I have never been able to be deceived by the preposterous claim that human activity outside of a global thermonuclear war was changing the conditions on our whole planet in a dangerous direction, particularly knowing the impossibility of it being through altering atmospheric carbon dioxide - the result of a University level sound basic science curriculum at Sydney University in the early 60's.
Granted widespread science illiteracy, the false alarm has understandably frightened people.
It is not irrational, it is deliberately induced fear through presentation of a non-existent danger via multiple avenues of communication.
Kudos to you good men. Please trickle out digestible morsels of established knowledge and also keep a record of all the predictions made about results promised about the future and expose them. Start with Tim Flannery or Michael Mann and persist in reminding the whole world how wrong the IPCC reports were at the level of propaganda. The predictions have always been wrong, and more wrong each iteration of them.
Why kick it off by blaming climate alarmism on DEI? Seems like putting the cart before the horse. Are you saying that global warming is just the party line and inferior scholars can gain promotion by following it? I agree, but don't you need to explain why it's the party line? Because money is coming in to support it? Where is that money coming from? Is it because there is so much profit in converting to "green" energy? Isn't it all about the money? Convincing people that we need to convert to 'green' energy is like striking oil a hundred years ago, ***it's a financial gusher at a time when the financial system is shaky, alarmingly over-extended, and new forms of investment are needed to keep the economy going,*** and taxation covers the losses because it's presented as a public emergency: Save the Planet!
The issue of human well-being, or indeed all life on planet earth is multi-factorial
One metric is death rates according to ambient temperature causes. If the planet is boiling, is it irrational to ask if the heat is killing people?
I wonder why you use "climate change" when the current issue is HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL HEATING by the use of fossil fuel emitting carbon dioxide in quantities that slowly increase the trace gas by another small amount.
There is NO "Scientific Process", there are many ways that human beings directly and by means of instruments examine the space-time phenomena attempting to get some understanding. The fruit of all this is always partial - a glimpse, through a glass darkly - the arrogant pursuit of a "theory of everything" is warping the modern mindset just as a political theory of everything does.
I have never been able to be deceived by the preposterous claim that human activity outside of a global thermonuclear war was changing the conditions on our whole planet in a dangerous direction, particularly knowing the impossibility of it being through altering atmospheric carbon dioxide - the result of a University level sound basic science curriculum at Sydney University in the early 60's.
Granted widespread science illiteracy, the false alarm has understandably frightened people.
It is not irrational, it is deliberately induced fear through presentation of a non-existent danger via multiple avenues of communication.
Kudos to you good men. Please trickle out digestible morsels of established knowledge and also keep a record of all the predictions made about results promised about the future and expose them. Start with Tim Flannery or Michael Mann and persist in reminding the whole world how wrong the IPCC reports were at the level of propaganda. The predictions have always been wrong, and more wrong each iteration of them.
Thanks Hannes. Enjoyed it and look forward to speaking again soon.
Thank you, Matthew!
Why kick it off by blaming climate alarmism on DEI? Seems like putting the cart before the horse. Are you saying that global warming is just the party line and inferior scholars can gain promotion by following it? I agree, but don't you need to explain why it's the party line? Because money is coming in to support it? Where is that money coming from? Is it because there is so much profit in converting to "green" energy? Isn't it all about the money? Convincing people that we need to convert to 'green' energy is like striking oil a hundred years ago, ***it's a financial gusher at a time when the financial system is shaky, alarmingly over-extended, and new forms of investment are needed to keep the economy going,*** and taxation covers the losses because it's presented as a public emergency: Save the Planet!
If you look over 100 years, we've reduced the deaths associated with weather-related disasters by 96% or 98%,” Wielicki adds.
what is the link between this and climate change ?
none;0, nada, niente
this is an insult to anyone having a bit of intelligence and knowledge of a scientific process
shame
The issue of human well-being, or indeed all life on planet earth is multi-factorial
One metric is death rates according to ambient temperature causes. If the planet is boiling, is it irrational to ask if the heat is killing people?
I wonder why you use "climate change" when the current issue is HUMAN CAUSED GLOBAL HEATING by the use of fossil fuel emitting carbon dioxide in quantities that slowly increase the trace gas by another small amount.
There is NO "Scientific Process", there are many ways that human beings directly and by means of instruments examine the space-time phenomena attempting to get some understanding. The fruit of all this is always partial - a glimpse, through a glass darkly - the arrogant pursuit of a "theory of everything" is warping the modern mindset just as a political theory of everything does.