Climate activists disrupt British cities with 'summer uprising'

[Chomper Higgot]

51 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Of course I do. That's the process of science. A scientist worth his salt doesn't automatically accept whatever an authority claims to be true. He accepts it if it makes sense to him and is supported by reliable evidence, and rejects it, or at least becomes skeptical, if it doesn't makes sense to him and/or is not fully supported by sufficient evidence. Didn't you know that?

And the vast majority of scientists back the theory of anthropomorphic climate change and the part CO2 released from fossil fuels plays in that climate change.  

[Chomper Higgot]

33 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Most scientists will prove whatever the people paying their wage wants them to prove.

Says he who offered us a dodgy graphic from 'Arctic-Warming.com' an organisation that hides its ownership, let alone whether or not it has any scientists regardless of who is paying them.

[RickBradford]

19 hours ago, SteveStevens said:

You've just won the title of chief propagandist on TV.  The Spark of Freedom Foundation is a right wing propaganda mill, funded by Exxon to peddle, as I said, misinformation about climate change.

Chief Propagandist, eh? Wow, what a rare honour.

 

A surprising one, though, given the amount of Social Justice puppet-babble on this thread. Perhaps you were sensible enough to ignore it.

 

Talking about propaganda, could you provide a link to a solid source for your accusation that Exxon funds the Spark of Freedom Foundation? A corporate filing of some sort, perhaps, a tax return or a press release, something verifiable, at least.

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And the vast majority of scientists back the theory of anthropomorphic climate change and the part CO2 released from fossil fuels plays in that climate change.  

Now that's an interesting claim. Can you provide a link to the scientific methodology that was used to determine that a vast majority of scientists back these claims about anthropomorphic climate change and the significance of the role played by CO2?

 

Did they send a questionnaire to a million scientists? Did they interview all the climatologists who had written studies and/or who were engaged in research, to ask them how certain they were that CO2 was the main influence driving climate change and if such changes would be bad for the environment and humanity?

 

If they did interview them, did they have lie-detector equipment in place to assess how truthful the scientists were?

 

Or perhaps they just examined the abstracts of a few thousand peer-reviewed studies on climate, and selected the minority of them in which the authors were willing stick their neck out and express an unscientific certainty on the issue, a vast majority of them being  of the opinion that CO2 emissions would have disastrous consequences if not halted, and just a very small minority of the opinion that the influence of CO2 emissions on warming was negligible or zero.

 

In other words, I suspect most of the scientists, even if a small majority, are not willing to falsely express certainty on an issue which they understand is not certain. At least, I hope so.

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Now that's an interesting claim. Can you provide a link to the scientific methodology that was used to determine that a vast majority of scientists back these claims about anthropomorphic climate change and the significance of the role played by CO2?

 

Did they send a questionnaire to a million scientists? Did they interview all the climatologists who had written studies and/or who were engaged in research, to ask them how certain they were that CO2 was the main influence driving climate change and if such changes would be bad for the environment and humanity?

 

If they did interview them, did they have lie-detector equipment in place to assess how truthful the scientists were?

 

Or perhaps they just examined the abstracts of a few thousand peer-reviewed studies on climate, and selected the minority of them in which the authors were willing stick their neck out and express an unscientific certainty on the issue, a vast majority of them being  of the opinion that CO2 emissions would have disastrous consequences if not halted, and just a very small minority of the opinion that the influence of CO2 emissions on warming was negligible or zero.

 

In other words, I suspect most of the scientists, even if a small majority, are not willing to falsely express certainty on an issue which they understand is not certain. At least, I hope so.

Oh so now you want me to deliver a proof of all the scientific methodology behind climate science. 

 

The only thing your post reveals is you have a lot of doubts. That should surprise nobody when your scientific training ended when you left high school. 

 

Asking those you debate a science  based topic to go back to validate  all the science is a hogwash argument. 

 

I'll call it. 

 

You are bare faced trolling. 

 

 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[bristolboy]

40 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Now that's an interesting claim. Can you provide a link to the scientific methodology that was used to determine that a vast majority of scientists back these claims about anthropomorphic climate change and the significance of the role played by CO2?

 

Did they send a questionnaire to a million scientists? Did they interview all the climatologists who had written studies and/or who were engaged in research, to ask them how certain they were that CO2 was the main influence driving climate change and if such changes would be bad for the environment and humanity?

 

If they did interview them, did they have lie-detector equipment in place to assess how truthful the scientists were?

