Road rules2 mins ago
Greta
Doesn’t that Swedish person ever go to school or does she think she knows it all already?
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
She’s off to Davos now for a world summit.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by MWG14. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//When you keep reaching the wrong conclusions then that's open to debate.//
Ah, the ‘wrong’ conclusions. That’ll be it then. Odd how everything that comes from the layman who has opposing opinions is dismissed in favour of that which comes from the self-professed ‘expert’ - who in reality isn’t an ‘expert’ on climate change - or cosmology - at all. Funny old world.
Ah, the ‘wrong’ conclusions. That’ll be it then. Odd how everything that comes from the layman who has opposing opinions is dismissed in favour of that which comes from the self-professed ‘expert’ - who in reality isn’t an ‘expert’ on climate change - or cosmology - at all. Funny old world.
Stop listening to any one scientist, or even a few scientists, in particular, TL. It's a mistake to focus on personalities. Focus on the science itself, and I've made my suggestion for how best to go about that -- nobody starts learning to swim by crossing the channel.
Nobody is wrong because I say so, either. I wish it were that easy. But TL is wrong on cosmology, and people in this thread are wrong about the causes of the fires, because it's demonstrably so.
Nobody is wrong because I say so, either. I wish it were that easy. But TL is wrong on cosmology, and people in this thread are wrong about the causes of the fires, because it's demonstrably so.
//people in this thread are wrong about the causes of the fires, because it's demonstrably so. //
Jim, there have been various theories on the causes of the fires - any, or all, of which may be accurate. As far as you're concerned there is only one cause - but as you say no one is wrong just because you say so.
Jim, there have been various theories on the causes of the fires - any, or all, of which may be accurate. As far as you're concerned there is only one cause - but as you say no one is wrong just because you say so.
Some theories are clearly more accurate than others. And it's also manifestly clear that people who cite arson, or human errors due to drunken parties, as a possible source, are doing so to distract attention from a different and far more plausible explanation.
As a matter of accuracy, I should acknowledge that no-one can be certain that climate change is the ultimate cause of this or indeed any other extreme weather event. But it's far and away the most likely driving factor. Australia had suffered a prolonged drought, has experienced several record-breaking temperatures, and the weather in turn is driven by other freak conditions. Such conditions are only going to get more frequent in a climate change scenario. In those circumstances, when action can be taken that is highly likely to at least reduce that threat, why wait until we reach the impossible standard of certainty before trying to do something about it?
As a matter of accuracy, I should acknowledge that no-one can be certain that climate change is the ultimate cause of this or indeed any other extreme weather event. But it's far and away the most likely driving factor. Australia had suffered a prolonged drought, has experienced several record-breaking temperatures, and the weather in turn is driven by other freak conditions. Such conditions are only going to get more frequent in a climate change scenario. In those circumstances, when action can be taken that is highly likely to at least reduce that threat, why wait until we reach the impossible standard of certainty before trying to do something about it?
-- answer removed --
An explanation need not be certain to be overwhelmingly the most likely. Indeed, it's just as well, because absolute certainty is impossible.
What is the more sensible: seeking increasingly outlandish excuses to ignore the problem, or tackling that problem head-on? Relying on drunken louts, or arson, or measures that are at best only defensive as reasons simply flies I the face of so much evidence. I make and will continue to make no apology for advocating the most plausible explanation and promoting the most pragmatic response. Human activity is impacting the planet, human activity can change to reduce that impact.
What is the more sensible: seeking increasingly outlandish excuses to ignore the problem, or tackling that problem head-on? Relying on drunken louts, or arson, or measures that are at best only defensive as reasons simply flies I the face of so much evidence. I make and will continue to make no apology for advocating the most plausible explanation and promoting the most pragmatic response. Human activity is impacting the planet, human activity can change to reduce that impact.
https:/
Caveat: The above article contains quotes from scientists, so they could all be part of the conspiracy. Best policy: trust no-one, unless they agree with what you already believe, then they're probably ok.
Caveat: The above article contains quotes from scientists, so they could all be part of the conspiracy. Best policy: trust no-one, unless they agree with what you already believe, then they're probably ok.
The world needs to reduce carbon emissions - true, but things are not as bad as some (& some on here) would have us believe; Britain’s CO2 emissions peaked in 1973 and are now at their lowest level since Victorian times. Air pollution has plummeted since then, with sulphur dioxide levels down 95 per cent. Britain’s population is rising but its energy consumption peaked in 2001 and has since fallen by 19 per cent.
Prince Charles flying to Davos in his private jet, to play the 'environmentally woke' card telling us how we have to behave doesn't exactly help the cause.
Prince Charles flying to Davos in his private jet, to play the 'environmentally woke' card telling us how we have to behave doesn't exactly help the cause.
My interpretation of the figures is that we in the UK have reduced carbon emissions signifcantly but this reduction has been more than offset by huge increases in other countries, mainly India, China and US. Do we stand by or do we try to influence. I'd agree though that Extinction Rebellion and many others focus on us as soft targets as they know they will get no sympathy in China etc
