View Single Post
  #1067  
Old 06-11-2019, 12:35 PM
Ifill Over's Avatar
Ifill Over Ifill Over is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Church Crookham, Fleet, Hants
Age: 58
Posts: 1,337
Rep Power: 10454650
Ifill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy dietIfill Over came here looking for the peace and quiet; the healthy air and the healthy diet
Quote:
Originally Posted by dogstar721 View Post

^^ Ifill Over response to dogstar721 response>>

1. based on allegations of dramatic new evidence

>> Not really, we've been talking about climate change, global warming and the impact of pollution etc for most of my 48 years - and I'm fairly certain pollution of the environment and consequences for humans was central to the Clean Air Act in the 50s / 60s (that effectively ended pea soupers).

^^ CO2 is not pollution. If you are a pop or lager drinker it is the bubbles in your drink. It is extracted from the fossil fuels burned in power stations. It is pumped into greenhouses to increase yields of fruits and vegetables. I am all for removing pollutants from water, air and earth.


2. communicated with high emotional intensity and moral
outrage
>> Again not really, that might be the case in some areas - But people have been campaigning around issues like this for decades, often in obscurity and mostly publishing to scientific journals. I think it maybe says more to how you recieve your media, than how information is generally presented.

^^ Greta and Extinction event UN v Mass Destruction Tony Blair in parliament.

3. apparently supported by an informed corporate media/
academic/expert consensus
>> Not true of WMD as it was selective media and experts. The UN Weapons Inspectorate for example, arguably the leading organisation in the world, disagreed quite vocally, and was heavily reported on. The BBC was embroiled in a number of court cases over accusations of the Government engineering an excuse for war.
^^ point accepted. The media e.g. the Guardian and BBC have clear policies on Climate Change that it is real and cannot be questioned.

4. reinforced by damning condemnation of anyone daring even to
question the apparent consensus

>> Now that was true of the government, but it didn't actually work. Not even sure thats the case with Climate Change, except in regards to absolute deniers. Its also true that Climate Change deniers, like 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists when confronted with counter evidence to their theories tend to point shout conspiracy and then hide away - But also don't tend to do peer published research either - and have a tendency to present questionable sources and selective data sets as being 'FACT'. If you're not using peer reviewed, published data, you don't have a dog in the science race.

^^ Peer-reviewed science papers are pumped out with a 50% failure rate when attempting to replicate their findings. It is known as the Replication Crisis. What us climate sceptics are waiting for a paper on CO2 where it can be replicated that it is mans induced CO2 into the climate 3% of the 0.04% atmospheric CO2. We accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is not enough, so are other gases such as water vapour the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, both by weight and by volume.

^^ I am settled on the science that it is the sun that has the biggest influence on our climate and not man. We are coming out of a natural peak in temperatures and into a cooler period. Apart from cooler temperatures, we will see an increase in earthquakes and volcanic activity.

^^I will post something on this later.

5. generated with fortuitous timing
>> Not really, this has been a movement and cause dating back as far at least my life time. Environmental science really came to the for during the technology rises of the 60s, but gained a lot of interest off the back of the publication of Rachel Carsons, Silent Spring, one of the best selling science books of all time. Notably at the time, burgeoning Environmental sciences gained a great boost on being on the right side of the arguement about D

^^ Any natural disaster is conveniently linked to climate change, any record hot day is jumped on. The same cannot be said for record cold days.


6. characterised by tragicomic moral dissonance
>> Not sure what you mean by this. However I do understand moral dissonance (as it relates to Psychology) and what tragic-comedy is. If I'm right in thinking your talking about hipocracy, thats absurdly contry to behaviour, its a human norm. Hipocracy is central to the function of all human beings (such as say An Environmentalist campaigner drinking water from a plastic bottle). This occurs because we identify concepts ideologically and hypethetically, but exist in a physical universe, where options and interactions occur on a continual basis, and are defined by limitations around us.

So if we're thirsty for example, we buy a bottle of water, if we have no other options. Thats not hypocritical, thats normal behaviour. Reality of environmentalism is more complicated than that. Humans aren't perfect machines were complex, contry and exist in a state of flux as much defined by where we find ourselves as what we believe.

Everyone basically is a hipocrite on various levels, except people who are arguably mentally disturbed (ie their behaviours are extreme to the point of being statistically deviant).
^^ you can see on this thread where a poster is considered mentally deranged for having an opposing view, then you have people classed as flat earthers or holocaust deniers.

That editing did not quite work, the last sentence starting ^^ should of been above. So please do not take it out of context.
Reply With Quote