Are We Being Told the Truth About Climate Change?

Is he? Is he one of the 3%? Sharing facts is not a backlash, its sharing facts....

I had a look at the examples where Moore says we are not being told the truth.

I agree with him about one thing, I think genetically modified crops are necessary and not frightening. So now that I'm softened up...

He says that the nuclear industry is one of the safest. But my goodness, when it goes wrong, it goes spectacularly wrong. Chernobyl? Fukushima? 3 Mile Island? I wonder how he thinks we should treat all the waste that will stay radioactive for 10s of thousands of years?

baa....baa....???

And Dr Peter Ridd in Australia.

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

You set them up. I'll knock them down.

Elegran

^" more about scaring people, and wanting to be in control"^
So who is in control of the climate?

God....but that’s another thread!!!

I don’t ‘ understand the issue and am hiding my head in the sand’. That does not translate to ‘ sharing facts’, Alegrias. It is bordering on being insulting, unwelcoming of other peoples views.

DiscoDancer1975

Elegran

" more about scaring people, and wanting to be in control"
So who is in control of the climate?

God....but that’s another thread!!!

?

Which is the more dangerous of these two scenarios?

This one - We believe the evidence that human activity has influenced various parameters and affected the average temperature of the earth, which is rising and will continue to rise by more and more as each contributory factor is itself made stronger by the effects on it of other factors. As a result of believing this, all countries make a concerted effort to work together to break the cycle. After a century, there is no more climate change and global temperatures return to what they were before the current rise. There is no way that it can be proved that the change was reversed by the massive co-operative projects that were carried out - so it might have happened anyway!

Or this one - We don't believe that human activity had any influence on the rising temperatures and the extreme climatic changes that we are currently experiencing. We carry on as we have been doing. That may be OK. However, if at some point in the next century (less?), it becomes apparent that the climate is not going to settle back to normal after a natural variation, but is permanently altered by human interference into a pattern that makes human (and all animal) life impossible, which will last for the unforeseeable future, nothing we do is going to change it. Even if something had been possible in 2021, it will not be possible if it is allowed to go past a tipping point. That tipping point could be frighteningly close.

Which would you gamble your grandchildren's lives on?

Alegrias1

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

You set them up. I'll knock them down.

It says Dr Peter Ridd was unlawfully dismissed for criticising his colleagues research on climate change.. My point exactly.

I'm afraid I don't have a lot of patience with people's views when it comes to denying science Toadinthehole. There was a post saying we have bigger problems than climate change, and well...we just don't. That's not an opinion, its what we are facing. We have more proximate problems - how to get out of this pandemic, for instance, but no problem is bigger.

I thought I gave reasoned answer to 25Avalon's post from 13:21, and in response I get lumped in with the sheep. That not a bit insulting, you think?

DiscoDancer1975

Elegran

" more about scaring people, and wanting to be in control"
So who is in control of the climate?

God....but that’s another thread!!!

I do hope someone has a direct line to him, and can point out that he needs to send a clear message to the fragile humans he created to populate his earth that they need to look after it better. In their ignorance they are interfering with his finely balanced systems. If they don't maintain their environment properly, it will cease to do its work of supporting them. Then I suppose they will whinge about him allowing natural disasters and personal tragedies.

25Avalon

Alegrias1

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

You set them up. I'll knock them down.

It says Dr Peter Ridd was unlawfully dismissed for criticising his colleagues research on climate change.. My point exactly.

He was sacked in 2018 for making disrespectful comments about a colleague on Sky TV, and describing them as "not having any clue about the weather"

Quote from 2021: He initially won $1.2 million in compensation after taking the university to court, but the victory was overturned on appeal by the Federal Court, which found he had breached the university's code of conduct.

Alegrias1

25Avalon

Alegrias1

www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/28/great-barrier-reef-expert-panel-says-peter-ridd-misrepresenting-science

You set them up. I'll knock them down.

It says Dr Peter Ridd was unlawfully dismissed for criticising his colleagues research on climate change.. My point exactly.

He was sacked in 2018 for making disrespectful comments about a colleague on Sky TV, and describing them as "not having any clue about the weather"

Quote from 2021: ^He initially won $1.2 million in compensation after taking the university to court, but the victory was overturned on appeal by the Federal Court, which found he had breached the university's code of conduct.^

It is now going to the High Court

He's persistent, I'll give him that.

James Cook University argues it sacked Dr Ridd in 2018 not because of his opinions but because he expressed them in a way that was un-collegiate and discourteous toward his colleagues and then breached confidentiality rules around the disciplinary process.

