The climate grift #358

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

So you really think you know more about this than, say, James Lovelock, Companion of Honour and Fellow of the Royal Society, who came up with Gaia theory?

He invented the electron capture detector and, using it, became the first to detect the widespread presence of chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere. While designing scientific instruments for NASA, he developed the Gaia hypothesis. ...... He also worked for MI5 and was the real life Q.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock

And you, despite never having studied this academically, think you know more about this subject than he does?

This is as bad as speaking to the pro-Palestine lot who've only ever heard of the Balfour Declaration but know nothing about the history of Palestine from the late Ottoman period onwards when I've got a ****ing first in Imperial History.

If you really think you know more than the experts who've devoted their entire lives to studying subjects then you have no idea how academia works.

---

easy, Tiger.

I know academia works for whoever is funding it. Just like everything else.

My mind about this was swayed years ago by a visit to GeoMon in Amlwch and their scientific explanation on rock formation and the climate 000'a of years ago. All of which, humans had little or no affect upon. Including the average temperature being way above what it is now. There is a reason the starting point for all these current measures was chosen to be in the 1800s.

https://specials-images.forbesimg.co....jpg?fit=scale


Many believe an ideology not a science. Is prolific truant, Greta Thunberg a scientific expert? I thought not, yet one of the most influencial in this area, and she's basically come out as a rabid lefty - who knew? Who is funding her?

Extinction Rebellion? bunch of Marxist ****s again - http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...t-the-climate/

Just Stop Oil, the same.

Even Chuck was spectacularly wrong on climate http://www.independent.co.uk/climate...s-1738049.html


We'll disagree on this, shall we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

The Indian umpire seemed slightly biased, 3x umpires call decisions that all went India's way.......

---

Had to admit, I called not out straight away to all of them. I was surprised at how close they were.

I dont mind an umpire who isn't easily swayed... but then I was a batsman :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

But you are more of a Radio Gaga man, arent you :-)

---

I believe we previously put the Queen debate to bed.

You've raised it again, p. #noveltyact

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Had to admit, I called not out straight away to all of them. I was surprised at how close they were.

I dont mind an umpire who isn't easily swayed... but then I was a batsman :-)

---

Thought the one he padded up to was out, they should always be given out, imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

You have to listen to them differently, they are an odd band where the rhythm section are the lead instruments. I get it now. They are fantastic at their best. If you dont like Wont Get Fooled Again then you may as well not bother with the rest....

I think Who's Next and Quadrophenia are fantastic albums.

But you are more of a Radio Gaga man, arent you :-)

---

Well, if by a Radio Gaga man you mean that I can appreciate any kind of music based solely on its merits without any external, often sociologically based, biases, then yes you are right :-)

I like What's Next, Quadrophenia is too much Who for me. I think if you love traditional R&B as I do, you will always struggle with Entwhistle and Moon as a rhythm section, and I do. I would admit a blind spot with WGFA, I think I may have been subjected to it once when I had an apocalyptic hangover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

Well, if by a Radio Gaga man you mean that I can appreciate any kind of music based solely on its merits without any external, often sociologically based, biases, then yes you are right :-)

I like What's Next, Quadrophenia is too much Who for me. I think if you love traditional R&B as I do, you will always struggle with Entwhistle and Moon as a rhythm section, and I do. I would admit a blind spot with WGFA, I think I may have been subjected to it once when I had an apocalyptic hangover.

---

Ah, well... you see I was plagued by The Who as a kid. My parents never stopped playing it and droning on about it. So I have what young people today would describe as 'trauma' :-)

Quadrophenia isn't everyone's cup of tea, I get that. Good film, though :-)

I've been listening to Tim Buckley recently. Weird *******, but there are some real gems in there.

