By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Climate change 'experts' have finally admitted they've been talking bóllocks for years and wish to apologise to the most gullible in society. Apparently, the man made stuff was way off the mark. Who knew?
Now, how do we get the trillion pounds back they took off the tax payers of the world?
Funnily enough the 'experts' (people who studied, learnt and researched their entire lives - like the scientists who invented the medicines that keep your family alive when they're ill) are actually the most reliable source of information.
Or maybe we we should go on the totally unfounded opinions of 'stevec'
You'd better be a troll because it just laughable otherwise. You and Donald Trump can be very happy together
Started to doubt myself there for a second, perhaps I am a Troll, so read the report again.
Fortunately, for my own sanity, the latest scientific report for the Intergovernmental panel on climate change still says what it said when I read it yesterday.
Scientists admit ' the computer models they have been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned'.
The good news is you don't have to rely on the unfounded opinions of 'stevec' anymore. Which is a weight off my back.
"A number of media reports have asserted that our [study] indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false. Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial [levels]."
"A number of media reports have asserted that our [study] indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false. Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial [levels]."
Yes but that's. It what Fix News is reporting and we all know that Fox is the only channel that doesn't do fake news... Jeees!
Why are those on the right so determined to undermine a cleaner environment.
Surely your own eyes and senses tell you that emissions are not good for you and harm both the planet and you individually. Being environmentally friendly is surely an intuitive thing to be.
Leaving aside the obvious tripe in the OP, your first sentence is worth thinking about seriously.
Leaving aside massive vested interests, there was an interesting take on this from a US Republican politician who switched from climate change denial to campaigning for lower carbon emissions. (Sadly, it screwed his career as he was de-sected by his own party at the next Primaries).
His point was that the arguments for action on the environment usually came from liberal-ish people (even if they weren't politically active, they were the sort of people who looked as if they'd be liberals and probably were, i.e. academics, hippies etc.) and were put in terms that made sense to liberals. That straight away made conservatives distrust them.
He said that to win over right-wingers environmentalists had to articulate it in terms that right-wingers could understand - in the US that meant arguing that God wouldn't want us to screw up the world he gave us, and that saving the environment of the USA was the patriotic thing to do.
Started to doubt myself there for a second, perhaps I am a Troll, so read the report again.
Fortunately, for my own sanity, the latest scientific report for the Intergovernmental panel on climate change still says what it said when I read it yesterday.
Scientists admit ' the computer models they have been using to predict runaway global warming are wrong, the planet has stubbornly refused to heat up anywhere near as much as they’d warned'.
The good news is you don't have to rely on the unfounded opinions of 'stevec' anymore. Which is a weight off my back.
So you're accepting some new 'experts' opinions now? I thought 'experts' couldn't be trusted and you didn't believe them? Or was that only when they said something you, for some weird backward politcal reasoning, didn't like?
Leaving aside the obvious tripe in the OP, your first sentence is worth thinking about seriously.
Leaving aside massive vested interests, there was an interesting take on this from a US Republican politician who switched from climate change denial to campaigning for lower carbon emissions. (Sadly, it screwed his career as he was de-sected by his own party at the next Primaries).
His point was that the arguments for action on the environment usually came from liberal-ish people (even if they weren't politically active, they were the sort of people who looked as if they'd be liberals and probably were, i.e. academics, hippies etc.) and were put in terms that made sense to liberals. That straight away made conservatives distrust them.
He said that to win over right-wingers environmentalists had to articulate it in terms that right-wingers could understand - in the US that meant arguing that God wouldn't want us to screw up the world he gave us, and that saving the environment of the USA was the patriotic thing to do.
I think you're being far to generous there. The truth is that the right wing political class are so badly compromised by lobbying and interest groups, that they pursue an anti environmental agenda regardless. The general public who support this polical viewpoint follow along without any real scrutiny of the facts and seize upon any news cycle that supports their position. Absolutely shocking state of affairs.
I think you're being far to generous there. The truth is that the right wing political class are so badly compromised by lobbying and interest groups, that they pursue an anti environmental agenda regardless. The general public who support this polical viewpoint follow along without any real scrutiny of the facts and seize upon any news cycle that supports their position. Absolutely shocking state of affairs.
[Post edited 21 Sep 2017 20:43]
If "the right-wing" means e.g. Nigel Lawson or Donald Trump, then I agree.
But if you're talking about "right-wing" voters - the ordinary Conservative who thinks climate change is just one of those things like health and safety or political correctness gone mad - who thinks addressing it is left-wing even though there's nothing ideological about the science and Maggie Thatcher got it - then it is a different problem.
Sure they may be lacking onto whatever newspaper story that involves least personal sacrifice, but if you want to change their minds then you need to pitch it in terms that they care about. If they change then the likes of Trump and Lawson are screwed because without the voters they can't operate.
We Were Wrong, Climate Scientists Concede How The IPCC And Climate Alarmists Hid The Good New About Global Warming
The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said. --Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017
Leaving aside the obvious tripe in the OP, your first sentence is worth thinking about seriously.
Leaving aside massive vested interests, there was an interesting take on this from a US Republican politician who switched from climate change denial to campaigning for lower carbon emissions. (Sadly, it screwed his career as he was de-sected by his own party at the next Primaries).
His point was that the arguments for action on the environment usually came from liberal-ish people (even if they weren't politically active, they were the sort of people who looked as if they'd be liberals and probably were, i.e. academics, hippies etc.) and were put in terms that made sense to liberals. That straight away made conservatives distrust them.
He said that to win over right-wingers environmentalists had to articulate it in terms that right-wingers could understand - in the US that meant arguing that God wouldn't want us to screw up the world he gave us, and that saving the environment of the USA was the patriotic thing to do.
"Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
