Crikey, looks like the true believers have gone nuts in response to this film! Feathers ruffled... 100%
Isn't it funny how the alarmists on here seem to know more than world renowned physicists, including a Nobel Laureate? The film provided a perfectly reasonable and calm interpretation of the available data, referenced its sources, and interviewed highly qualified individuals. Why would this drive people mad?
Contrast this with the Al Gore film from a few years ago or most of the bilge on TV, which show endless footage of thunder and lightning, storms, and wildfires - plus a polar bear floating around on some ice. In other words... emotive and unscientific tripe. Contrast it with all the other gimmicks deployed by the alarmist side... the endless fancy dress (why?), the JSO space cadets gluing themselves to the roads and throwing paint on works of art, news programmes attributing every bit of bad weather to man-made climate change. Shouldn't all of this be more off putting than the film posted here?
I would be surprised if any of the alarmists here can name any scientists, or their research, which support their point of view. They'll go frantically looking now - and will have a lot of sociologists and other grant grifters to sift through, but they don't actually know. Which means that they believe in things allegedly claimed by people who they cannot even name. This is blind faith and belief. All buried in some so called consensus - a political concept by the way, not a scientific one. At best, they'll have heard of Michael Mann - the alarmist who is most famous for his role in faking data.
The truth of the matter is, and those of us with scientific training - or even just basic education and common sense - understand that it isn't possible to KNOW with any certainty what the climate would look like without humans. Short of having a time machine and the ability to change the past and record the outcomes, we are left with hypotheses. There are lots of them. And many many variables. Much that we do not understand at all. The alarmist narrative is based on a lot of modelling which, like their equivalents in economics, epidemiology and other areas, are only attempts to model reality and will reflect all the biases and limitations of those designing them, and the available data, and the customers who the models are being created for. Modelling is almost always wrong, especially when it is being commissioned by governments and vested interests.
It makes no difference to me which side is right, or if both are wrong, what I and other sensible people want to see is more balance, more open discussion, and a more rigorous assessment of the competing claims and possibilities. Not the prevailing situation which sees one side massively promoted and others demonised. That is not scientific guys. Ruining peoples careers, using creepy labels like "denier", and having powerfully emotional responses to reasonable opinions - this is not scientific. It is more like political or religious fervour.
How many other areas of scientific endeavour suffer from this mania? Microbiology, astrophysics, mass spectroscopy? Nope. There is rigorous debate and the scientific method is allowed to operate normally. But then, none of those areas of science are linked to an idea that, by giving politicians more money, the key phenomena can be miraculously transformed.
What is really sad about it all is that climate change is now at the centre of practically all public policy and, if there are problems with the underlying assumptions, grave mistakes are likely to result and vast sums of our wealth will be squandered. It might be timely to remind people that we have recently undergone a similar process where dodgy modelling, commissioned by government, led to the destruction of civil liberties and economic costs that the unborn future generations will still be paying for long after we are all dead. The climate project is on a far more massive scale, and is being managed and promoted by the same clowns who fail at literally everything they interfere in.
A collapsing health service, pot holed roads, mountains of debt, an inability to control borders, worsening law and order, inflation... and more besides. The people who cannot even deliver these things are apparently going to transform the way the climate works if we give them more money? Do you really believe that? My starting point will be to assume that they are wrong and incompetent in all areas. This doesn't mean that "global boiling" isn't happening - as the UN suggested over the summer - what it does mean is that we ought to pause for thought and listen to what people have to say. Attempts to suffocate debate and repress certain perspectives just seems a bit suspicious, to say the least.
I'll leave it at that.
Isn't it funny how the alarmists on here seem to know more than world renowned physicists, including a Nobel Laureate? The film provided a perfectly reasonable and calm interpretation of the available data, referenced its sources, and interviewed highly qualified individuals. Why would this drive people mad?
Contrast this with the Al Gore film from a few years ago or most of the bilge on TV, which show endless footage of thunder and lightning, storms, and wildfires - plus a polar bear floating around on some ice. In other words... emotive and unscientific tripe. Contrast it with all the other gimmicks deployed by the alarmist side... the endless fancy dress (why?), the JSO space cadets gluing themselves to the roads and throwing paint on works of art, news programmes attributing every bit of bad weather to man-made climate change. Shouldn't all of this be more off putting than the film posted here?
I would be surprised if any of the alarmists here can name any scientists, or their research, which support their point of view. They'll go frantically looking now - and will have a lot of sociologists and other grant grifters to sift through, but they don't actually know. Which means that they believe in things allegedly claimed by people who they cannot even name. This is blind faith and belief. All buried in some so called consensus - a political concept by the way, not a scientific one. At best, they'll have heard of Michael Mann - the alarmist who is most famous for his role in faking data.
The truth of the matter is, and those of us with scientific training - or even just basic education and common sense - understand that it isn't possible to KNOW with any certainty what the climate would look like without humans. Short of having a time machine and the ability to change the past and record the outcomes, we are left with hypotheses. There are lots of them. And many many variables. Much that we do not understand at all. The alarmist narrative is based on a lot of modelling which, like their equivalents in economics, epidemiology and other areas, are only attempts to model reality and will reflect all the biases and limitations of those designing them, and the available data, and the customers who the models are being created for. Modelling is almost always wrong, especially when it is being commissioned by governments and vested interests.
It makes no difference to me which side is right, or if both are wrong, what I and other sensible people want to see is more balance, more open discussion, and a more rigorous assessment of the competing claims and possibilities. Not the prevailing situation which sees one side massively promoted and others demonised. That is not scientific guys. Ruining peoples careers, using creepy labels like "denier", and having powerfully emotional responses to reasonable opinions - this is not scientific. It is more like political or religious fervour.
How many other areas of scientific endeavour suffer from this mania? Microbiology, astrophysics, mass spectroscopy? Nope. There is rigorous debate and the scientific method is allowed to operate normally. But then, none of those areas of science are linked to an idea that, by giving politicians more money, the key phenomena can be miraculously transformed.
What is really sad about it all is that climate change is now at the centre of practically all public policy and, if there are problems with the underlying assumptions, grave mistakes are likely to result and vast sums of our wealth will be squandered. It might be timely to remind people that we have recently undergone a similar process where dodgy modelling, commissioned by government, led to the destruction of civil liberties and economic costs that the unborn future generations will still be paying for long after we are all dead. The climate project is on a far more massive scale, and is being managed and promoted by the same clowns who fail at literally everything they interfere in.
A collapsing health service, pot holed roads, mountains of debt, an inability to control borders, worsening law and order, inflation... and more besides. The people who cannot even deliver these things are apparently going to transform the way the climate works if we give them more money? Do you really believe that? My starting point will be to assume that they are wrong and incompetent in all areas. This doesn't mean that "global boiling" isn't happening - as the UN suggested over the summer - what it does mean is that we ought to pause for thought and listen to what people have to say. Attempts to suffocate debate and repress certain perspectives just seems a bit suspicious, to say the least.
I'll leave it at that.
