All good questions. I'll say for now (gotta dash) "Karl Popper" and his theory of scientific falsification is a good starting point, but not without reservations.Originally Posted by noel
All good questions. I'll say for now (gotta dash) "Karl Popper" and his theory of scientific falsification is a good starting point, but not without reservations.
Am Yisrael Chai
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
A massive debunk straight from the movie’s Twitter page
https://x.com/mkeulemans/status/1771...SbaMdViefg5XqA
I'm amazed, surprised and saddened that grown men on this forum do not believe that Global warming is happening and that it has a human cause. Ignoring an overwhelming body of sound scientific evidence, and signs all around us. Please don't bother replying to my post, as you can't push water uphill - just keep your heads in the sand. What a legacy we are leaving for our children.
Well said!
It’s like a self feeding cult of bullshit shouters and bullshit believers, and I’m fast losing track of what came first and what nutcase idea will come next. Donald Trump and Boris and loads of others have proven that you can pretty much say anything, anything at all, and there are no end of zealots that will buy the message hook line and sinker and spread it
SecondedWell said!
It’s like a self feeding cult of bullshit shouters and bullshit believers, and I’m fast losing track of what came first and what nutcase idea will come next. Donald Trump and Boris and loads of others have proven that you can pretty much say anything, anything at all, and there are no end of zealots that will buy the message hook line and sinker and spread it
So the last 3 posts sum it up.
MattPo who wants to come in and not be challenged while straw-manning certainly me and I would say Mossdog and the film makers.
And really being careless with his words - "it has a human cause"
Only a human cause?
Or humans have contributed?
You can reply if you like and clarify.
I don't comment on such matters lightly as I have 3 children and 5 grandchildren. Disagree by all means, but deal with the issues.
Brian - for yet again just having a little hissy-fit but not making a cogent point.
Stanley - well you've seconded a word salad
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
I rest my case.
I am reminded of a junior doctor who worked with me many years ago. Medicine was their second degree, so they were several years older than most juniors at their level of medical experience. An excellent doctor - I would have been happy for them to look after me and my family - good company, fun to be with - and yet they were one of those who believed in the literal truth of the bible, and that, for example, the earth was only a few thousand years old.
Their other degree? Physics! We used to discuss relativity and quantum mechanics.
Disagreeing strongly with somebody on an important topic does not make them a bad person.
And when it comes to green issues, climate change "deniers" - a very loose term I know - are probably not trashing the planet any more than climate change believers. Look at some of the founders of The Green Runners - huge carbon footprints.
Regarding whether climate change is problematic, I started out as an agnostic, but as an agnostic I’m sceptical when a group of people claim ‘certainty’. For example, when we have the likes of The Guardian, and other largely Left-wing rags, claiming:
‘Case closed’: 99.9% of scientists agree climate emergency caused by humans: Trawl of 90,000 studies finds consensus, leading to call for Facebook and Twitter to curb disinformation
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...used-by-humans
Even Kim Jong Un would blush to have claimed such overwhelming near unanimous support in his North Korean Socialist paradise.
But just like Kim Jong, and his mate Putin, we read from the Guardian, of an urgent need and “calls to curb ‘disinformation”, that is, to closedown the debate on Science so profoundly that you have to ask whether the climate alarmist agenda is maybe a radical cypher for something else going on - politically and economically ($trillions in maintaining the narrative).
If the climatists’ belief is wrong, this policy’s implication has/is having catastrophic implications for ordinary people on this planet. We see already top-down, we-know-better-than-you-Proles, imposition of policies and the intrusive micro management of our live. Strangely, no referendum here offered to people on policies that will drastically alter their standard of living and their kids. These policies dictate control of what we can eat; how many children we can have; how we travel and how far; what choices we have in the goods we buy; etc.
All justified in the fight to overcome the ever present, just over the horizon, existential crisis. Odd how these often appear to eminent from a negative view of humankind. And just in case you’re getting too confident, just today I heard on the BBC that…wait for it…the climate crisis is ”slowing the earth’s rotation’. If that carries on dogs will walk backwards; bananas will grow straight; we’ll all be doomed to watching contest repeats of It’s A Knock Out.
These radical environmentalists even plan to criminalise large-scale industrial enterprise (but only in the West - so China, India and elsewhere get a free pass to keep on polluting and gaining global power). To be more precise, they plan to categorise wealth-producing and job-creating activities as a crime known as “ecocide,” a transgression that activists want legislated internationally as “the fifth international crime against peace.” Ecocide would equate large-scale development activities with genocide, ethnic cleansing, wars of aggression, and crimes against humanity – actions that could land their perpetrators in the dock at the International Criminal Court in The Hague.
The “ecocide” movement pretends it aims to prevent pollution, but it is really a spear aimed at the heart of capitalism, intended to throttle human thriving in the name of “saving the planet.” Indeed, it is important to note that ecocide would not be limited to punishing polluters. Rather, practically any large-scale human enterprise that makes use of the fruits of the Earth would qualify as a potentially heinous “crime against peace.” The stop-ecocide website https://www.stopecocide.earth/ includes not just polluting but non-polluting industries. Some environmentalists even include electricity-generating windmills, because they kill millions of birds each year.
Am Yisrael Chai
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote