Trump/Farrage/NATO

[Machiavelli]

my main objection to this line of thought is that inequality matters more than income, that its more important to make people a bit more equal than it is to improve peoples income and earning potential (which is what liberalism has provided for billions).

This is well put, but let me pose three problems with it:
-- growth rates were much higher in the UK during the post-war consensus, aka Keynesianism or social democracy, than they have been over the past few decades under what is often referred to as neoliberalism.
-- one of Piketty's claims is that growth rates were high during the twentieth century, but that this is largely an anomaly, and he anticipates that growth rates will remain low during the twenty-first century. While this is speculative, it is based on an extremely voluminous and sound statistical modelling, and has transpired to be the case so far in the twenty-first century.
-- check out the latest interventions from climate scientists, and the vast body of knowledge on the subject, and you'll notice that the climate is being fundamentally changed and that this is the result of growth-at-all-costs economics. Then, have a look at The Stern Report, for instance, or even his more recent reflections on it, where he concedes he was insufficiently radical or pessimistic (if those two words go together). Unless one of the two following factors come into play -- the science is wrong, or we devise a techno-fix -- what the economy will have to do during the twenty-first century if it is to avoid climate crisis or catastrophe (rather than change) is to restrict or, perhaps better, redirect growth into specific areas. The market will not be able to do this on its own.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

You've got to laugh! ��

 

[larus]

This is well put, but let me pose three problems with it:
-- growth rates were much higher in the UK during the post-war consensus, aka Keynesianism or social democracy, than they have been over the past few decades under what is often referred to as neoliberalism.
-- one of Piketty's claims is that growth rates were high during the twentieth century, but that this is largely an anomaly, and he anticipates that growth rates will remain low during the twenty-first century. While this is speculative, it is based on an extremely voluminous and sound statistical modelling, and has transpired to be the case so far in the twenty-first century.
{b]-- check out the latest interventions from climate scientists, and the vast body of knowledge on the subject, and you'll notice that the climate is being fundamentally changed and that this is the result of growth-at-all-costs economics. Then, have a look at The Stern Report, for instance, or even his more recent reflections on it, where he concedes he was insufficiently radical or pessimistic (if those two words go together). Unless one of the two following factors come into play -- the science is wrong, or we devise a techno-fix -- what the economy will have to do during the twenty-first century if it is to avoid climate crisis or catastrophe (rather than change) is to restrict or, perhaps better, redirect growth into specific areas. The market will not be able to do this on its own.[/b]

I know lots of people do believe the myth of "climate change", but ask yourself, what predictions have come true yet?
The models continually over-estimate warming based on CO2.
Why do all adjustments to historical data make the past look "cooler"?
What's happened to the Arctic being ice-free by 2012? Ok, then 2015? So what's the latest date?
Why was Antartica sea ice at it's HIGHEST extent ever recorded last winter (Southern Hemisphere)?
The famous "Hockey Stick" graph by Michael Mann has been debunked.
The 97% consensus of scientists is mis-representation. The 97% is how many accept that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, not how many think that global warming is man-made (lots believe it is cyclical), Water vapour is more of a Greenhouse Gas than CO2. All predictions of Globull Warming have proved to be wrong.

The"establishment" had to adjust the histrcal records to remove the "pause" in temperature rise (which went back over 18 years) to remove the pause. And this only worked in conjunction with another El-Nino.

There is a cooling phase starting now. AMO,PDO, quiet sun and solar minimum. The sun was more active towards the end of the 21st century (which warmed the planet), and the current cycle has been weak and the next is expected to be weaker.

CO2 is plant food. The planet has"greened" with more CO2 in the atmosphere, as plants need least water to grow.

Cold is more of a idler than heat. More people die from extreme cold than heat. Just look at the tropics and the abundance of life and compare that to the tundra regions.

Why do people have to use the word "deniers" (and the links to the Nazis/holocaust) when describing climate sceptics? Politics - that's why.

Global warming is bullshit.

