keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Oct 30, 2021 22:40:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 31, 2021 0:04:39 GMT
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 31, 2021 8:22:07 GMT
Whatever happened to tolerance and allowing other viewpoints to be heard in a civil manner? There are sensible, reasoned alternative viewpoints. And there are simple denials of inconvenient reality. And there are lunatic conspiracy theories. Should they all be treated equally? Should they all get equal consideration? Your starter for ten: Who famously said in 1985 that "we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend", before introducing legislation that made it illegal for the voices of people with certain political affiliations to be broadcast on television and radio, leading to the surreal situation of news broadcasters using actors to dub their words over footage of them speaking?
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Oct 31, 2021 12:55:49 GMT
Whatever happened to tolerance and allowing other viewpoints to be heard in a civil manner? There are sensible, reasoned alternative viewpoints. And there are simple denials of inconvenient reality. And there are lunatic conspiracy theories. Should they all be treated equally? Should they all get equal consideration? It sounds like you've already made your judgement on the matter, and fair enough, because most (but by no means all) experts and scientists align with you. Nevertheless, IMHO, we must always allow room for continuing debate. Should new evidence emerge, there must remain a vehicle to promulgate that.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 31, 2021 13:09:13 GMT
There are sensible, reasoned alternative viewpoints. And there are simple denials of inconvenient reality. And there are lunatic conspiracy theories. Should they all be treated equally? Should they all get equal consideration? It sounds like you've already made your judgement on the matter, and fair enough, because most (but by no means all) experts and scientists align with you. Where there has been a divergence from the consensus on climate change in recent years, it has almost always turned out to be peddling junk science, funded by vested interests. And remember who the big players that are missing from COP26 are... Russia and Saudi - economies based almost entirely on fossil fuels. China - a country of two halves, massive economic interest in renewables, but massive energy shortfalls caused by rapid growth. But should we read too much into their absence anyway? Xi hasn't travelled outside the country once since Covid started. He'll be participating by video. And which COP-attendee G20 country has the highest per capita carbon emissions? Australia. Because they have massive coal vested interests... Absolutely. And peer-reviewed sound science will inherently do that, if and when that new evidence credibly emerges. That's the thing about doing science properly. Previous assumptions and hypotheses are constantly being tested and revised, based on new evidence. And, yes, sometimes that leads to previous assumptions being proved wrong.
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,247
Likes: 2,692
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Oct 31, 2021 13:28:11 GMT
It sounds like you've already made your judgement on the matter, and fair enough, because most (but by no means all) experts and scientists align with you. Where there has been a divergence from the consensus on climate change in recent years, it has almost always turned out to be peddling junk science, funded by vested interests. And remember who the big players that are missing from COP26 are... Russia and Saudi - economies based almost entirely on fossil fuels. China - a country of two halves, massive economic interest in renewables, but massive energy shortfalls caused by rapid growth. But should we read too much into their absence anyway? Xi hasn't travelled outside the country once since Covid started. He'll be participating by video. And which COP-attendee G20 country has the highest per capita carbon emissions? Australia. Because they have massive coal vested interests... Absolutely. And peer-reviewed sound science will inherently do that, if and when that new evidence credibly emerges. That's the thing about doing science properly. Previous assumptions and hypotheses are constantly being tested and revised, based on new evidence. And, yes, sometimes that leads to previous assumptions being proved wrong. Assuming the anti man made climate change folk are right, we can do nothing about what is happening to the climate and we're all doomed (as someone said ). If it is man made there is something we can do about it and maybe we're not doomed, so let's go with the scenario where we can do something, and let's not wait until it's too late. And as a by product we improve people's lives by reducing air pollution, I remember the London Pea Souper fogs (smogs) of the 50s (where many people died of lung problems) and you see the smogs in China and other highly fossil fuel powered countries now so it's a win win anyway to reduce emissions.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,892
Likes: 2,767
|
Post by michaelc on Oct 31, 2021 13:29:09 GMT
Whatever happened to tolerance and allowing other viewpoints to be heard in a civil manner? There are sensible, reasoned alternative viewpoints. And there are simple denials of inconvenient reality. And there are lunatic conspiracy theories. Should they all be treated equally? Should they all get equal consideration? Your starter for ten: Who famously said in 1985 that "we must try to find ways to starve the terrorist and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend", before introducing legislation that made it illegal for the voices of people with certain political affiliations to be broadcast on television and radio, leading to the surreal situation of news broadcasters using actors to dub their words over footage of them speaking? Thatcher of course and I disagreed with it then.... Surely you are not suggesting though that someone like me who considers the only factual events to be historical ones* as "bad" in your eyes as someone who blows up innocent people ? * Do you know for 100% that the days in the northern hemisphere will get shorter this Winter? Do you know that decidious trees will shed their leaves? You know they did last winter so can be 100% sure of that but does it mean you will call someone a "denier" if he questions whether the phenomenon will continue? As an aside, if I had lost (I haven't) any relative that I knew to medical torture over a prolonged period and forced to murder other children and babies in the concentration camps I think I would be rightfully angry at the use of the word "denier" to mean anyone you don't agree with. It was for decades a special word (in context) that has been picked up by some to enforce the importance of their arguments.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,012
Likes: 4,824
|
Post by adrianc on Oct 31, 2021 13:43:38 GMT
As an aside, if I had lost (I haven't) any relative that I knew to medical torture over a prolonged period and forced to murder other children and babies in the concentration camps I think I would be rightfully angry at the use of the word "denier" to mean anyone you don't agree with. It was for decades a special word (in context) that has been picked up by some to enforce the importance of their arguments. Umm, the holocaust is not the only thing that's ever been denied. The word has a much longer and wider history. It simply means "one who denies", and is documented back to the 14th century, from the Latin verb denegare, to reject or refuse. Not that I used the word "denier". But when I do, then it is not simply because I disagree with people, but because they are... denying some reality. (Although there are certainly parallels - and often overlaps - with holocaust deniers and deniers of other realities... Climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, freemen on the land, flat-earthers, 9/11 "truthers", Trump supporters, (insert loon-du-jour) etc etc etc.) And as for days getting shorter and trees losing their leaves... <looks out of window>
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,875
Likes: 2,313
|
Post by keitha on Oct 31, 2021 23:34:10 GMT
And you see the smogs in China and other highly fossil fuel powered countries now so it's a win win anyway to reduce emissions. I have a friend in China, there are no smogs !
The party says there are no smogs, so there are no smogs
They just have a lot of foggy or misty days now
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2021 13:14:53 GMT
I used to regularly visit China with a select group of senior managers and it became very apparant that we all began to get chest illnesses. Early visitors used to jog in the street or the park but later visitors tended to use the hotel gyms especially those with high level filters. The particulate levels in some cities are terrible as pointed out by the US embassy (do you remember the arguements about that). My Chinese staff did everything they could to keep dust and un filtered air out of our factory units, really not nice. "Even the dogs in the street know". Yet more examples of deniers. No one group own the expression. But the truth will get out no matter how many key-board warriors think they know more about stuff than multiple world wide scientists. See also Vax, Climate change etc etc
|
|