 

Or perhaps they just examined the abstracts of a few thousand peer-reviewed studies on climate, and selected the minority of them in which the authors were willing stick their neck out and express an unscientific certainty on the issue, a vast majority of them being  of the opinion that CO2 emissions would have disastrous consequences if not halted, and just a very small minority of the opinion that the influence of CO2 emissions on warming was negligible or zero.

 

In other words, I suspect most of the scientists, even if a small majority, are not willing to falsely express certainty on an issue which they understand is not certain. At least, I hope so.

Nothing in science is absolutely certain. But there is a very high degree of confidence in anthropogenic climate change. And we know that because there have been many surveys of climatologists. I believe I even cited a link to those surveys for you. Of course if you lack an understanding of statistics, then you might think the weight of all such surveys counts for nothing. What's interesting is that as time has gone by the level of acceptance has generally risen.

 

[BritManToo]

28 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Nothing in science is absolutely certain.

In the 1930s it was warming, 1970s it was a new ice age, now warming again.

First alarmist predictions were published in the 1870s and they've (quite often the same scientists) been changing their minds back and forth ever since.

I always enjoy watching this video ........

 

 

Edited July 23, 2019 by BritManToo

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh so now you want me to deliver a proof of all the scientific methodology behind climate science. 

No. Once again you've misunderstood. I simply want you to provide proof that the vast majority of scientists accept that the claimed dire consequences of current CO2 rises are valid and supported by sound evidence. In other words, that the science is settled.

 

The 97% consensus so often quoted is a lie, in my opinion, based on the research I've done.

[RickBradford]

23 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The 97% consensus so often quoted is a lie, in my opinion, based on the research I've done.

It wasn't a lie when it first appeared in a 2008 paper by Doran & Zimmerman. Their survey, sent to 10,257 earth scientists, asked 2 questions, to which the responses were:

 

Quote

 

Q1: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”   76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”

 

Q2: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”   75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.”

 

Since then, of course, the less scrupulous activists have claimed that "97% of climate scientists" believe in anything from extinction of the human race within 12 years to something we could manage if we dismantled capitalism as soon as possible and put the activists in sole charge.

 

The mainstream media, which is led by a ring through its nose by the activists, dutifully trot out the 97% consensus at every possible turn; whether they are woefully ignorant, or lying -- or both -- is a matter of conjecture.

[Chomper Higgot]

39 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

No. Once again you've misunderstood. I simply want you to provide proof that the vast majority of scientists accept that the claimed dire consequences of current CO2 rises are valid and supported by sound evidence. In other words, that the science is settled.

 

The 97% consensus so often quoted is a lie, in my opinion, based on the research I've done.

Present your research.

[bristolboy]

44 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

No. Once again you've misunderstood. I simply want you to provide proof that the vast majority of scientists accept that the claimed dire consequences of current CO2 rises are valid and supported by sound evidence. In other words, that the science is settled.

 

The 97% consensus so often quoted is a lie, in my opinion, based on the research I've done.

The consensus is still overwhelming.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

[bristolboy]

On 7/16/2019 at 9:03 AM, DoctorG said:

You do realize that they cherry-pick data dates to suit themselves? 1936 was by far the hottest June in US recorded history. I am sure others can come up with other examples.

One just needs to look back at old newspaper articles from up to 100 years ago that shouted doom from either increased heat or an upcoming ice age.

Sea levels are supposedly rising but waterfront property is still the most expensive. Insurance companies still cover these properties. I believe even Al Gore has a beach place.

The Maldives was apparently going under, but the place is undergoing massive new building projects.

As with most things - follow the money, it will lead you to the truth.

And in this case the truth is that the island they're building on will probably be okay for 40 years. If the developers of this project can't earn a good return on investment in 40 years, they don't deserve to be in the business. Even 20 years should be more than enough.

[bristolboy]

On 7/16/2019 at 2:18 PM, Baerboxer said:

 

Anyone or any group who carry out anti social criminal activities in an attempt to terrorize society into accepting their views and opinions are terrorists.

yes there were crowds of people running away in fear. Someone else who has led a very sheltered life.

[bristolboy]

On 7/17/2019 at 8:41 AM, VincentRJ said:

Yes. This is a major problem. I'm doing my best to make them more self-aware. 

Charity begins at home.

[bristolboy]

On 7/21/2019 at 11:59 PM, VincentRJ said:

I haven't flipped at all. You don't appear to understand the situation. However, because I'm so compassionate I'll attempt to explain it to you. ????

