c4countdown

Is this a thing.
I have seen people and movements referred to as 'warmies ' in a derogatory term as if climate change / global warming is fake/exaggerated.
Are there anyone here who believes this or knows of this ?
I'm still on the fence and to how bad climate change is .

I've never heard of it.

No-one knows exactly how bad climate change will be but it's likely it will be pretty bad unless we do something about it. There's no point in just blindly assuming the best case scenario.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 5:39 am I've never heard of it.

No-one knows exactly how bad climate change will be but it's likely it will be pretty bad unless we do something about it. There's no point in just blindly assuming the best case scenario.

Unless you are the leader of the free world

This adds to the debate
https://www.melaniephillips.com/extinct ... cYmauHYy_Y

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:12 am This adds to the debate
https://www.melaniephillips.com/extinct ... cYmauHYy_Y

It doesn't really. I would take the word of scientists over right-wing journalists* on a scientific matter any time. As for the specific points she made and the "evidence" she presented, it is obviously all cherry-picked.

*Climate change deniers almost all come from the political right. Whereas people who accept it don't all come from the left. People who deny it generally do so because it doesn't fit their political agenda.

Edit - Just looking at one claim:

In similar vein, a recent study reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies found that “just 36 percent of earth scientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a climate change crisis.

It might be worth going here and following it through.

I think the confusing thing for me is this assumption that increased CO2 causes increased global temperature when surely it's the other way round

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 6:00 pm I think the confusing thing for me is this assumption that increased CO2 causes increased global temperature when surely it's the other way round

Why is it surely the other way round?

I mean increased CO2 is a result of increased temperature

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Sep 22, 2019 9:15 pm I mean increased CO2 is a result of increased temperature

I know. But why do you think increased CO2 can't increase the temperature?

You can understand a little scepticism
https://www.aei.org/publication/50-year ... fEB-12hrnI

I have lived through most of those scaremongering reports.
Had sleepless nights about the impending ice age when I was seven , so there is a little bit of fact getting the way of the Guardians sources.
Are the Guardian still supporting The Fib , sorry , Lib Dems. by the way.
The party ,whose manifesto pledge to stop Brexit is neither Liberal , nor Democratic.
But I digress.
I do agree however that the majority of the climate change deniers are not the uneducated and the misinformed but the wealthy Corporations with much to lose.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:31 am I do agree however that the majority of the climate change deniers are not the uneducated and the misinformed but the wealthy Corporations with much to lose.

Well then.

And whatever people say, you'll always be able to find some source that disagrees, but then that also allows you to take pretty much any position on anything. But it's pretty much scientific consensus that human-made climate change is real. The only reason for disagreeing is that you have some reason to not want it to be true. Or you are a scientist with some revolutionary new piece of evidence that the world hasn't seen yet. For the "layman" (which includes right-wing journalists who think they are qualified to talk about everything) to dispute climate change, it takes an extreme level of cherry-picking of the evidence.

I personally don't have first-hand proof to hand of climate change, but that also applies to general relativity or quantum mechanics and a whole host of other scientific phenomena. But what reason have I got to decide to disagree with the scientists on just one of these issues - coincidentally the one where agreeing with it is most inconvenient for people?

Why I agree that putting your head in the sand is wrong , I do still doubt the term scientific evidence.
How many times do you here stuff like coffee is bad for you , then next week it's good for you.
Eggs ,wine , saturated fats etc.
Some things are not exact like predicting the weather

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 6:58 pm Why I agree that putting your head in the sand is wrong , I do still doubt the term scientific evidence.
How many times do you here stuff like coffee is bad for you , then next week it's good for you.
Eggs ,wine , saturated fats etc.
Some things are not exact like predicting the weather

Who says those things though? It's usually in newspapers who are notoriously bad science communicators. The headlines are often not written by the person who wrote the article and even then you'll often find the article misunderstood the actual scientific paper the story was based on.

There's a great twitter account, I can't think of the actual name but it points out newspaper headlines of science reports that leave out the phrase "in mice" to completely distort the content of actual scientific papers to scaremonger.

I mean you yourself started a thread about the dishonesty of right wing newspapers and yet you seem to get your opinions on climate change from the very same sources.

I was trying, albeit not successfully , to sit on the fence about this.
Trying to play devils avocado , create some debate.
In a similar vein to the God/atheist debate.
Trying to point out that to blindly deny something is happening is no more delusional than saying we're doomed.
Because the doom merchants have been playing their trade since time immemorial

What is particularly annoying is that if you don't swallow every word Greta Thunberg says you're labelled as a denier, which is completely ridiculous.

People like her really fail to appreciate the huge and grossly unreported efforts that some countries have made: the UK is virtually coal-free now, for example.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Tue Sep 24, 2019 10:48 pm What is particularly annoying is that if you don't swallow every word Greta Thunberg says you're labelled as a denier, which is completely ridiculous.

People like her really fail to appreciate the huge and grossly unreported efforts that some countries have made: the UK is virtually coal-free now, for example.

Maybe reading/listening to more balanced sources might help you use more equivocal language while criticising the unequivocal language of other commentators (and may also soothe your worries about anyone labelling you for your opinions!).

A large part of the argument for greater action is that what's happened already is nowhere near enough. True, many excellent things have happened, but that's not relevant to the point being made.

Oh for the days when you could find a balanced source you can trust

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:51 pm Oh for the days when you could find a balanced source you can trust

c4c is probably the best you can do these days.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... IiZbNT5rrE
Make of this what you will

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2019 10:28 pm https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... IiZbNT5rrE
Make of this what you will

The evidence is clear: