Eleftheros

*Sigh* . I didn't need to click your link because I have already read those papers.

No, because I've read it.

It's actually better to read the full paper rather than the Executive Summary, as that is heavily curated by political apparatchiks to make it acceptable to all parties.

There is a whole discussion earlier on this thread the absurdity of trying to make capital out of a consensus that " humans are causing global warming and climate change". Everybody knows that human actions can affect the climate; I count myself among the 97% (which earlier in the thread was a breathless 99.9%). The question as posed is irrelevant, except to feed the credulous media another morsel of apocalypse. Better would be to ask how many scientists believe that any of the actions being proposed to counter climate change are necessary, effective or affordable.

Well, it was only 3 years ago that she was the subject of fawning media praise for planning to cross the Atlantic on a catamaran to attend the Madrid conference, so her disgust levels were much lower then.

I take it you are referring to me, as I'm the one who brought Greta into this thread. I was actually making the narrower point that Greta had changed her views about the lack of value of the annual COP talkfests, and that that was a sign of her growing up and developing opinions of her own rather than being moved around like a robot by her handlers. That is evident from what I wrote. I was not suggesting she had completely abandoned believing in the utopian Green fantasy scenarios. She's not that grown up.

It's interesting to see how often collectivists refer to 'the science' as though this is something fixed and immutable, which only a high priesthood has access to, and claiming an unshakeable authority to which everybody else must bow down to in awe. There are several things wrong with this. First, politicians tend not to listen to the scientists who know best, but to the scientists they know best. Second, if you blindly accept 'the science' as it is currently understood, you would in the past have supported heliocentrism, phlogiston theory, blood-letting, and eugenics, to name just a few. Science only prospers when its theories are open to question, debated and tested. To call something 'the science' as a fixed notion is therefore profoundly anti-science.

Well, what you would expect Greta's book publisher to say in the publicity blurb? Slate Greta's compendium of wisdom as though it were Bikini Girls on Dinosaur Planet? They could have thought of a better title, though. 'The Climate Book' is a bit dull, though, unless they are trying to invoke comparisons with Mr. Mao's Little Red Book. At $30 a throw, they could at least have called it "Trip to Utopia Without a Map" or something equally snappy.

Greta Thunberg seems to be growing up and developing her own opinions. She has decided not to go the COP27 climate talkfest in Egypt. "The Cops are mainly used as an opportunity for leaders and people in power to get attention, using many different kinds of greenwashing," she said, in a Q&A in London, reported The Guardian. Better late than never.

Yes. But why is western Europe, in particular, so reliant on gas supplies from Russia? Because that was a key plank of the Green fantasy demand to quickly transition to "cleaner" fuels. They were warned directly about the dangers that posed, not least in a geopolitical sense, but they chose to laugh off those warnings. And now they are, literally, paying the price for their foolishness.

I'm citing a tweet from the Saudi Oil industry, and a report from the International Energy Agency, which is a very keen supporter of renewable energy.

Whatever the competing claims of EVs may be, the reality is that the world is now transitioning to fossil fuels, not away from them, as Saudi Aramco CEO Amin Nasser is reported to have said. In particular, coal use is increasing across the world, according to the International Energy Agency, having risen 6% in 2021 and returning to the record high levels of 10 years ago. It will, IEA says, be several years before coal use starts to fall again. So no matter how many high-sounding platitudes are issued by the 30,000 jet-setters at COP27 in Sharm El Sheikh, the reality on the ground is rather different. It will be hard for Western economies to protect themselves from being victims of their own green policies that neither produce the required energy nor save the planet.

@placeholder I don't know if you are deliberately missing the point, but I am discussing the phrase "human caused global warming" which is the entity which garners the fabled "99.9% consensus". Of course it gets 99.9%. There's nothing to disagree with there. But it says nothing more substantive than that. When it comes to more detailed analyses and so on, I am not going to play Credibility Bingo about this scientific study or that one, or this fact-checker versus that one, because it is an endless game with no winner.

Because "human caused global warming" is a statement which almost everybody can agree with. Because it predicts nothing specific, supplies no information about suitable modes of action or their costs.

I didn't say they were acting independently, any more than members of the Mafia work independently. It's more a question of working out where your best interests lie, on which side your bread is buttered, and most people don't have any difficulty making that decision for themselves. And if we have to go back to the tiresome 99.9% figure, let me add that I am among the group that "supports human caused global warming". The question is so broad as to be meaningless. The real question is how dangerous is it, can we do something about it, and how much will that cost?

I have never mentioned the word "conspiracy" in any of my posts. For what it's worth, I don't think the climate movement is a conspiracy any more than the Mafia is a conspiracy. It is the wealthy and influential who run this world and decide matters pertaining to everyone's lives, not some guy doing linear regression on tree-ring data in his office.

Because it is only the wealthy and particularly the influential who make actual policy which affect how everybody is supposed to live - green taxes, no new petrol cars after 2030, and suchlike money-making schemes. The scientists do nothing except produce reports. If it happens that those reports are in line with what the influential want to hear, they are acted upon. Apart from that, the scientists are irrelevant.

Quite so. And prominent among that 1% are the elites of international and national organizations who are doing extremely well on the runaway climate gravy train, and have no intention of allowing those of lesser status to derail them. They would perhaps gain greater credibility if they would stop jetting off, in their tens of thousands, to places like Sharm El Sheikh to discuss climate matters in between enjoying the excellent snorkeling to be had (in the sea, I mean). None of the climate get-togethers since the "historic" COP21 of 2015 have achieved anything lasting or binding, but as you rightly point out, that is of no concern to the 1%.

The last sentence of that post has been demonstrably proved to be wrong, and continues to be so, on a weekly basis. What happened to all that Arctic ice that was supposed to be gone by 2012, the snow that was supposed to be "a thing of the past" in the UK, all those Pacific island nations that were supposed to have vanished, those 1 billion climate refugees the UN warned us about? They've been wrong and wrong again, wrong every time, almost with Newtonian precision. Look, there's so much wrong with the mainstream climate narrative that it would take a book or two (and has) to document even a part of it.

An "overwhelming consensus" is a weakness, not a strength. Kim Jong-Un struggles to get 99.9% of the vote even with the methods at his disposal. In a subject as complex as climate science, there is bound to be a wide measure of disagreement among honest scientists so I think it's entirely reasonable to dismiss a climate consensus of 99.9% as ludicrous. I am sure that some independent thinkers have already taken this absurd consensus figure to task, but I'm not going to look for it.

I would be more worried about this particular apocalyptic warning if the climate change folks hadn't been saying the same thing for 30 years or more. I can't remember how many times we have been told that there is only 5 years, or 10 years, or 18 months to "save the planet", whatever that means. Anyway, despite the warnings from climate experts like Prince Charles, Bono and Leonardo di Caprio, nothing can be done given that neither China nor India is going to rein in their CO2 emissions until they are good and ready.

MOTS have just released their September international arrivals data - total is 1,309,115 of which 683,144 were from the ASEAN countries, just 181,027 from Europe (mainly German, UK, French and Russian) , 52,000 from the Americas. The September monthly total is about 40% of a typical pre-Covid month, so they could be looking at 8 million total for the year. Not brilliant, but enough to stop the Immigration guys at Suvannaphuum falling asleep. https://www.mots.go.th/news/category/656

There is no corruption in the system in Thailand. Corruption is the system.

They've been doing that for decades.

"In rare cases, coronavirus vaccines may cause Long Covid–like symptoms." https://www.science.org/content/article/rare-cases-coronavirus-vaccines-may-cause-long-covid-symptoms