 

You've heard of the Medieval Warm Period, haven't you?
Civilizations tend to flourish during warm periods, but climate is always changing. When it does change, the change can sometimes be so rapid and severe that the civilization fails to adapt and collapses. This is what appears to have happened to the Khmer civilization.

 

The Khmer civilization began around 800 AD and flourished and expanded for the following 5  centuries. This period coincides approximately with the Medieval Warm Period in Europe when the Vikings flourished in Greenland. There have been lots of studies in China, Asia, Africa, New Zealand, and so on, which confirm that the MWP was a global phenomenon. However, the beginning and end of such periods of warming or cooling do not occur simultaneously across the whole globe.

 

 

 

"

For someone who claims to have done a lot of research on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, it's clear you don't even understand one of the basics. Local is not universal. Just becaue one region has a change in its climate doesn't mean it's a trend involving all or most of planet earth.

[bristolboy]

44 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Since then, of course, the less scrupulous activists have claimed that "97% of climate scientists" believe in anything from extinction of the human race within 12 years to something we could manage if we dismantled capitalism as soon as possible and put the activists in sole charge.

Remember what the moderators said about providing evidence? You got proof of that?

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

For someone who claims to have done a lot of research on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, it's clear you don't even understand one of the basics. Local is not universal. Just becaue one region has a change in its climate doesn't mean it's a trend involving all or most of planet earth.

Crikey! I never realised your understanding of climate change was so limited and misconstrued. Where have I ever stated that any local change in climate means it's universal?

 

Over the time scales we're concerned about, from 30 to a few  hundred years, there is no consistent, universal trend that applies to all locations simultaneously. The trend is a mathematically constructed average of hundreds of different regions, whether it's temperature changes or the frequency and intensity of cyclones, floods and droughts.

 

The Medieval Warm Period was claimed by alarmists such as Michael Mann to be a period confined to Europe and North America, and not global. The climategate emails reveal his attempt to cover it up, in case people would begin to wonder if the current warming was nothing new.

 

However, there are many studies which show that the MPW wasn't confined to Europe. It occurred in many regions in both the northern and southern hemisphere, so can therefore be considered as global, although to be precise, not all regions of the globe will warm or cool simultaneously. During any period of a warming trend, some regions will warm more than others, and some regions might actually cool. It is the temperature average of all regions measured, that determines whether there's a global warming or a global cooling taking place

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

 

"Oxygen isotope studies in Greenland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Tibet, China, New Zealand, and elsewhere, plus tree-ring data from many sites around the world all confirm the presence of a global Medieval Warm Period." 
 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Present your research.

Here's and interesting insight for you, from a very qualified Professor of Geology.

https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientists-agree-on-nothing/

 

"If 97 per cent of scientists agree that there is human-induced climate change, you’d think they would be busting a gut to vanquish climate sceptics in public debates. Instead, many scientists and activists are expressing confected outrage at the possibility of public debates because the science is settled. After all, 97 per cent of scientists agree that human emissions drive global warming and there is no need for further discussion."
 

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Crikey! I never realised your understanding of climate change was so limited and misconstrued. Where have I ever stated that any local change in climate means it's universal?

 

Over the time scales we're concerned about, from 30 to a few  hundred years, there is no consistent, universal trend that applies to all locations simultaneously. The trend is a mathematically constructed average of hundreds of different regions, whether it's temperature changes or the frequency and intensity of cyclones, floods and droughts.

 

The Medieval Warm Period was claimed by alarmists such as Michael Mann to be a period confined to Europe and North America, and not global. The climategate emails reveal his attempt to cover it up, in case people would begin to wonder if the current warming was nothing new.

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period

 

"Oxygen isotope studies in Greenland, Ireland, Germany, Switzerland, Tibet, China, New Zealand, and elsewhere, plus tree-ring data from many sites around the world all confirm the presence of a global Medieval Warm Period." 
 

Mann did not assert that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to the Europe and North America. Here's the title and summary of the famous 1998 paper which he coauthored.

The Mann, Bradley and Hughes reconstruction covering 1,000 years (MBH99) was published by Geophysical Research Letters in March 1999 with the cautious title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.^[22][24] Mann said that "As you go back farther in time, the data becomes sketchier. One can't quite pin things down as well, but, our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years."htts://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

 

You have a positive gift for finding the dodgiest sources. In this case a crank named Don Easterbrook. Not a climatologist but a geologist. Let's take a closer look at Don's predictive powers:

"Easterbrook gave a speech at the 2006 Geological Society of America annual meeting, in which he stated:

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."^[3]

^"\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

https://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html

 

[bristolboy]

42 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Here's and interesting insight for you, from a very qualified Professor of Geology.

https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientists-agree-on-nothing/

 

"If 97 per cent of scientists agree that there is human-induced climate change, you’d think they would be busting a gut to vanquish climate sceptics in public debates. Instead, many scientists and activists are expressing confected outrage at the possibility of public debates because the science is settled. After all, 97 per cent of scientists agree that human emissions drive global warming and there is no need for further discussion."
 

