Without even taking the time to think about it ? - You are the people the “Book” is about ! 
1 Like
Apparently the UK High Court - disagrees with your take on it as well !
I don’ think that me spending a quiet and rainy afternoon at home thinking about climate change that I could come up with a more valid opinion sufficient to challenge the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists.
It appears that the High Court did not rule on whether climate change is happening or on whether human activities are responsible, only on what the UK is legally obliged to do about it.
You are absolutely correct. 
That was post 29 of 105 - in 2011 ! There has been much discussion since then and mostly it is established members - nobody is picking on “Newbies” here ! 
That is really not true @tommor - you have been sadly (and Deliberately !) misinformed mate !
I hadn’r realised that you actually knew so little about it that 3 hours on a rainy afternoon would be all you thought you needed to “understand”. However the constant indoctrination we all receive subliminally from “News” “weather” and “documentaries” means that you have to have some idea about the propaganda we are all subjected to constantly. (so the “It’s true” argumant - with the drowning polar bears, rainstormes, droughts and hurricanes etc )
I know very well that you are a highly intelligent man Tom and so I think that you might be prepared to make yourself a nice cup of tea and listen to what the Real and Unbiased Experts have to say on the subject ?
Only takes an hour and a quarter and it might just change your life !
I haven’t any inclination to research climate change or even research the research on climate change. Why? Because Wikipedia tells me 97% of the world’s scientists suggest that would be a waste of my time.
Until you can produce such a majority, sorry, I’m busy on other stuff.
Since the post to which @tommor replied is now ten posts back, - I’ll link to it, for the casual observer as I think that the information was really quite important to be considered in this discussion.
https://forums.babypips.com/t/climate-change-is-a-complete-hoax/30013/101
Wikipedia says it, so it must be true 
Actually the 97% number is highly fudged. In actuality, only 33% of the respondents said that there was human contribution and that the contribution was “weak”. If climate numbers are as fudged as this study, there are a whole lot of people being willingly fleeced.
—An excerpt from the article
"The most highly cited paper supposedly found 97 per cent of published scientific studies support man-made global warming. But in addition to poor survey methodology, that tabulation is often misrepresented. Most papers (66 per cent) actually took no position. Of the remaining 34 per cent, 33 per cent supported at least a weak human contribution to global warming. So divide 33 by 34 and you get 97 per cent, but this is unremarkable since the 33 per cent includes many papers that critique key elements of the IPCC position."
1 Like
Like I said, I’m a bit busy right now.
That’s alright, you have time. I don’t think the earth is supposed to be destroyed by climate change for a couple more years at least.
1 Like
That 97% figure is examined on page 59 & 60 of the PDF I linked to. - The figures included “thse who thought there was a human contributioon” and also those who thought “Greenhouse gasses made a contribution” at all !
Taking the “Figures” as quoted on Wikipedia - There were 11,944 “abstracts” - 7980 gave no “position” ie "neutral"of those who did give a posiion who 65 “agreed” with “the consensus” ! - so the actual figure is 1.6% even of those who did "give a position ! Now since we know that 3% took the opposing position, the actual figures were in Disagreement by a ratio of 2:1
Unfortunately the pdf will not allow "copy " for me to paste here - but as I said the bulk of it is on page 60 !
In answer to your observation @krugman25 - THAT ! - by “their standards” is a verty modest distortion of the "Truth "! 
{at the end of page 60 - the pdf begins to investigate the proposition that "if you don’t support the ‘consensus’ - you fail your exams - (General Studies ‘A’ Level ! ]
1 Like
Now that I can agree with 
Haha
1 Like
As an aside, I’ve long been looking for a way to “short” this propaganda pyramid.
Well it seems there is one !
However, it is a double edged sword as far as I can see
In the Uk we are “World leaders in climate change reducion” apparently !
We have something which has slid past without a demurr called ;
THe “Climate Change Act” introduced a few years ago which commits us AT LAW to reduce carbon emissions by 80% - Apparently by the year 2050 ! and Petrol and diesel cars will not n=be legally manufactured or sold in uk by 2040.
I don’t know much about this “Act” (Yet) except that it is currently forecast to cost us over £1000,BILLION ! - ie around the same as our own GDP !
So we are clearly Not going to be able to “make” enough Electricity to comply with that “Act” by 2050. This will have a disastrous effect on what remains of our Industry and Trains systems and hike our debt out of reach ! (which will only provoke additional “Austerity” - in true 1929 fashion. !
Reluctantly I have to say "We are stone dead " ! 
Forget the “brexit” rubbish - This single Act of totally unnecessary self destruction, WILL drop us to 3rd world status !
For those of you lucky enough to live in China, India, Russia or any of the other countries where you are taking no notice of this “Western Groupthink” - It’s a fairly long term investment - but just “Short” anything “UK” - be that shares, currency, Property - anything !
For those of you in USA - “God save Donald Trump” !
Combined with our massive National Debt and dead Manufacturing Industry, There is no way we can work our way out of this !
I mentioned David Bellamy on another thread and how he was dropped by the BBC because he stated that changes in the Earth’s temperature were cyclical and not man made.
Until that point David hosted many natural science programmes.
Here is another scientist who is saying much the same, this time he publishes his data to back it up.
He is a Ph.D. in meteorology, has received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for global temperature monitoring work with satellites, still works for NASA and receives no monies from any companies for his continued research.
He finishes his article on Global Warming with:
"Climate change — it happens, with or without our help."
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-natural-or-manmade/
1 Like
As “your man” says @peterma
“… . Your local TV meteorologist is probably a closet ‘skeptic’ regarding mankind’s influence on climate…”
I think that is probably the crux of the matter. Why on earth would someone who has spent all their life, being a disciple of the “One true God” - suddenly give up their income derived solely from this “belief” ? just because there is no evidence to confirm their “Religion” ? Even though rational thinkers and those who actually do know what they’re talking about and produce reasoned and compelling evidence are demonstrating daily, weekly, monthly, annually for more than a decade now what total drivel “they” are propagandising us with !
In fact, “they” have really stopped now, they just spout “the word” as though it were true and “self-evident” - Just like the “sun worshippers” of old. Those who wanted to destroy Gallileo,
So much easier to just "take the money and repeat the mantra "
Repeat the chant - after me ;
"…The science is poven
There is no room for debate
97% Agree
"Deniers are heretics and Climate criminals" …"
Any mainstream publication which dares to publish the truth will be bombarded with threats and hate correspondence.
All you have to do is to look back through this thread and observe the logical and engaging way the ZEALOTS, Disciples, call them what you will, have defended their position with knowledgeable posts and reasoned evidence !
Apparently not. Its actually by 2050 and even that date and/or the 80 percent figure can be amended if the government so wishes
What the government have done is pushed the final date so far down the line that it becomes the next generations problem. They seem to be hoping future technology will find a solution.
Correct - That s what I wrote on another thread. - did mean to come back and correct this one. - it is 30 years away. But still the only country in the world foolish enough to actually cast this foolishness into LAW !
So far we have One nuclear power station being imported, at a minimum cost of £40 Billion.
To produce the power needed, we need at least another 10 By 2050 !
I don’t think it can without a majority in Parliament, but I’d be interested to see which clauses you rely on for that statement. However, it is true that there are a few “Getout” clauses" - for when the CO2 = Global Warming fallacy unravels !
My point is WHY ? WHY commit a whole years total GDP to produce something we already have ? WHY ? When the science is so poor and so well discredited that only the most gullible can remain convinced ?
Or else those who have never actually considered or thought about the issue at all !
A solution to what problem ? 
Its written into the Bill, thats where I read it