MANY PEOPLE'S FIRST exposure to climate science was when they saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. Gore took a topic that was beyond most people's comprehension and made it easy to understand.
Back in 1988, however, it was a different politician who put the science of climate change firmly on the global agenda. Unbeknownst to many, that person was Margaret Thatcher.As a Fellow of the Royal Society, Britain's national science academy, she presented a series of high profile speeches on the topic of climate change.
Armed with a degree in chemistry from Oxford, her scientific expertise enabled her to speak from a position of strength and knowledge about climate-related issues.
She used that knowledge to act as a champion for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and personally opened the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research (the UK's foremost climate change research centre).
What many people admired about Margaret Thatcher was her ability to embrace the potential of science to guide and lead the way on environmental issues. What marked her out even more is that she embraced the 'precautionary principle' years before other politicians did. As she once said:
""...the danger of global warming is as yet unseen but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations."
take a guess at what 'us' means and maybe just try to use your brain to figure out what's at play here.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
sorry maybe it's a local thing. I don't want to be a DENIER but the amount of faith that 'rational' people place in flawed models that try to predict the future of something as complicated as the earth's biosphere is shocking.
a lot of people in the media, government, sciences, academia and politics have hitched their flag to The Movement just like there are also vested interests in denying that climate change is happening.
you need be neither an alarmist nor ignorant, just be a cautious and responsible interpreter of the information available to you...
i would love to but the information is hard to judge responsibly when it's changing or warping all the time: 'oh um the heat is actually in the ocean now, did we not mention that? No? well it is'
if there was ever any evidence that IWC is actually as reactionary as he "pretends" to be, this is ithahaha when did skepticism towards soothsaying become 'reactionary'
calling climate science "soothsaying" and trivializing the costs of environmental destruction have always been reactionary hth
c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
c_man posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
sorry maybe it's a local thing. I don't want to be a DENIER but the amount of faith that 'rational' people place in flawed models that try to predict the future of something as complicated as the earth's biosphere is shocking.
a lot of people in the media, government, sciences, academia and politics have hitched their flag to The Movement just like there are also vested interests in denying that climate change is happening.
you need be neither an alarmist nor ignorant, just be a cautious and responsible interpreter of the information available to you...
i would love to but the information is hard to judge responsibly when it's changing or warping all the time: 'oh um the heat is actually in the ocean now, did we not mention that? No? well it is'
if there was ever any evidence that IWC is actually as reactionary as he "pretends" to be, this is it
hahaha when did skepticism towards soothsaying become 'reactionary'
calling climate science "soothsaying"
yeah it's pretty cool how despite hegemonic capitalism governing nearly every field of human endeavour, science can remain not only Objective Correct but can accurately predict the future.
it's also cool how i actually found a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:yeah it's pretty cool how despite hegemonic capitalism governing nearly every field of human endeavour, science can remain not only Objective Correct but can accurately predict the future.
it's also cool how i actually found a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
no one claims that the models that we use are perfect, but demanding ever expanding evidence before even considering changing your idiot behavior is still reactionary. its the same arguments as those by anti-vaccine activists, 9-11 truthers and obama birthers
c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:yeah it's pretty cool how despite hegemonic capitalism governing nearly every field of human endeavour, science can remain not only Objective Correct but can accurately predict the future.
it's also cool how i actually found a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.no one claims that the models that we use are perfect, but demanding ever expanding evidence before even considering changing your idiot behavior is still reactionary. its the same arguments as those by anti-vaccine activists, 9-11 truthers and obama birthers
lol that anyone won in "world war one"
c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
yeah it's pretty cool how despite hegemonic capitalism governing nearly every field of human endeavour, science can remain not only Objective Correct but can accurately predict the future.
it's also cool how i actually found a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.
no one claims that the models that we use are perfect, but demanding ever expanding evidence before even considering changing your idiot behavior is still reactionary. its the same arguments as those by anti-vaccine activists, 9-11 truthers and obama birthers
i don't want 'ever expanding evidence': i want a frank and full explanation by the Climate-Industrial Complex outlining why their predictions and models have been so spectacularly off-kilter.
given your other list of topics though, i gather that being on the right side of a Daily Show topic is more important than actually understanding the way the world works.
libelous_slander posted:c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:yeah it's pretty cool how despite hegemonic capitalism governing nearly every field of human endeavour, science can remain not only Objective Correct but can accurately predict the future.
it's also cool how i actually found a leprechaun's pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.no one claims that the models that we use are perfect, but demanding ever expanding evidence before even considering changing your idiot behavior is still reactionary. its the same arguments as those by anti-vaccine activists, 9-11 truthers and obama birthers
lol that anyone won in "world war one"
Ironicwarcriminal posted:i don't want 'ever expanding evidence': i want a frank and full explanation by the Climate-Industrial Complex outlining why their predictions and models have been so spectacularly off-kilter.
they really haven't tho
thirdplace posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
i don't want 'ever expanding evidence': i want a frank and full explanation by the Climate-Industrial Complex outlining why their predictions and models have been so spectacularly off-kilter.
they really haven't tho
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
an inconvenient truth indeed
Ironicwarcriminal posted:thirdplace posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
i don't want 'ever expanding evidence': i want a frank and full explanation by the Climate-Industrial Complex outlining why their predictions and models have been so spectacularly off-kilter.
they really haven't thoSPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
an inconvenient truth indeed
you're quoting a meteorologist. the pause is an inkblot
thirdplace posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
thirdplace posted:
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
i don't want 'ever expanding evidence': i want a frank and full explanation by the Climate-Industrial Complex outlining why their predictions and models have been so spectacularly off-kilter.
they really haven't tho
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html
SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now?
Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase.
an inconvenient truth indeed
you're quoting a meteorologist. the pause is an inkblot
lol ok pal whateva u say
don't get me wrong, i think it's very clear that the whole idea gets a lot more mainstream support than it would otherwise because there are a lot of people looking to get in the ground floor of some kind of godawful carbon trading market, to say nothing of the "green energy" industry more generally. but you don't have to parrot the daily mail to critique bullshit like that
NEOADMINISTRATOR posted:elektrenai posted:I know a few people who want to post here but the registration system is broken
I had to turn it off cause of the flood of spam accounts, and the guy who was working on a fix is the OP so you can see how that turned out.
hhmm perhaps a good solution would be to add something like a paywall to prevent superfluous accounts like that... like a one-time charge of $10 or somethin'. actually, now that I think about it you could also charge for other stuff that seems prone to abuse, like maybe another $5 to enable search functionality so that people can't slow the site down by using that; just a thought
thirdplace posted:IWC thinks its about maintaining the status quo development desparity of first world vs third world by preventing the latter from having an industrial revolution, which has some logic to it, but no more than the unmodified reactionary line that has it as a ploy for reparations from the first world and increased public control over private sector
it also performs a role at neutralizing left opposition to de industrializing the first world economies