Questioning 'The Science'

[Office Mover]

It seems the Net Zero bandwagon is thundering along with some making a fortune from it.
Yet no one questions whether this is right or not. There is plenty of opposing 'Science' but these thesis and
climate figures rarely get airtime and any debate is frowned upon.
Often the media shuts down any challenge to the status quo and I suspect some 'scientists' might be in fear of losing their jobs should they speak out.
Pollution I believe should be more of a concern and something humans can do something about, but the planets 'climate has changed many times over millions of years before we existed.

 

[japancool]

Why is this in General Business? Where's the business portion of it?

 

[fisicx]

Moved to TimeOut

An Net Zero is a myth. It's not possible. Everything requires energy. Most of this energy is unrecoverable. So while the laws of thermodynamics are maintained it can never be net zero.

 

[Office Mover]

Why is this in General Business? Where's the business portion of it?

Sorry couldn't see 'Time Out' at the time. Also it costs money to embark on the Net Zero' path

 

[IanSuth]

Moved to TimeOut

An Net Zero is a myth. It's not possible. Everything requires energy. Most of this energy is unrecoverable. So while the laws of thermodynamics are maintained it can never be net zero.

I don't think they mean energy net zero but CO2 net zero - whether that is macro achievable over the long term is a debatable (it all depends where you choose the time period)

But in general terms I have yet to see anything peer reviewed which says that there is not a greenhouse effect caused by CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere and that disproves the idea that warmer oceans lead to lead to more precipitation and higher energy weather events.

So unless you disbelieve that a large proportion of the rise in CO2 (and methane as it is 28x more effective a greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere is caused by the increase in human activity over the last 200 years then we do have to look at ways we can at least reduce our continued emissions

 

[fisicx]

The problem began when the oil and energy companies in the USA colluded to make the claim that climate change ( or global warming as it was once mis-labelled) wasn’t caused by mankind. Up until then pretty much everyone was in agreement. And now because of this US lead misinformation the likes of Trump have jumped on the bandwagon to state the science was wrong. Which it isn’t.

 

[Office Mover]

This is worth looking at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03226-6

 

[japancool]

There was a lot of "science" that said that smoking wasn't harmful back in the day.

 

[Office Mover]

There was a lot of "science" that said that smoking wasn't harmful back in the day.

Exactly, science is never 'finished' as new and other opinions and research are published. What IS important that we dont follow dogma and that it remains normal to question and debate. Unfortunately in todays world this is not encouraged.

 

[fisicx]

There was a lot of "science" that said that smoking wasn't harmful back in the day.

A lot of that science originated with the tobacco producers.

In the same way sugar companies sponsor research into food labelling.

 

[fisicx]

What IS important that we dont follow dogma and that it remains normal to question and debate. Unfortunately in todays world this is not encouraged.

Debate is encouraged. Unfortunately much opinion comes from Karen on Facebook.

 

[japancool]

A lot of that science originated with the tobacco producers.

And a lot of the climate sceptic science originates with the energy companies like ExxonMobil.

ExxonMobil climate change denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But this thread is pointless. Most people have made up their minds either way, and aren't going to change it, so you guys carry on.

 

[IanSuth]

This is worth looking at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-021-03226-6

As someone with Maths , Further Maths and Geography Alevels plus a degree in economics that contained a huge module on Econometrics i specialised quite a lot in Stats - that is a paper basically saying "because there is only 1 earth we can't trust the stats as the sample is too small even though all the stats say these events are linked"

 

[IanSuth]

Exactly, science is never 'finished' as new and other opinions and research are published. What IS important that we dont follow dogma and that it remains normal to question and debate. Unfortunately in todays world this is not encouraged.

Questioning is fine but just saying "that is wrong" is stupid - give me another hypotheses that explains the observable events and then we can test that assumption. That paper basically just says "correlation isn't causation, sample size small so human global warming hypothesis unprovable"

 

[WaveJumper]

Perhaps an interesting question for AI perhaps we are all safe at present whilst our AI bots tell us they have no personal opinions or beliefs but what will happen when they do will they see us as a threat to this planet or will they help devise the solution for us. Data or no data the world in general can’t get a grip on any subject in my book at present, we just seem to be tearing ourselves apart.

And on that bright and cheerful note I think I need another cup of coffee

 

[Office Mover]

This is interesting https://youtu.be/Tx0am8PdoOs?si=CkBEcQUWuBPaas53

 

[Justin Smith]

It seems the Net Zero bandwagon is thundering along with some making a fortune from it.
Yet no one questions whether this is right or not. There is plenty of opposing 'Science' but these thesis and
climate figures rarely get airtime and any debate is frowned upon.
Often the media shuts down any challenge to the status quo and I suspect some 'scientists' might be in fear of losing their jobs should they speak out.
Pollution I believe should be more of a concern and something humans can do something about, but the planets 'climate has changed many times over millions of years before we existed.

It's even worse than that, this is all profoundly undemocratic :

The Times 14 Aug 23 (p8)
Parties urged not to fight over climate change action
A government adviser and former Shell economist [Steven Fries] has warned politicians against making climate change action into a "wedge issue".
"The UK has done a very good job in keeping climate change and decarbonisation to be[ing] a cross party issue. It's very important that all political parties in the UK and elsewhere resist going down the path of turning this into a wedge issue or a divisive issue for society".

Does this idiot know the meaning of the word democracy, because make no mistake he is openly suggesting the political parties should collude and not give the population of this country, or any other country, any say in a major issue which will significantly affect how they live their lives.

Utterly outrageous.