Greta

[SanguinePar]

On 24/09/2019 at 10:46, Teuchter said:

Accusations of hate and anger rather than addressing the argument. Sadly a trope of the modern left.

Quote

That speech yesterday was less the dignified mix of anger, hope and vision of Martin Luther King and more the unhinged ranting of 1930s despots. Just watch it again with the sound down.

Accusations of unhinged ranting rather than addressing her argument. In fact you are literally suggesting we don't listen to her argument and judge her only what she looks like without audio. And how can you seriously compare a passionate 16 year old with Hitler and Mussolini?

 

[SanguinePar]

On 24/09/2019 at 12:37, Vinnie said:

Thing is, there are two theories based on the data available, and they are purely theories rather than absolute fact.

Yes we can see the climate changing, and yes there is potential for human fault, but lets avoid the need to quote theories as facts.

No, I'm sorry, there are not "two theories" - there's the overwhelmingly strong and scientifically backed consensus and conclusion that climate change is real, is happening and is very definitely exacerbated by human activity.

Then there's the wacko nutjob conspiracy theorist nonsense based on no evidence at all and spread by lunatics like Trump, Alex Jone, Bolsarono, etc that it's all a big hoax.

They are in no way equivalent, and they should never be given equal standing.

[Vinnie]

1 hour ago, SanguinePar said:

there are not "two theories"

There are.  One says that climate change is a purely man made phenomenon.  Another suggests that the earths orbit of the sun is elliptical rather than a perfect circle, and that as a result, the earth goes though ice ages and hot spells, in cycles.  

Personally, I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.  

 

[SanguinePar]

11 minutes ago, Vinnie said:

There are.  One says that climate change is a purely man made phenomenon.  Another suggests that the earths orbit of the sun is elliptical rather than a perfect circle, and that as a result, the earth goes though ice ages and hot spells, in cycles.  

Personally, I believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle.  

 

The Earth's orbit IS elliptical. That's why we have seasons each year.

It is not relevant at all to climate change (except in perhaps a very broad sense with very gradual change in the ellipse) and could not be unless we orbited the sun over a period of thousands of years rather than one year.

The truth is exactly where I said, with the people who actually know what they are talking about.

 

Also, edited to add, I don't think there's any theory that climate change is ONLY man made. However the recent big increases in temperatures in the last few hundred years cannot have been caused by the slow moving changes in orbit or solar output. Something has radically and rapidly altered temperature on a global scale and it coincides very, very well with human industrial activity. I literally can't believe this is still even up for debate.

[Vinnie]

Just now, SanguinePar said:

The Earth's orbit IS elliptical. That's why we have seasons each year.

We have seasons because of the way the earth spins on its axis.  Not specifically because of an elliptical orbit.  

One other thing for you to ponder that if you get an article from source, scientists use words like "evidence suggests".  By the time its passed through three or four media outlets and made its way to a football forum, the "suggestion" has become an absolute.  

Im not arrogant enough to say that Im 100% right, Im simply saying that there is more than one possibility, and Im open-minded to considering both views. 

[SanguinePar]

2 minutes ago, Vinnie said:

We have seasons because of the way the earth spins on its axis.  Not specifically because of an elliptical orbit.  

It's a combination of the two. That's why we have 4 seasons, not 2. The orbit is not the reason for speedy sustained temperature increases. If it were, then we would see similar speedy decreases each winter.

2 minutes ago, Vinnie said:

One other thing for you to ponder that if you get an article from source, scientists use words like "evidence suggests".  By the time its passed through three or four media outlets and made its way to a football forum, the "suggestion" has become an absolute.  

Im not arrogant enough to say that Im 100% right, Im simply saying that there is more than one possibility, and Im open-minded to considering both views. 

It's not open-mindedness to consider two opposing views when one of them is based on scientific consensus and the other is based on nothing. It's bloody-mindedness.

[Vinnie]

Just now, SanguinePar said:

It's a combination of the two. That's why we have 4 seasons, not 2. The orbit is not the reason for speedy sustained temperature increases. If it were, then we would see similar speedy decreases each winter.

Also consider that the months of the year that we might traditionally consider to be winter have shifted slightly, in the same vein, the summer months are now running into what we would call autumn.  Thats not just climate change, thats the orbit of the earth around the sun. 

2 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

It's not open-mindedness to consider two opposing views when one of them is based on scientific consensus and the other is based on nothing. It's bloody-mindedness.

Why do we have science?  If we already know about the earth and weather systems, and ice ages and glacial melting, why do we still study it?  Science isnt always about absolutes, some scientists challenge conventional thinking and as a result, how we live has changed.  Thats because some folk are open minded to other ideas, rather than being bloody-minded. 

Of course, Im prepared to view that there could be another answer, Im not arrogantly suggesting that Im right and my view is the only one? 

[SanguinePar]

The sun will rise tomorrow.

The sun will rise tomorrow but will look like an inflatable pineapple smeared in jam.

 

Neither are definitively provable nor disprovable but only one of them isn't utterly laughable.

[Vinnie]

2 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

The sun will rise tomorrow.

The sun will rise tomorrow but will look like an inflatable pineapple smeared in jam.

 

Neither are definitively provable nor disprovable but only one of them isn't utterly laughable.

Thats just being flippant

[SanguinePar]

Just now, Vinnie said:

Thats just being flippant

Whereas giving credence to conspiracy theorists is entirely grounded in sense and logic.

[Teuchter]

2 hours ago, SanguinePar said:

And how can you seriously compare a passionate 16 year old with Hitler and Mussolini?

In the same way that I can compare Malala Yousafzai to MLK.

It was the style of delivery I was comparing, not her. I did listen to the speech, and commented on the content also.

You do realise that the right are going to unearth a teenage spokesmen who will be bulletproof from criticism as the left on social media criticise him or her in the same way that some people have lost it completely with Greta? I can imagine there will be many who will happily compare such a person to Hitler or Mussolini. All the while grown up political debate will flow further down the toilet.

Not Greta’s fault, but a further consequence of the populist infusion of politics of which she is unwittingly part.

[Teuchter]

Just now, SanguinePar said:

Whereas giving credence to conspiracy theorists is entirely grounded in sense and logic.

It is not just conspiracy theorists who question aspects of climate change theory. You are unfairly putting words in Vinnie’s mouth there.

It is probably fair to say that the majority of scientists believe in man made climate change- to varying degrees- but there are dissenting voices. They should not be simply condemned out of hand as heretics. 

[Vinnie]

3 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

Whereas giving credence to conspiracy theorists is entirely grounded in sense and logic.

See @Teuchter's comment above - saves me repeating myself.  

[SanguinePar]

7 minutes ago, Teuchter said:

It is not just conspiracy theorists who question aspects of climate change theory. You are unfairly putting words in Vinnie’s mouth there.

It is probably fair to say that the majority of scientists believe in man made climate change- to varying degrees- but there are dissenting voices. They should not be simply condemned out of hand as heretics. 

Ok then. I'm going with the 97% who do agree though. Especially since it's been shown that those scientists who are actually experts in climate science (as opposed to being scientists generally) are the most likely to agree on the current consensus, and many of those who don't agree have been funded by organisations which would be hurt financially by the implementation of stricter regulations.

If you guys want to go live with the crazy ones be my guest. Build your houses at sea level though, yeah? I'm out.

[Vinnie]

4 minutes ago, SanguinePar said:

many of those who don't agree have been funded by organisations which would be hurt financially by the implementation of stricter regulations.

Has that accusation been proven?  Or are you being petulant because we disagree?