Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Climate change and by extension global warming is a ruse Watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    You're like the people who thought MMR led to autism and didn't vacinate their children because one report by someone who wasent even qualified 'sort of' suggested a link. Despite the other 99% of reports not showing one.
    The MMR scandal has far more congruence with the case for AGW than the case against.



    You're calling all the scientists and IPCC corrupt and in if for the money. They can't spend that money on themselves, it's a research grant that's paid to science councils to do research and produce results with. Sure they get paid for the job they do but that is a fixed salary and everyone who has a job gets paid, they are all corrupt too I suppose?
    There's far more at stake than money. For scientists - what is the ultimate prize? Publication, worldwide fame and the knowledge that you were the first. It's pretty well established that the early IPCC report was nonsensical, highly selectively edited and based on some extremely questionable science. It's not good enough to just say "Well, everything that came later on and was good, agreed with the bad science". There has to be acknowledgement of the bad stuff and a clear out in order to move on.

    Like I keep saying - this would not be acceptable practise in any other field of science. What later scientists should have done is utterly torn apart the bad science, instead of trying to stand on top of it, regardless of the merits (or not) of their own work.

    Now there are too many people who stand to lose absolutely everything as scientists, and they can't go back.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    The MMR scandal has far more congruence with the case for AGW than the case against.

    There's far more at stake than money. For scientists - what is the ultimate prize? Publication, worldwide fame and the knowledge that you were the first. It's pretty well established that the early IPCC report was nonsensical, highly selectively edited and based on some extremely questionable science. It's not good enough to just say "Well, everything that came later on and was good, agreed with the bad science". There has to be acknowledgement of the bad stuff and a clear out in order to move on.

    Like I keep saying - this would not be acceptable practise in any other field of science. What later scientists should have done is utterly torn apart the bad science, instead of trying to stand on top of it, regardless of the merits (or not) of their own work.

    Now there are too many people who stand to lose absolutely everything as scientists, and they can't go back.
    I cannot believe you've be so small minded when so much is at stake? Yeah, clearly the scientific cumunity is so selfish that they want their name on a page.

    So even if there was some poor science at one point, thats ground to throw any and all reasearch by everyone out? The Earth's climate is possible the most complicated thing humans have ever researched. It's not as if there is even a slightly measureable cost to effecting change now when you compare it to the potential minefield and cost we could face in the future if we don't. Even after that, we need a more sustainable and greener world anyway, we should be working towords that by default!

    Like I said before, you don't even need any complicated science to know AGW is happening. It's just inconvienient to people because they'll have to change and they don't want to do that so they'll try and dismiss it in their minds any which way they can with what ever rubbish they can think up.

    Let me get this straight, you'd rather live in blissful ignorance, discharging endless amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere (which, alongside AGW, is already a massive health issue) than listen to the scientific community because you think somewhere along the line they didn't get some of it right and all scientists involved with climate research, globally are all in it for the money (what money? LOL), despite all the $$$'s that are pumped into climate change denial groups and then cling to the tinyest hope that climate catastrophy won't happen rather than effect a change and be sure it doesn't.

    Whatever, if we're to avoid any potential scenario we needed to change about 10 years ago, instead we're still debating crap about it because people are too stubborn to change.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I cannot believe you've be so small minded when so much is at stake? Yeah, clearly the scientific cumunity is so selfish that they want their name on a page.

    So even if there was some poor science at one point, thats ground to throw any and all reasearch by everyone out? The Earth's climate is possible the most complicated thing humans have ever researched. It's not as if there is even a slightly measureable cost to effecting change now when you compare it to the potential minefield and cost we could face in the future if we don't. Even after that, we need a more sustainable and greener world anyway, we should be working towords that by default!

    Like I said before, you don't even need any complicated science to know AGW is happening. It's just inconvienient to people because they'll have to change and they don't want to do that so they'll try and dismiss it in their minds any which way they can with what ever rubbish they can think up.

    Let me get this straight, you'd rather live in blissful ignorance, discharging endless amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere (which, alongside AGW, is already a massive health issue) than listen to the scientific community because you think somewhere along the line they didn't get some of it right and all scientists involved with climate research, globally are all in it for the money (what money? LOL), despite all the $$$'s that are pumped into climate change denial groups and then cling to the tinyest hope that climate catastrophy won't happen rather than effect a change and be sure it doesn't.

