Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • I can't believe how confident people are about the science. I feel people have trouble accepting how limited our ability to predict the behavior of complex chaotic systems is. The only thing we have a good handle on is how ridiculous the proposed solutions are.
    We hunt the hunters

    Comment


    • Here is just one example of how little we know about our planet.

      https://www.livescience.com/40451-vo...taggering.html
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • Comment


        • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          And some might find your "indirect" ad-homenum use of "moronic" as equally unacceptable as your objections to use of any term ending in "-tard". But then, hypocrisy is a hallmark of the Leftist-Socialist mindset.
          The use of moronic was directed at your specific post, due to its specific lack of intelligence, and not as a general label .

          You stated that Margaret Thatcher used AGW to defeat the Miners strike.

          The Miners strike was 84-85. Her speech to the UN was in 89, years later.


          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          My baad for brevity. Should have said; "strike-socialist agenda".
          The Unions had already been defeated. They have no longer been a real force in the workplace.
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
          QUOTE:
          "...
          What was behind Thatcher’s “conversion experience” to climate alarmism in 1988? Part of the answer was the pressure she received from her advisors John Houghton and Sir Crispin Tickell, who were in step with the emerging environmental movement. Also, global warming was an issue that provided her with enhanced international prestige.

          But perhaps most important was her vigorous battle against the nationalized, unionized coal-mining sector, the leadership of which was socialistic at heart and determined to break her reform agenda.


          The memories of Arthur Scargill of the National Union of Mineworkers using thuggery against strike breakers in the long months of 1984–85
          , and her preference for nuclear power to generate electricity, undoubtedly made her welcome an environmental issue that would help cut coal down to size.
          ..."
          https://www.masterresource.org/clima...st-to-skeptic/



          I usually prefer "Bing", but a few more seconds on web-searching would show that your response is even more "ludicrously wrong"; largely due to exclusion of the other half of the story;
          QUOTES:
          "...
          Mugged by Reality: Nonalarmism
          In Statecraft: Strategies for a Changing World (2002), Thatcher declared war on “the doomsters’ favorite subject … climate change.”
          Here is her full reconsideration (pp. 449–50):
          The doomsters’ favorite subject today is climate change. This has a number of attractions for them. First, the science is extremely obscure so they cannot easily be proved wrong. Second, we all have ideas about the weather: traditionally, the English on first acquaintance talk of little else.
          Third, since clearly no plan to alter climate could be considered on anything but a global scale, it provides a marvelous excuse for worldwide, supra-national socialism. All this suggests a degree of calculation. Yet perhaps that is to miss half the point. Rather, as it was said of Hamlet that there was method in his madness, so one feels that in the case of some of the gloomier alarmists there is a large amount of madness in their method.

          Indeed, the lack of any sense of proportion is what characterizes many pronouncements on the matter by otherwise sensible people.
          Thus President Clinton on a visit to China, which poses a serious strategic challenge to the US, confided to his host, President Jiang Zemin, that his greatest concern was the prospect that “your people may get rich like our people, and instead of riding bicycles, they will drive automobiles, and the increase in greenhouse gases will make the planet more dangerous for all.”

          It would, though, be difficult to beat for apocalyptic hyperbole former Vice President Gore.
          Mr Gore believes: ‘The cleavage in the modern world between mind and body, man and nature, has created a new kind of addiction: I believe that our civilisation is, in effect, addicted to the consumption of the earth itself.’

          And he warns: “Unless we find a way to dramatically change our civilisation and our way of thinking about the relationship between humankind and the earth, our children will inherit a wasteland.”

          But why pick on the Americans? Britain’s then Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, has observed: “There is no greater national duty than the defense of our shoreline. But the most immediate threat to it today is the encroaching sea.” Britain has found, it seems, a worthy successor to King Canute.
          The fact that seasoned politicians can say such ridiculous things – and get away with it – illustrates the degree to which the new dogma about climate change has swept through the left-of-centre governing classes….
          What had changed for Thatcher in less than a decade? First, she found climate science less alarming than before. Secondly, an “ugly … anti-growth, anti-capitalistic, anti-American” political agenda had emerged around the issue. [9] Harking back to her free-market roots, Thatcher forwarded her own version of the precautionary principle: “Government interventions are problematic, so intervene only when the case is fully proven.” [10]
          ...
          Thatcher praised the free and open economy as a worthy ideal in stark contrast to Britain’s tradition of democratic socialism. One of her greatest tests was the British coal strike of 1984–85, which was broken after a year. Electricity generation and distribution were privatized in 1990, and the coal industry, which had been nationalized back in 1946, soon followed in the new light of the free market.

          But in the process, Margaret Thatcher jumped too quickly on the climate issue for short-run gain. The good news is that she quickly and completely corrected herself. She got “mugged by reality,” as they say.

          ... "
          https://www.masterresource.org/clima...st-to-skeptic/

          Similar observations and facts can be found at this article as well;Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?
          Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming - but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...e-sceptic.html


          Unfortunately, the rabid fanaticism of the GreenTard, enviro-nazi pro-ACC/AGW supporters and agenda is too much anti-life, psuedo-science, and a serious threat to human existence and prosperity to be anywhere near a laughing matter.

          See the red highlights of the above quote-excerpts should the major points elude you.

          While I appreciate you once again displaying your lack of objective and rational thought on this issue, I can't give you a rep, + or -, at this time, but do thank you for the one passed my way.


