Climate

[Tapate50]

Yeah. The scientific consensus was so wrong about thangs like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It is important to keep an open mind and do our own research.

Didn’t they tell us 6ft? Kids had to get the jab, and that there were no side effects? Wasn’t it like a suit of armor and you couldn’t get it or spread it and not engineered from a lab?

Is that your position ?

 

[Garmel]

No, but when two guys come out of nowhere to deliver results that don’t match the consensus, I think it’s worth being a touch skeptical, yes?

Perhaps

You should also be skeptical of the consensus too when big money influences the industry.

 

[mqt]

Perhaps

You should also be skeptical of the consensus too when big money influences the industry.

Also fair, but let’s keep in mind that the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of ****ing money trying to prove they should be able to keep doing their thing.

 

[Garmel]

Also fair, but let’s keep in mind that the fossil fuel industry has spent a lot of ****ing money trying to prove they should be able to keep doing their thing.

And? They don't want to go out of business.

 

[mqt]

And? They don't want to go out of business.

And you’d think they’d find more than they have.

 

[Carp]

i'm not an expert, but i'll weigh in anyhow on how to try to identify the answer to your question

i think the answer turns somewhat on sea levels and where we have built our cities and other valuable infrastructure

we can relocate and rebuild as sea levels rise or we can try to take action that will limit how much they rise...both are expensive propositions and we should weigh the costs and benefits of each course of action

there are obviously other considerations such as effects on agriculture

there is a pretty substantial body of research (by those pesky academics and experts) looking at these questions

1. Climate alarmist are basing their entire opinion on climate data that is less than 200 years old (most of it, less than 75 years old), on a rock that is right at 4.5 billion years old. And any attempt to refute such data is met with vitriol from these same people.

2. The only viable plan being provided is to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars with no clear plan to fix a problem we aren't even 100% sure that exists.

3. Even assuming the worst and the alarmist are correct about everything, we could still be spending trillions upon trillions of dollars for a problem that we can't fix. And in that case preparing for the massive flooding we are due seems like a better expenditure.

 

[nsacpi]

1. Climate alarmist are basing their entire opinion on climate data that is less than 200 years old (most of it, less than 75 years old), on a rock that is right at 4.5 billion years old. And any attempt to refute such data is met with vitriol from these same people.

2. The only viable plan being provided is to spend trillions upon trillions of dollars with no clear plan to fix a problem we aren't even 100% sure that exists.

3. Even assuming the worst and the alarmist are correct about everything, we could still be spending trillions upon trillions of dollars for a problem that we can't fix. And in that case preparing for the massive flooding we are due seems like a better expenditure.

1. I don't think this is correct. We have much longer time series on climate. For example ice core data go back hundreds of thousands of years. Those data help us to understand the link between levels of carbon in the atmosphere and climate over very long stretches of time.

2. It is an expensive proposition. No doubt about that. And lots of uncertainty. No doubt about that either.

3. Depends what you mean by fix. We can influence how much global temperatures rise through public policy. In a similar way we addressed the problem of ozone depletion four decades ago. We did not fix it but we were able to limit the amount of depletion. But your point about mitigating flooding is one I agree with. It might be more cost-effective to mitigate some of the effects of climate change than to prevent them. Both mitigation and trying to limit climate change are going to be very expensive.

 

[sturg33]

At what point do the never ending failed predictions shake the faith of the expert-obedient?

[Tw]1810198912646492463[/tw]

 

[sturg33]

Thanks for the info, WAPO