    Whatever, if we're to avoid any potential scenario we needed to change about 10 years ago, instead we're still debating crap about it because people are too stubborn to change.
    Well said but unfortunately, he's heard all of this before. I've probably told him all of this over a dozen times myself. He's not going to change his point of view when faced with reason and logic, his beliefs on this topic are unfortunately too stubborn to change in the face of evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It is not always the case, but I think a lot of "denialism" derives from a weakness of ideological conviction. Many feel that the threat of climate change would justify political stances that they would otherwise disagree with, and they therefore deny climate change in order to maintain their political outlook. If they were to concede that there was anthropogenic climate change, they feel that their case would be irreparably damaged. This would at least explain why so many "denialists" are slanted to the right, as they are typically averse to the governmental intervention that is often justified under the "green banner".

    I too underwent difficulty in this regard. Ultimately, rather than denying climate change or giving way to the political proposals of a certain crowd, my belief strengthened in a smaller state as both a morally desirable policy and a practically preferable solution to the problems of climate change. A lot of people don't take this route.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pegasus2)
    I cannot believe you've be so small minded when so much is at stake? Yeah, clearly the scientific cumunity is so selfish that they want their name on a page.

    So even if there was some poor science at one point, thats ground to throw any and all reasearch by everyone out? The Earth's climate is possible the most complicated thing humans have ever researched. It's not as if there is even a slightly measureable cost to effecting change now when you compare it to the potential minefield and cost we could face in the future if we don't. Even after that, we need a more sustainable and greener world anyway, we should be working towords that by default!

    Like I said before, you don't even need any complicated science to know AGW is happening. It's just inconvienient to people because they'll have to change and they don't want to do that so they'll try and dismiss it in their minds any which way they can with what ever rubbish they can think up.

    Let me get this straight, you'd rather live in blissful ignorance, discharging endless amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere (which, alongside AGW, is already a massive health issue) than listen to the scientific community because you think somewhere along the line they didn't get some of it right and all scientists involved with climate research, globally are all in it for the money (what money? LOL), despite all the $$$'s that are pumped into climate change denial groups and then cling to the tinyest hope that climate catastrophy won't happen rather than effect a change and be sure it doesn't.

    Whatever, if we're to avoid any potential scenario we needed to change about 10 years ago, instead we're still debating crap about it because people are too stubborn to change.
    This has been exactly the same attitude in science throughout history. In fact, it's more surprising when scientists don't act "selfishly". There are dozens if not hundreds of cases of scientists rejecting new theories and jealously protecting their own.

    Anything you might accuse me of applies equally to yourself. You have an interest and a bias and cannot look at the science objectively. You've decided that there is an impending global catastrophe, and no matter what faults are shown with the existing scientific base for that, you are going to look to support that hypothesis, rather than the observational data.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    This has been exactly the same attitude in science throughout history. In fact, it's more surprising when scientists don't act "selfishly". There are dozens if not hundreds of cases of scientists rejecting new theories and jealously protecting their own.

    Anything you might accuse me of applies equally to yourself. You have an interest and a bias and cannot look at the science objectively. You've decided that there is an impending global catastrophe, and no matter what faults are shown with the existing scientific base for that, you are going to look to support that hypothesis, rather than the observational data.
    I came to my conclusions after studying and reseaching it at Uni. What more could you actually ask for? Yes I have an interest, that doesn't make me bias....I can't really be bias because I don't have anything to gain or lose. I don't get paid to try and change peoples opinion. Humanity on the other hand has everything to lose.

    I have decided there is a threat..... after looking at various respected research......as any normal person does to gain an informed opinion on a subject.

    You've also yet to actually show any of this magic data you claim is falsified or which parts of the IPCC report you claim are false. Where is this mystery data?

    Have you even read the IPCC report? Where did you find this data that didn't tally? Have you seen it? Have you even picked up a climate change journal? ... or is that what you've heard?

    It's not as if changing to become more sustinable is bad or has a down side? "Oh no, we've spent some money, cleaned the air, cleaned the water....we've been tricked!"
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.