 

[Machiavelli]

I know lots of people do believe the myth of "climate change", but ask yourself, what predictions have come true yet?
The models continually over-estimate warming based on CO2.
Why do all adjustments to historical data make the past look "cooler"?
What's happened to the Arctic being ice-free by 2012? Ok, then 2015? So what's the latest date?
Why was Antartica sea ice at it's HIGHEST extent ever recorded last winter (Southern Hemisphere)?
The famous "Hockey Stick" graph by Michael Mann has been debunked.
The 97% consensus of scientists is mis-representation. The 97% is how many accept that CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, not how many think that global warming is man-made (lots believe it is cyclical), Water vapour is more of a Greenhouse Gas than CO2. All predictions of Globull Warming have proved to be wrong.

The"establishment" had to adjust the histrcal records to remove the "pause" in temperature rise (which went back over 18 years) to remove the pause. And this only worked in conjunction with another El-Nino.

There is a cooling phase starting now. AMO,PDO, quiet sun and solar minimum. The sun was more active towards the end of the 21st century (which warmed the planet), and the current cycle has been weak and the next is expected to be weaker.

CO2 is plant food. The planet has"greened" with more CO2 in the atmosphere, as plants need least water to grow.

Cold is more of a idler than heat. More people die from extreme cold than heat. Just look at the tropics and the abundance of life and compare that to the tundra regions.

Why do people have to use the word "deniers" (and the links to the Nazis/holocaust) when describing climate sceptics? Politics - that's why.

Global warming is bullshit.

This is arrant nonsense of the highest order. 97% of climate (and related) scientists think that climate change is occurring, and man-made due to increased carbon levels in the atmosphere. You're inhabiting some fantasy realm, informed by bogus websites. Read the IPCC's reports instead, and you might find that you're grossly mistaken.

And I'm happy to call you a sceptic, but then again, thorough-going sceptics are deeply conservative and are unable to deal with the fact that the whole premise of scepticism is based on a logical contradiction

 

[larus]

This is arrant nonsense of the highest order. 97% of climate (and related) scientists think that climate change is occurring, and man-made due to increased carbon levels in the atmosphere. You're inhabiting some fantasy realm, informed by bogus websites. Read the IPCC's reports instead, and you might find that you're grossly mistaken.

And I'm happy to call you a sceptic, but then again, thorough-going sceptics are deeply conservative and are unable to deal with the fact that the whole premise of scepticism is based on a logical contradiction

I don't dispute climate change (nor do most scientists). The climate has constantly changed, is currently changing, and will keep on changing. I duspute (and lots of scientists do as well) the supposed impact of mans activities as causing major impacts to the climate. The supposed impact of a 1 in 10,000 part change of CO2 in the atmosphere supposedly causing global warming has not been proved. All of the "models" have consistantly failed.

The IPCC reports which you refer to have constantly reduced the impact on global temperatures based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. No doubt, when the next version gets released, this will also again reduce the "expected" warming from the increase in CO2.

There has been times in the easths history where CO2 was about 7,000 ppm, not 400 ppm as it is now. The climate didn't go into run-away warming and end up like Mars. This is a political agenda, and so far the cliamte change scaremongers have failed in all of their predictions.

The basis of good science is to make predictions and then test your hypothesis. If your hypothesis continually fails, then your theory is wrong.

I honestly believe that we are about to enter a new cycle in the planets natural oscillations and a cooling phase will start (and probably has already started). However this won't stop the on-going adjusments to the historical temperature records to make the past look colder than it was.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

View attachment 79386

Looking at that image reminded me of these two clowns

That's a gross insult to two of the most intellegent comedians ever - Trump and Farage can just do one.

More like...

 

[AmexRuislip]

That's a gross insult to two of the most intellegent comedians ever - Trump and Farage can just do one.

More like...

View attachment 79787

 

[pb21]

I don't dispute climate change (nor do most scientists). The climate has constantly changed, is currently changing, and will keep on changing. I duspute (and lots of scientists do as well) the supposed impact of mans activities as causing major impacts to the climate. The supposed impact of a 1 in 10,000 part change of CO2 in the atmosphere supposedly causing global warming has not been proved. All of the "models" have consistantly failed.

