Climate Change Scenario

Show me the science to back you up.

 

I am sure there is plenty out their either way regardless of what a majority or minority of scientists believe in and sometimes it better to walk alone in the right direction then walk with the crowd off a cliff.
If you talk about climate models and what's going to happen in 10 years or 20 years, well we can't even get the weather right in the next 5 hours. It's a very complex science, understanding the planet. Mars has climate change yet nobody lives there.
The other thing is that it's one thing for people to say that science says this or that but it's what they want you to do. Many climate activists want 100 percent renewables like in 10 years time. Good luck with that and hope one is prepared to going back to a peasant lifestyle of washing your clothes by hand, no hot water or refrigeration becsuse the wind is not blowing today or it's been raining in London for the past month and the solar panels don't work. Oh and by the way, it's only certain countries that are expected to pay for this.
I don't have a problem with renewables and we all want a clean environment but I don't think we are there yet because it's too expensive and it bothers me how political the topic is.

 

Yep, and we're not one of them, we're standing on the sidelines with our eyes closed and our fingers in our ears, yelling that it's not our fault, while our country is burning.

 

"Yes, we could do something against Climate Change, but if in 50 years we found out, that all the scientists were wrong and Climate Change didn't exist, we would have made sure that we can still breathe the air in cities, that rivers aren't toxic, that cars are neither loud nor smelly and that we are not dependent on dictators and their oil, without any real reason. And boy, would we be ****** then"
Marc-Uwe Kling

 

I'm still waiting for your published research.

 

So you are linking the fires to climate change. Does anyone else think that? I thought the fires were caused by lack of back burning of under growth due to pressure from the greens, deliberately lighting the fires and poor planning by governments. Many of the indigenous leaders have come out and made these points with regard to getting rid of the undergrowth fuel. Many of the fires were also started by lightening strikes. Yes we are in a drought but we have always had them.
As far as Australia not doing enough the ABC always roll out the per capita figure when in infact we only produce 1.3 percent of the worlds C02. How can anyone here compare our 18 power stations to the thousands there are in China?

 

Maybe these people, but what would they know?

Former fire chiefs demand urgent action on 'escalating climate change threat'

And maybe these people, but what would they know?

State of the Climate 2018: Bureau of Meteorology

 

Have a look at Lomborgs research on this very topic and see how you view things then. Toxic rivers and car pollution in cities has more to do with land use and population density, ok so if you want to do all the things well you will have to change the way you live completely. Electric cars will not make any difference once your battery goes flat while you are in the harbour tunnel and everyone is stuck because of it,

 

Scientific evidence against against climate change is off topic and would be deleted? Really? Start a new thread then. You can post your evidence there and it will be on topic.

 

Not as much as they think they know. They cannot accurately predict what the climate will be like even if every country went 100 percent renewable. They didn't know between 1945 and 1976 when industrial activity increased marketly yet the planet wsrmed and between 1900 and 1946 when there was less human activity. They have trouble explaining this. The scientists were warning the US in the late 70's that we were heading to a mini ice age but then we warmed. It's a very complicated science and I think many of the facts are being distorted ( both ways) ( Which I can accept but many cannot tolerate ) .

 

Wow another change in direction. You asked:

And an answer was provided. So your personal opinion is that these experts don't know what they are are talking about.

 

One former politician's view 30 years ago @LibGS although to be fair she was also an industrial chemist so I assume well understood the scientific process.

Speech to United Nations General Assembly (Global Environment) | Margaret Thatcher Foundation

 

Rubbish. Remember that PM I sent you the other day where I addressed this which you probably ignored.
Most scientists didn't predict an ice age at all-
https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

As for these outlandish conspiracy theories you highlight, I think I did a good job a few posts back explaining why they are just that.

 

Here we go again

 

Maybe this could help some to understand the underlying method used by researchers - of many branches.

 

What is your point here? Its obvious you don't understand nor believe in science. And imply that current peer reviewed, proven science is somehow linked to a global conspiracy theory.

Post your evidence. I keep asking, you keep deflecting.

 

Um, it could be you've asked the wrong person @LibGS. I didn't post the vid as a means of denying CC. If those who do not consider CC is an issue or is incorrect in its basis then I suppose it is a matter of providing the proof the models are wrong using the underlying methodology to achieve that.

 

No, not deflecting I'm working right now but when I have a chance I will respond to you at detail and at length.

 

Sorry. I was on a cramped moving tram and didn't read it properly. I thought someone else posted. Ahem.

The other typical arguement by the scientifically illiterate is post a video like that and say that CC isn't science because there is a consensus element.

BTW, I have a science degree but I don't work as a scientist. This sort of deliberate ignorance makes me very sad.

 

I don't think it's that. From my perspective it's more about economics. For example if my company has to pay 3 times the amount to use energy than say a Chinese and Indian company, I and all my employees will be out on the street and the jobs get shifted to China and India. That's not ideology, it's reality, it's facts . Here are some ideas with regard to climate change action:
No1: If say the wealthy countries spend billions on going into expensive renewables the net effect on reducing global warming will be minimal and at best may delay any affects by a couple of years especially if others can't do the same. If first world economies struggle do you think poor ones won't?
2. Developing countries like China, India, Africa and Bangladesh can only deal with climate change if the people in their country get out of poverty. To do this they need to be able to afford their electricity because renewables are very expensive, if they get richer then they too can afford expensive renewables, if they can't access cheap energy they stay poor. Nothing will change.
When we talk about ideology and politics getting people to change their lifestyle and change large critical systems like energy production is something that in history and now been the domain of the extreme left and right political structures and large corporations with huge financial interests. It's not the average small business owner that drives this narrative and the policies are anti capitalist and anti wealth building. The flat earth people are more about economy not ideology.