Firefighter blames the greens

Originally posted by Parsifal: ↑

are you serious? The group of scientists who won a nobel prize many years ago for their work that contributed to an understanding of climate change are now getting a little on in years. At least one of them who I know personally is nearly 70 and worked on his science tirelessly for decades starting in the early 1970s. He didn’t start out looking for proof of climate change but his work on atmospheric CO2 led him to be a convinced climate change activist. The international team he worked with aren’t exactly spring chickens either. He’s no raving looney. He’s no impressionable idiot. He’s thoughtful, careful, clever and kind. He’s unbelievably meticulous about his science. He has more integrity then almost anyone else I know.

He also has a view on the millions of dollars pumped into the opposing side by those with interests in oil, coal and other industries that are not exactly climate friendly. It’s quite possible that the indoctrinated and pseudo scientists are in fact those who have chosen to believe their propaganda

the thing is that whatever we believe we have to sustain that even if we have no idea what we are talking about. Even if we haven’t done the science. Even if we haven’t read everything we can and tried to work out what follows scientific principles and what doesn’t. Humans have to do that. To some extent we are all - you included - indoctrinated. It’s just that it’s much easier to suggest that those who don’t agree with us are the ones with the problem. It’s actually a form of fundamentalism.

I’ve had people quote so called scientists at me and yet when you go to source I find they either don’t have the science background that justifies them as an expert or the source document says something entirely different from the way it is later twisted. There’s layer upon layer of misinterpretation.

you know if I have a choice of believing a man for whom I have enormous respect or someone accusing others of being indoctrinated and stupid or following Stalinist science I know who I prefer to listen to. I haven’t done the science myself and so I would never stand and express an unequivocal position on it but I can follow logic compared with rhetoric.

Btw Stalin was in fact responsible for the idiotic idea that you could grow cotton in land ill suited to the purpose by draining the Aral Sea and so causing the most enormous ecological disaster. Somewhat like growing cotton in Australia with not dissimilar results.

There is one one last question. Why the determination to reject the possibility that those who talk about climate change might be right? What might happen if we allowed that possibility? Why would it be so bad to take better care of this earth? Why would we not want to find a way of replacing our resource guzzling habits with something more sustainable?

P

Expand

How exciting to be a friend of a climate warrior with a Nobel Prize. Hitler had dozens of Nobel Prize winners. They even gave a Nobel Prize to Obama btw and he hadn't done anything. At least your friend must have been raking in the cash though from all those grants.

As a special favour for @Parsifal I went looking for another , at random, alarmist climate warriors (also raking in the cash no doubt). on a Ted Talk. Rule of thumb: the greater the alarm the greater the cash flow.

This guy proves my case even though he believes that he is clever. True the first part of his Ted Talk is pulp alarmism but then he gets onto Ocean Acidification.

If you begin at the 14:45 minutes he talks about the Acidosis of the ocean and how oceanic life is doomed. Spot the flaw?