survey (with low climate scientist participation)

These 3 papers are at the foundation of this belief (and most often cited) Even the Nasa climate page draws its conclusion on these three as per link previously cited here.

xckjoo

KSU wrote: »

But Cooke has been debunked

Oreske shows 75 percent endorsement (when you take out 66% of studies with no definitive position)

Zimmerman and Doran is based on a survey (with low climate scientist participation)

These 3 papers are at the foundation of this belief (and most often cited) Even the Nasa climate page draws its conclusion on these three as per link previously cited here.

Not so sure about it being debunked
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Haven't read the other ones so can't comment off hand

20Cent

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

“These populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists, they are in love with their own countries,” Juncker told CNN. “They don’t like those coming from far away, I like those coming from far away … we have to act in solidarity with those who are in a worse situation than we are in.”...

In reference to the EUs open door, no questions asked, we will let you in even if we don't know who you are,or where you came from, immigration policy.

He was clearly referring to a certain type of nationalist not anyone who "loves their country". It was spun that way of course. The EU doesn't have an open door policy why do you think all those people are drowning in the Mediterranean.

Farage er all want to privatise the NHS, remove workers rights, cut welfare and use the UK as a tax haven full of serfs for his billionaire backers. He's convinced a lot of working class people he gives a ****e about them. Patriotism the last refuge of scoundrels.

Dakota Dan

blinding wrote: »

I bet that has often happened .

Some clown on here never saw grass frost in May until this year and he thought it was positive poof of climate change :rolleyes:

Dakota Dan

Grayson wrote: »

98% of climate papers in the last 20 years agree with the three findings of the IPCC.
1) Climate change is real
2) it's getting worse
3) it is caused by humans.

That isn't propaganda, it's science. And letting young people know these facts isn't grooming, it's called education.

Here's a scientist that says otherwise and at first he believed the propaganda until he did some proper research and wrote this essay on his findings.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace?fbclid=IwAR3GGXIetTJ1ISE9hDbqZLyDgI_XEV6n0P0na3PaMZ8kW7kV8CGJ6wFcGH0

bfa1509

Dakota Dan wrote: »

Here's a scientist that says otherwise and at first he believed the propaganda until he did some proper research and wrote this essay on his findings.

https://medium.com/@pullnews/what-i-learned-about-climate-change-the-science-is-not-settled-1e3ae4712ace?fbclid=IwAR3GGXIetTJ1ISE9hDbqZLyDgI_XEV6n0P0na3PaMZ8kW7kV8CGJ6wFcGH0

I like how he compresses the essay into 10 points knowing full well that climate alarmists probably only read single page online news articles.

Thargor

Hmmm I wonder who this recently registered climate denier account with an obsession with the 97% figure and having the last word could be?