          P.S. I doubt this post will change your mind/position on this issue, but it does provide a more factual and complete examination of the facts, offsetting your distorted, selectively mis-representative post quoted, and may be of use to the more objective readers here.

          https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eptic-monckton

          Margaret Thatcher spoke about AGW when she was PM, and speaking in her countries best interest.
          She spoke against AGW when she was paid to do so .
          Now that is a real politician.
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            The use of moronic was directed at your specific post, due to its specific lack of intelligence, and not as a general label .

            You stated that Margaret Thatcher used AGW to defeat the Miners strike.

            The Miners strike was 84-85. Her speech to the UN was in 89, years later.
            And I corrected myself after your post and doing some research. However, your post I had responded to also lacked intelligence in not showing how she had reversed her stance on ACC/AGW.



            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
            The Unions had already been defeated. They have no longer been a real force in the workplace.
            They appear to still have about half the workforrce, so may have some clout.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher

            Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post

            https://www.theguardian.com/environm...eptic-monckton

            Margaret Thatcher spoke about AGW when she was PM, and speaking in her countries best interest.
            She spoke against AGW when she was paid to do so .
            Now that is a real politician.
            I've yet to see evidence she was paid to speak against ACC/AGW. Your link doesn't establish that. From what I've seen she did what most rational and logical thinkers would do, revise her stance and position upon examination of further data.
            Now that is real science.
            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

            Comment


            • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              And I corrected myself after your post and doing some research. However, your post I had responded to also lacked intelligence in not showing how she had reversed her stance on ACC/AGW.
              That particular post is still totally and utterly moronic on a seriously number of levels.......

              Margaret Thatcher gave her address to the UN about AGW in 1989. The Miners Strike failed 1985. She destroyed the Unions ability to 'Strike' in 1985.

              For you to state that M Thatcher used her 1989 AGW address to the UN to destroy the Miners Strike was seriously uneducated.
              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              They appear to still have about half the workforrce, so may have some clout.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher
              Arthur Scargill completely bollocks coup proves Britain is at least slightly right of centre. This is why he failed, simply because Britain is not naturally communist in any shape or form.

              Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
              I've yet to see evidence she was paid to speak against ACC/AGW. Your link doesn't establish that. From what I've seen she did what most rational and logical thinkers would do, revise her stance and position upon examination of further data.
              Now that is real science.
              When I've become a nobody and given $80k to speak on a subject that my opinion is not considered important, I might do the same thing.

              The fact remains that you were totally and completely wrong on the subject of M Thatcher. She believed in AGW when it was about the science, and not corporate sponsership, or perceived 'NWO' to deal with said threat.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • This is a very interesting article on climate change:

                https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=spartandhp
                We are not now that strength which in old days
                Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                  This is a very interesting article on climate change:

                  https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=spartandhp
                  No, it's not. It's a single data point. It's no different than when AGC advocates claim that an extra cold winter in the US or Europe is irrelevant because it's a blip in the data. So, when something occurs that reinforces the AGC narrative it's important news and proof of AGC, but when something occurs that refutes AGC, it's irrelevant.

                  This article is nothing but an interesting anecdote.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                    This is a very interesting article on climate change:

                    https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/to...cid=spartandhp
                    Doesn't even mention "climate change".
                    Seasonal/yearly anomaly is a weather glitch, not a climate trend. Considering the article cites Danish records only going back to 1958, hardly enough data base to form any firm conclusions on.
                    Quite likely something similar was happening about 1,000 years ago when the Vikings had settlements on Greenland coast which in more recent times(centuries) has been too cold to sustain what they had back then.
                    TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                    Comment


                    • Of course it doesn't mention climate change. If the AGW crowd and that article did, they'd get a tsunami of criticism for the reasons I listed above. It would simply make them look like the posers they're claimed to be by their critics.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                        I can't believe how confident people are about the science. I feel people have trouble accepting how limited our ability to predict the behavior of complex chaotic systems is. The only thing we have a good handle on is how ridiculous the proposed solutions are.
                        And yet people still believe in the Yeti, despite any real science to the contrary, ie total lack of evidence.

                        Believe the Yeti, but disbelieve AGW? At least this thread is not in the science sub forum.
                        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                          No, it's not. It's a single data point. It's no different than when AGC advocates claim that an extra cold winter in the US or Europe is irrelevant because it's a blip in the data. So, when something occurs that reinforces the AGC narrative it's important news and proof of AGC, but when something occurs that refutes AGC, it's irrelevant.

                          This article is nothing but an interesting anecdote.
                          It's not a blip in the data. In the short term, temperatures in much of the Northern Hemisphere will drastically cool, as winds shift over Siberia from West to East, to East to West.
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • Why is the global climatic cataclysm of the sixth century virtually unheard of?

                            http://www.ancient-origins.net/unexp...sidebar-widget
                            TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                            Comment


                            • Every Google search contributes to CO2 emissions?

                              Really? You can't make this up. (if you can get past the ads that can't be blocked.)

                              https://qz.com/1267709/every-google-...hows-how-much/
                              “Breaking News,”

                              “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by SRV Ron View Post
                                Really? You can't make this up. (if you can get past the ads that can't be blocked.)

                                https://qz.com/1267709/every-google-...hows-how-much/
                                How is this a revelation?

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X