The IPCC reports which you refer to have constantly reduced the impact on global temperatures based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. No doubt, when the next version gets released, this will also again reduce the "expected" warming from the increase in CO2.

There has been times in the easths history where CO2 was about 7,000 ppm, not 400 ppm as it is now. The climate didn't go into run-away warming and end up like Mars. This is a political agenda, and so far the cliamte change scaremongers have failed in all of their predictions.

The basis of good science is to make predictions and then test your hypothesis. If your hypothesis continually fails, then your theory is wrong.

I honestly believe that we are about to enter a new cycle in the planets natural oscillations and a cooling phase will start (and probably has already started). However this won't stop the on-going adjusments to the historical temperature records to make the past look colder than it was.

Why, if man made climate change is a myth, does the myth and general acceptance of it exist in the first place?

 

[beorhthelm]

Why, if man made climate change is a myth, does the myth and general acceptance of it exist in the first place?

once upon a time scientfic theory held that all "space" consisted of a medium called aether, allowing the waves of light to travel through. some time before that it was held that light was a particle. only in this centuary was it determined, form failure of experiements to prove either of the above, that light is in fact both wave and particle, and aether doesnt exist. some times science follows the best fit until refuted and another theory comes along with better explainations and matches to empirical evidence. climate science has a deficiency in living up to all its claims and predictions, so we should probably conclude its not quite right.

 

[pb21]

once upon a time scientfic theory held that all "space" consisted of a medium called aether, allowing the waves of light to travel through. some time before that it was held that light was a particle. only in this centuary was it determined, form failure of experiements to prove either of the above, that light is in fact both wave and particle, and aether doesnt exist. some times science follows the best fit until refuted and another theory comes along with better explainations and matches to empirical evidence. climate science has a deficiency in living up to all its claims and predictions, so we should probably conclude its not quite right.

Ok so why do you chose to belive it's a myth and not accept it? After all its either right or not. Afterall scientific theory has borne out as fact many times before too.

And on the basis that we have got it wrong, we could have got it wrong in that it's worse than we think and we need to be doing more?

 

[vegster]

I don't dispute climate change (nor do most scientists). The climate has constantly changed, is currently changing, and will keep on changing. I duspute (and lots of scientists do as well) the supposed impact of mans activities as causing major impacts to the climate. The supposed impact of a 1 in 10,000 part change of CO2 in the atmosphere supposedly causing global warming has not been proved. All of the "models" have consistantly failed.

The IPCC reports which you refer to have constantly reduced the impact on global temperatures based on the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. No doubt, when the next version gets released, this will also again reduce the "expected" warming from the increase in CO2.

There has been times in the easths history where CO2 was about 7,000 ppm, not 400 ppm as it is now. The climate didn't go into run-away warming and end up like Mars. This is a political agenda, and so far the cliamte change scaremongers have failed in all of their predictions.

The basis of good science is to make predictions and then test your hypothesis. If your hypothesis continually fails, then your theory is wrong.

I honestly believe that we are about to enter a new cycle in the planets natural oscillations and a cooling phase will start (and probably has already started). However this won't stop the on-going adjusments to the historical temperature records to make the past look colder than it was.

If Farage could stop emitting greenhouse gases the world would be a lot better off.

 

[larus]

Why, if man made climate change is a myth, does the myth and general acceptance of it exist in the first place?

Why is it that ALL predictions from "Climate Scientists" have been wrong? The basis of scientific research is prediction and then testing. If your results are 100% failure, then surely why would you continue to espouse a hypothesis which is wrong?

Some simple examples:
Arctic sea ice - be gone during the summer by 2012.
Troposphere is not warming.
Rate of sea level rise has not changed.
Hurricanes will increase - er, no. They've decreased. It's been over 10 years since the last major hurricane hit land in the US.
Tornados will increase - er, no. They've also decreased.

Ok, so now what they say that EVERY extreme weather event is linked to or made worse by CO2 change (yep, that pesky 1 part in 10,0000 extra of Co2 in the atmosphere).

