Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
PeanutButter

House prices will be impacted...

Recommended Posts

On 10/05/2019 at 21:40, xiox said:

The number of complete climate-change denying fruitloops on here is truly remarkable. I would love to do a social study on what drives their bizarre beliefs. I wonder what it would take to change their minds? Personal loss? Deniers - honestly, what would change your minds? Anything? How many experts and how much evidence do you need?

The vast majority of climate change denies are "small c conservatives". It has unfortunately become yet another populist meme to be a climate change denier.

Here is a quote from a recent article someone on this thread posted by a climate change denier

Quote

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks 

Note how he conflates science with being left wing. 

This has become a culture war, and culture wars are never going to be about facts. The same pattern is repeating in many different forms. Right wing, conservative backlashes against a changing world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, xiox said:

What are you on? Climate change is just common shorthand for man made climate change. Talk about avoiding the overwhelming evidence for it and instead arguing about useless shit.

You can read about 'what I am on' in the conspiracy thread. But don't get too excited because I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

(scientist my ****!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, chronyx said:

1552951576762.thumb.png.5c91d1a5aa2bd6c7438b3daaa57145ec.png

+1
Just another doomsday cult! "Cease your evil ways and you shall be saved"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/05/2019 at 10:04, xiox said:

I am a scientist. When the evidence changes, I change my opinions. I try to avoid cherry picking supporting facts to support my prejudices. The evidence is truly overwhelming on climate change. The theory is sound, the data are sound and the conclusion is sound.

The danger is so great, client change denial is up there with anti-vaxxers and holocaust deniers in their level of dangerous thinking. It's ok to believe in a flat earth as it is harmless and silly, but climate change denial is deeply harmful.

Here's some evidence. The ice is coming!

Antarctic-cooling.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2019 at 21:51, chronyx said:

I agree, I've said before maybe even on this thread that chemical pollution, soil depletion and monoculture farming concern me more.  

indeed chemical pollution of water and soil is the number one factor. How will all those extra billions of humans be born to consume and breath out cO2 if we poison the food chain. 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sexton said:

+1
Just another doomsday cult! "Cease your evil ways and you shall be saved"

In that extract it says "burning fossil fuels saved plants from extinction"

This is the first I've heard about the (almost) botanical mass extinction event of the last millennium. Any more details, or is it not really true?

PS plants photosynthesise during the day, but they also respire all the time. They probably would have been okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Mum's were out in force yesterday protesting against climate change.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/thousands-to-protest-climate-change-in-london-mothers-rise-up-rally-a4140006.html

Of course the irony is lost on them - as the most effective thing you can do personally to reduce climate change is not to have as many kids! I gather one extra child requires 30 adults to give up flying to have the same effect on emissions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

I see the Mum's were out in force yesterday protesting against climate change.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/thousands-to-protest-climate-change-in-london-mothers-rise-up-rally-a4140006.html

Of course the irony is lost on them - as the most effective thing you can do personally to reduce climate change is not to have as many kids! I gather one extra child requires 30 adults to give up flying to have the same effect on emissions. 

😂😂😂🤔😂

🤔

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality of climate change deniers is the same as the reality about small c tories: they wouldn't pay a penny to keep their own relatives in a care home if they could possibly avoid it. So they're hardly going to pay for anyone else. They're the same people.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point I'm just going to let the climate change lot run - they're doing a great job of letting their side down.

Don't have babies! (Immigration?) You hate your family! You...NAZI!!111!!11!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

I see the Mum's were out in force yesterday protesting against climate change.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/thousands-to-protest-climate-change-in-london-mothers-rise-up-rally-a4140006.html

Of course the irony is lost on them - as the most effective thing you can do personally to reduce climate change is not to have as many kids! I gather one extra child requires 30 adults to give up flying to have the same effect on emissions. 

lots of rich people exploiting the economic growth born from using fossil fuels for the last 200 years telling billions of very poor people in the third world they must be even poorer. Because, just, well, because.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 09:44, Captain Kirk said:

Most scientists are left-leaning. And they definitely want research grants. They probably don't care where it comes from, but they are going to tell the funders what they want to hear to get the grant. They can do it easily without lying because research is inherently uncertain.

But they are the left. The left want government to control the energy and not the private sector. But they also want the government to have the powers to force people to change their behaviour. That's been made clear by a left-wing poster on here.

If successful, the left would have control over the people and the world because it has to be global control. You couldn't have a 'rogue state' emitting CO2 willy-nilly. It would be the left's wet dream as someone else said on here.

You have re-iterated the reasons why you don't trust climate scientists, but you didn't comment on this:

 

On ‎10‎/‎05‎/‎2019 at 21:18, Kosmin said:

Maybe the perception that scientists who don't think climate change is man-made are only saying so because they receive money from the Kochtopus is an exaggeration, but it certainly should be acknowledged and addressed

Scientists who obtain funding from the government might be biased and scientists who work for corporations (or are funding by them) might be biased. Could you say a little about why you think there is a difference?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/05/2019 at 21:18, Kosmin said:

). Maybe the perception that scientists who don't think climate change is man-made are only saying so because they receive money from the Kochtopus is an exaggeration, 

There are virtually no scientists who don't think climate change is man made. There are so few you could list their names here. Please provide some that you think are worth considering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Captain Kirk said:

Xiox was doing the insulting. We all know why the believers won't call their catastrophic man-made climate change theory what it actually is. It's to belittle skeptics. And because it sounds so ridiculous, and the predictions have failed to deliver time and time again.