Very well qualified for what?

"Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne,^[1] previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide,^[2] and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.^[3] He has published many scientific papers, six books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology.^[4][5] He has been a critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change."

But of course they don't want to go on debating these critics. It gives equal weight to denialists claims and that's simply not the case in the scientific community. I recall a show of John Oliver's (I think) where he demonstrates what a more valid debate would like like. 3 denialists vs. 97 ACC advocates.

Edited July 23, 2019 by bristolboy

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Here's and interesting insight for you, from a very qualified Professor of Geology.

https://www.thegwpf.com/ian-plimer-97-of-scientists-agree-on-nothing/

 

"If 97 per cent of scientists agree that there is human-induced climate change, you’d think they would be busting a gut to vanquish climate sceptics in public debates. Instead, many scientists and activists are expressing confected outrage at the possibility of public debates because the science is settled. After all, 97 per cent of scientists agree that human emissions drive global warming and there is no need for further discussion."
 

More hogwash from right wing political lobby group promoting climate change denial.

 

Where’s this ‘research of yours’,?

 

Regurgitating propaganda from political lobbying groups is not ‘research’.

[VincentRJ]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Very well qualified for what?

The history of the Earth and its changes in climate. Geology is one of the fundamental disciplines that is employed in the search for climate changes of the past.

 

Because Geologists tend to have a broader understanding of the Earth's history than many scientists in the many other disciplines involved in the study of climate, they tend to be more skeptical about claims that the current warming is unprecedented, as do Meteorologists because they have a better awareness of the chaotic nature of climate.

 

"Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne,[1] previously a professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide,[2] and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.[3] He has published many scientific papers, six books and is one of the co-editors of Encyclopedia of Geology.[4][5] He has been a critic of both creationism and the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change."

 

In addition to that biographical information, Professor Plimer has also received a number of awards for his excellent work and scholarship.

 

(1)He won the Eureka Prize twice, in 1995 and 2002. This is a prize which rewards excellence across the categories of research & innovation, leadership, science engagement and school science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prizes

 

(2) In 2003 he was awarded the Centenary Medal, which honours people who have made a contribution to Australian society or government.

 

(3) In 2004 he received the Clarke Medal which is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and in the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal

 

Gosh! What an unreliable charlatan Professor Plimer must be, continually spouting hogwash about climate change. ????

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The history of the Earth and its changes in climate. Geology is one of the fundamental disciplines that is employed in the search for climate changes of the past.

 

Because Geologists tend to have a broader understanding of the Earth's history than many scientists in the many other disciplines involved in the study of climate, they tend to be more skeptical about claims that the current warming is unprecedented, as do Meteorologists because they have a better awareness of the chaotic nature of climate.

 

 

 

 

In addition to that biographical information, Professor Plimer has also received a number of awards for his excellent work and scholarship.

 

(1)He won the Eureka Prize twice, in 1995 and 2002. This is a prize which rewards excellence across the categories of research & innovation, leadership, science engagement and school science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prizes

 

(2) In 2003 he was awarded the Centenary Medal, which honours people who have made a contribution to Australian society or government.

 

(3) In 2004 he received the Clarke Medal which is awarded by the Royal Society of New South Wales, the oldest learned society in Australia and in the Southern Hemisphere, for distinguished work in the Natural sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal

 

Gosh! What an unreliable charlatan Professor Plimer must be, continually spouting hogwash about climate change. ????

What part of "He's a geologist" don't you understand?

And Don Easterbrook has had a distinguished career as a geologist, too. Ya still gonna be citing him as well?

Edited July 24, 2019 by bristolboy

[RickBradford]

13 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Remember what the moderators said about providing evidence? You got proof of that?

Are you serious? You can't join the Klimate Klub unless you've

 

a ) endorsed the 97/8/9% consensus and, 

b ) demanded urgent action to "save the planet", whatever that means, from impending doom. If you don't do that, bang go your chances of meeting the Pope, or Greta Thunberg.

 

One of the most egregious practitioners of this art is activist author Naomi Oreskes. She actually wrote her own "scientific" paper called The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change which came up with some "overwhelming" consensus figure.

 

  https://science.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full

 

So what does Ms. Oreskes think we should do with this information?

 

She explains that in another book called Merchants of Smear, in which she argues that climate skeptics should be prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) which was designed for tackling organised crime. And that's just for starters.

 

And what does Oreskes think will happen if we don't take urgent action on climate change, which she equates to a "Nazi atomic bomb".

 

She explains that in a book called "The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future". Predictably, it's catastrophe all the way, leading to what she calls The Great Collapse of 2093.

 

Yes, it's standard SJW stuff - apocalypse round the corner, prosecute anyone who disagrees, but Oreskes has taken it to an extreme level.

Edited July 24, 2019 by RickBradford
Link added

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Are you serious? You can't join the Klimate Klub unless you've

 

a ) endorsed the 97/8/9% consensus and, 

b ) demanded urgent action to "save the planet", whatever that means, from impending doom. If you don't do that, bang go your chances of meeting the Pope, or Greta Thunberg.

 

One of the most egregious practitioners of this art is activist author Naomi Oreskes. She actually wrote her own "scientific" paper called The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change which came up with some "overwhelming" consensus figure.

 

So what does Ms. Oreskes think we should do with this information?

 

She explains that in another book called Merchants of Smear, in which she argues that climate skeptics should be prosecuted under the RICO act (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) which was designed for tackling organised crime. And that's just for starters.

 

And what does Oreskes think will happen if we don't take urgent action on climate change, which she equates to a "Nazi atomic bomb".

 

She explains that in a book called "The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future". Predictably, it's catastrophe all the way, leading to what she calls The Great Collapse of 2093.

 

Yes, it's standard SJW stuff - apocalypse round the corner, prosecute anyone who disagrees, but Oreskes has taken it to an extreme level.

And once again, you make allegations without links. Why should I trust your version of what she said? Seems like you're up to your old tricks again (not that you ever stopped) of repeating snippets taken from denialist websites. You don't have an inspiring track record. But I guess that you just can't help yourself, can you?

[RickBradford]

Quote

And once again, you make allegations without links.

 

No, I don't. The link is there.

[Guitarzan]

11 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Mann did not assert that the Medieval Warm Period was confined to the Europe and North America. Here's the title and summary of the famous 1998 paper which he coauthored.

The Mann, Bradley and Hughes reconstruction covering 1,000 years (MBH99) was published by Geophysical Research Letters in March 1999 with the cautious title Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations.^[22][24] Mann said that "As you go back farther in time, the data becomes sketchier. One can't quite pin things down as well, but, our results do reveal that significant changes have occurred, and temperatures in the latter 20th century have been exceptionally warm compared to the preceding 900 years."htts://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

 

You have a positive gift for finding the dodgiest sources. In this case a crank named Don Easterbrook. Not a climatologist but a geologist. Let's take a closer look at Don's predictive powers:

"Easterbrook gave a speech at the 2006 Geological Society of America annual meeting, in which he stated:

"If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035, then warm about 0.5°C from ~2035 to ~2065, and cool slightly until 2100. The total increase in global warming for the century should be ~0.3 °C, rather than the catastrophic warming of 3-6°C (4-11°F) predicted by the IPCC."^[3]

^"\https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Easterbrook

https://skepticalscience.com/lessons-from-past-climate-predictions-don-easterbrook.html

 

Again the IPCC only studies anthropogenic warming. 

[VincentRJ]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

What part of "He's a geologist" don't you understand?

 

Tell me what part you imagine I don't understand, then I can perhaps correct you.

 

Since I'm not a Geologist there's an awful lot about Geology which I don't understand, but I understand it's a major discipline in the very broad science of climatology.

 

 

[RickBradford]

Rather more polite than Oreskes are the Sierra Club, which limits its rhetoric to describing "highest levels of toxic pollution, more powerful storms and floods, more intense heat waves, more deadly wildfires, more extreme droughts, and other devastating effects of the climate crisis."

https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2019/07/historic-moment-launching-equitable-and-just-climate-platform

 

Does the Sierra Club accept the 97% consensus? It seems so, according to the group's president Aaron Mair in 2015.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw
 

[RickBradford]

Canadian activist David Suzuki thinks that the consensus is almost 100%, allowing only for "a small number of climate change deniers" but comforts himself by noting that "their arguments have been discredited by the scientific community at large."

https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learning-centre/

 

And what does he think is going to happen? It is, he says "crystal clear that the planet is losing a battle with the deadliest predator in the history of life on Earth."

 

Yeah, right.