I guess we'll see.

www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/high-court-hears-climate-change-sceptic-s-appeal-in-academic-freedom-test-case-20210623-p583ky.html

Yeah like he told his wife when told not to.

Still breaking the rules, though, eh? Same as dissing a colleague on national TV.

We've strayed from Climate Change.

Ridd is challenging the quality of science about The Great Barrier Reef which has threatened to embarrass powerful Scientific institutions that have already determined the narrative about the death of the reef.

The state of the reef has very much been linked to climate change, so one guy who says the science is wrong has to be shut up. That is concerning and adds weight to Dr. Moore’s argument.

Are we being told the truth?

Yes.

Whether we choose to believe it is another issue, just like so many other issues, people tend to believe what suits them and sod the science.

OK, I would rather talk about climate change, as I'm sure everybody else would, but seeing as we're here.

He was sacked after several warnings for disrespecting colleagues and breaking the rules of the university where he worked. He's not a lone voice in the wilderness standing up against the might of the Climate Change industry, he's a person who doesn't like to have his views challenged and thinks he's right, even though the weight of all the scientific evidence is against him. And decides to go on national TV and say that his colleagues can no longer be trusted. The sacking was about his employment rights, not his views on climate change. He's not Galileo.

None of this adds weight to Moore's argument, unless you are a conspiracy theorist who thinks the (non existent) climate change industry is out to silence every dissenting voice.

Are you?

If the word "science" is replaced everywhere by the word "knowledge" (which is its basic meaning) you get some interesting statements and opinions.

Thanks, I had a look at your link Alegrias. NASA presents compelling evidence for climate change but is this our fault? NASA quotes a paper from 1955 that theorised climate change is linked to CO2 emissions. Still looking for more up to date scientific models on the atmosphere that gives more weight to this theory... meteorology has come a long way since 1955. Google listed a book called "The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" Might be rubbish. Might be enlightening. (anyone read it?) Certainly I remember hearing a 'scientific theory' argument that CO2 emissions increase following global warming, rather than the other way round.

Being my cynical self I still think 'global warming' has become a convenient tool for governments to push the 'green economy'. Suspicious that governments funding research to get answers they want. The film I mentioned is "Michael Moore Presents: Planet of the Humans" on YouTube. Interesting viewing.

I've spent a wee while wondering how to answer this HolySox.

The NASA site is teeming with references to papers and publications supporting the case for anthropogenic climate change. NASA aren't relying on a 65 year old paper for their basis for the impact of CO2 on the atmosphere, there are screeds of references to much more modern papers.

So, we can assess that an organisation made up of many of the world's greatest scientists has probably debated, reviewed and verified the work that they are publishing, or we can choose to google things and find publications by people who can't get their non-peer-reviewed hypotheses anywhere near publication by a scientific body.

As for the idea that governments are paying for the answers they want. Why on earth would any government pay researchers to tell them our whole society is built on a set of systems that are ruining the environment and especially the atmosphere, and that they have to completely change direction, spending billions upon billions of pounds to even halt the disaster, let alone reverse it? Its not credible, is it?

Busy working this afternoon on something else to look too deeply but might delve a bit deeper into the NASA site. Most if what I saw was evidence for global warming. Did find the origional 1955 paper and had a quick read. Seems the theory is based on IR absorption by CO2 molecules rather than simply reflecting IR energy back to earth. But this left me with questions. Molecular absorption are line spectra so would absorb a fraction of IR band but what fraction? This implies the atmosphere is being heated rather than the surface?
All I remember is that global warming suddenly became truth when a US president decided it was in the interest of the USA. The debate was closed.
I shall ponder further but agree with Discodancer in that ultimately God is in charge so I remain cynical.

This is good. news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

So's this: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560

There are conflicting opinions and some believe the emphasis on on Co2 gases is overplayed. I am not a scientist but the man made climate change narrative seems plausible to me.

However, I do think there are many other types of human behaviour that lead to a deterioration in our environment (like the assumption that GDP must increase year on year, which leads to unnecessary consumption, waste and degradation of land and sea. These issues should also be of the highest priority. Also the carbon exchange system seems very odd to me - it appears to be a system whereby companies and wealthy individuals can just pay extra money to pollute.

" . . ultimately God is in charge so Holysox remains cynical. . . " The flaw with that attitude is that God is more concerned with whether we are fit to be admitted into his presence after our death than with our living conditions while we are still alive. We have free will to make our own decisions and that includes trashing our environment. He won't mind if the result is to speed up the moment when the last of us is extinct after a hellish period of trying to survive on an inhospitable planet, and arrives thankfully at his pearly gates.