Been over this several times.

If you think no-one calls it man made climate change (or words to that effect) then you've been living under a rock. Some say things along the lines of "catastrophic" but chucking that in is trying to muddle the current situation with predictions of the future, which you're only doing to find excuses (as opposed to reasons) to dismiss the whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

Scientists who obtain funding from the government might be biased and scientists who work for corporations (or are funding by them) might be biased. Could you say a little about why you think there is a difference?

There is no difference. But not all research is bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Si1 said:

There are virtually no scientists who don't think climate change is man made. There are so few you could list their names here. Please provide some that you think are worth considering.

I'm not sure any of them are worth considering. I'm asking Captain Kirk why HE thinks they are worth considering. Specifically, I was pointing out that insofar conflicts exist in the private sector as well as the public sector. He doesn't trust climate scientists because they are left-wing and have an incentive to conclude that government solutions are required. Why isn't he similarly suspicious of people who have an incentive to find there is no harm caused by any of the activities of corporations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, dugsbody said:

This has become a culture war, and culture wars are never going to be about facts. The same pattern is repeating in many different forms. Right wing, conservative backlashes against a changing world. 

That's down to the confusion - which happens with a great many people, almost everyone in my experience, of facts and values / desirability. Facts tell you sweet FA about the value of anything so making decisions based on facts alone is essentially making decisions on entirely arbitrary measures - very stupid (so instantly ignore anyone who says anything along the lines of "we need to base our decisions on facts, not emotions" because they've not got a bloody clue why they're doing anything).

On the other hand values / emotions / desires are what tell you what's worth having. You then need a good grasp of the facts to achieve those. In this case that means the values and desires say a world where, for example, sea levels stay where they are is desirable, the facts you need a good grasp of to make sure that's the case being the effects of climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, btd1981 said:

In that extract it says "burning fossil fuels saved plants from extinction"

This is the first I've heard about the (almost) botanical mass extinction event of the last millennium. Any more details, or is it not really true?

PS plants photosynthesise during the day, but they also respire all the time. They probably would have been okay.

However did plants survive before the industrial revolution, when burning fossil fuels was insignificant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I'm not sure any of them are worth considering. I'm asking Captain Kirk why HE thinks they are worth considering. Specifically, I was pointing out that insofar conflicts exist in the private sector as well as the public sector. He doesn't trust climate scientists because they are left-wing and have an incentive to conclude that government solutions are required. Why isn't he similarly suspicious of people who have an incentive to find there is no harm caused by any of the activities of corporations?

Ahh fair enough.

The difference between left wing climate scientists and right wing ones is not in their belief in the core science. The difference is on how they think we can or should respond to it. I know some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Si1 said:

There are virtually no scientists who don't think climate change is man made. There are so few you could list their names here. Please provide some that you think are worth considering.

  •  

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes

These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown

These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Si1 said:

There are virtually no scientists who don't think climate change is man made. There are so few you could list their names here. Please provide some that you think are worth considering.

No person in their right mind should believe that the climate never changed before man arrived. Maybe some religious cults do. So it can't possible be man-made. Also, there are a lot of scientists that don't believe the catastrophic theory, and believe the extra CO2 plant food and any temperature increase that may occur will be beneficial. Some have formed a red team to point out the IPPC's disinformation.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

6 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

If you think no-one calls it man made climate change (or words to that effect) then you've been living under a rock. Some say things along the lines of "catastrophic" but chucking that in is trying to muddle the current situation with predictions of the future, which you're only doing to find excuses (as opposed to reasons) to dismiss the whole thing.

People call it 'climate change' because they've been brainwashed, and I'm helping them recover. It's a tautology anyway, as well as being misleading. The climate has always been changing. How are scientists and people supposed to discuss the real climate when the term 'climate change' has been hijacked by ideologues and cults?

Not only that, the IPPC's theory has been falsified time and time again. How many more times does it need to be falsified before people give up on this failed theory, whatever they want to call it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

However did plants survive before the industrial revolution, when burning fossil fuels was insignificant?

They only just survived. Photosynthesis stops below 150ppm. Photosynthesis in plants started around 1/2 billion years ago and saw a big draw down of the CO2 in the atmosphere from 1000s of ppm to a few 100. This CO2, originally from volcano emissions, is now stored in fossil fuels. We were much closer to an extinction event with 280ppm than we are with 420ppm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

No person in their right mind should believe that the climate never changed before man arrived. Maybe some religious cults do. So it can't possible be man-made. Also, there are a lot of scientists that don't believe the catastrophic theory, and believe the extra CO2 plant food and any temperature increase that may occur will be beneficial. Some have formed a red team to point out the IPPC's disinformation.

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

People call it 'climate change' because they've been brainwashed, and I'm helping them recover. It's a tautology anyway, as well as being misleading. The climate has always been changing. How are scientists and people supposed to discuss the real climate when the term 'climate change' has been hijacked by ideologues and cults?

Not only that, the IPPC's theory has been falsified time and time again. How many more times does it need to be falsified before people give up on this failed theory, whatever they want to call it?

You actually don't understand the first thing about the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Captain Kirk said:

They only just survived. Photosynthesis stops below 150ppm. Photosynthesis in plants started around 1/2 billion years ago and saw a big draw down of the CO2 in the atmosphere from 1000s of ppm to a few 100. This CO2, originally from volcano emissions, is now stored in fossil fuels. We were much closer to an extinction event with 280ppm than we are with 420ppm.

You are not to mention anything that happened before 1850!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 224 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.