I've no idea what you are getting at with sociological bias. I like Hammer to Fall. Radio Gaga is just a rotten song. Pap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PSRB

Thought the one he padded up to was out, they should always be given out, imo

---

Live I thought it was not out, but on replay you could see the pad was still moving outside off after impact, which skews the view of it. Watching the replays I thought it was hitting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

Be careful with the deference to expertise, there. This is one of my concerns. You read all the experts and, as you say, you can understand it without really understanding chemisty, or biology. But you cannot challenge it....

---

I get what you're saying but with the degrees I took seriously {at the LSE aged 18-21 I was just doing drugs} when I did OU History BA and then a UKC WW1 studies MA late 30s and late 40s, I get how an academic consensus work. How theories are developed and challenged and evolve through peer review and research building on previous research.

So while I can't challenge what they say about the release of sub-sea methane, for example, will do to the planet, I can understand that if all these experts are saying very similar things, but with just slightly different models giving slightly different weights to the myriad variables in the multiple regressions then they probably know what they're talking about.

Also, all those feedback loops that were predicted in that book Six Degrees, in part based on the work of James Lovelock {and the author also read all the papers in the centre for it at Cambridge} have since started to come to pass.

The idea when it was written was that at 2C, the polar ice caps melt. {That's why it was always about keeping the rise below 2C in the '90s.} With less white to reflect the sun and more dark water to absorb the heat, the temp rises to 3C. Then the forests like Amazon, Canada and Siberia burn. This raises it to 4C and the tundra melts releasing C02 and methane raising it to 5C. And that causes the release of all the subsea methane at the oceanic plate boundaries and that last happened 252mya for the Permian Mass Extinction as it rose to 6C and most life died.

And all those feedback loops are already starting to happen. The polar caps haven't fully melted, yet we're already seeing burning forests {not just tropical Amazon, but Canada at 38C ffs} and the melting tundra and even the start of the subsea methane.

So while I can't challenge the facts in a subject I don't understand, I can understand the way an academic consensus has come about and have watched as the predictions come true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult

I get what you're saying but with the degrees I took seriously {at the LSE aged 18-21 I was just doing drugs} when I did OU History BA and then a UKC WW1 studies MA late 30s and late 40s, I get how an academic consensus work. How theories are developed and challenged and evolve through peer review and research building on previous research.

So while I can't challenge what they say about the release of sub-sea methane, for example, will do to the planet, I can understand that if all these experts are saying very similar things, but with just slightly different models giving slightly different weights to the myriad variables in the multiple regressions then they probably know what they're talking about.

Also, all those feedback loops that were predicted in that book Six Degrees, in part based on the work of James Lovelock {and the author also read all the papers in the centre for it at Cambridge} have since started to come to pass.

The idea when it was written was that at 2C, the polar ice caps melt. {That's why it was always about keeping the rise below 2C in the '90s.} With less white to reflect the sun and more dark water to absorb the heat, the temp rises to 3C. Then the forests like Amazon, Canada and Siberia burn. This raises it to 4C and the tundra melts releasing C02 and methane raising it to 5C. And that causes the release of all the subsea methane at the oceanic plate boundaries and that last happened 252mya for the Permian Mass Extinction as it rose to 6C and most life died.

And all those feedback loops are already starting to happen. The polar caps haven't fully melted, yet we're already seeing burning forests {not just tropical Amazon, but Canada at 38C ffs} and the melting tundra and even the start of the subsea methane.

So while I can't challenge the facts in a subject I don't understand, I can understand the way an academic consensus has come about and have watched as the predictions come true.

---

I get what you're saying. I think my cynicism around the whole thing is based on the hopelessness of it. Seems the only way you make a difference is by the entire world signing up to fundamental changes tot he way we live. And that just isn't realistic. It isn't how international politics or economics work.

So we just focus on charging people more for stuff and destroying art and sporting events.

If it is all true, we are ****ed. I prefer to focus on cheerier things like war, famine, genocide and The Who ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter

If it is all true, we are ****ed. I prefer to focus on cheerier things like war, famine, genocide and The Who ...

---

The Who being the least cheeriest of that group...