More snow. CO2.
Less snow. CO2.
More rain. CO2.
Less rain. CO2.
More storms. CO2.
Less storms. CO2.
More cloud. CO2.
Less cloud. CO2.

I guess that CO2 also impacts the AMO, PDO, Solar Cylces, Milankovitch cycles. The eaths climate is constantly changing and we have no frigging idea how to model it, what drives it, what impacts it. The models are churning out garbage, yet many seem to want to belive that a computer porgram can really try to understand the complexities of this planets climate. Unbelievable.

There are some really dumb and gullible who think the scientists know so much. The climate is way, way beyond our level of understanding at this time.

 

[pb21]

Why is it that ALL predictions from "Climate Scientists" have been wrong? The basis of scientific research is prediction and then testing. If your results are 100% failure, then surely why would you continue to espouse a hypothesis which is wrong?

Some simple examples:
Arctic sea ice - be gone during the summer by 2012.
Troposphere is not warming.
Rate of sea level rise has not changed.
Hurricanes will increase - er, no. They've decreased. It's been over 10 years since the last major hurricane hit land in the US.
Tornados will increase - er, no. They've also decreased.

Ok, so now what they say that EVERY extreme weather event is linked to or made worse by CO2 change (yep, that pesky 1 part in 10,0000 extra of Co2 in the atmosphere).

More snow. CO2.
Less snow. CO2.
More rain. CO2.
Less rain. CO2.
More storms. CO2.
Less storms. CO2.
More cloud. CO2.
Less cloud. CO2.

I guess that CO2 also impacts the AMO, PDO, Solar Cylces, Milankovitch cycles. The eaths climate is constantly changing and we have no frigging idea how to model it, what drives it, what impacts it. The models are churning out garbage, yet many seem to want to belive that a computer porgram can really try to understand the complexities of this planets climate. Unbelievable.

There are some really dumb and gullible who think the scientists know so much. The climate is way, way beyond our level of understanding at this time.

You haven't answered my question though,which was:

Why, if man made climate change is a myth, does the myth and general acceptance of it exist in the first place?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

You haven't answered my question though,which was:

Why, if man made climate change is a myth, does the myth and general acceptance of it exist in the first place?

Because it is a conspiracy created by the makers of tin foil

 

[beorhthelm]

Ok so why do you chose to belive it's a myth and not accept it? After all its either right or not. Afterall scientific theory has borne out as fact many times before too.

i didnt say it is a myth, nor deny it. im pointing out that science has been incorrect in the past, we accept the prevailing knowledge based on the evidence at hand. that said, "climate change" is a vague and imprecise term, dropped in favour of Anthopomorphic Global Warming, to emphasis the implication that humans are changing the climate.

the part about it not being "right" is that unlike hard sciences, environmental science is about a wide range of expected outcomes dependant on an even wider range of inputs, and we have observable evidence that many predictions have not occurred. so we cant honestly say "climate change is right", because it isnt. we can say some elements of AWG are valid, some are not, because so many claims have been made in its name.

 

[symyjym]

once upon a time scientfic theory held that all "space" consisted of a medium called aether, allowing the waves of light to travel through. some time before that it was held that light was a particle. only in this centuary was it determined, form failure of experiements to prove either of the above, that light is in fact both wave and particle, and aether doesnt exist. some times science follows the best fit until refuted and another theory comes along with better explainations and matches to empirical evidence. climate science has a deficiency in living up to all its claims and predictions, so we should probably conclude its not quite right.

What has this got to do with climate change, something we can closely monitor and observe? We are not talking quantum physics

 

[beorhthelm]

What has this got to do with climate change, something we can closely monitor and observe? We are not talking quantum physics

i was illustrating how something once generally accepted can be corrected, disgarded and become myth. (some people still even believe in aether, using it as a basis of electric universe)

 

[symyjym]

i was illustrating how something once generally accepted can be corrected, disgarded and become myth. (some people still even believe in aether, using it as a basis of electric universe)

Fair enough, it's importnat to be concerned though. We had the Ozone issue years ago and has this been rectified via our action or did it happen naturally?

I only came on here for NATO news tbf