UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[strad]

- the planting of fear and guilt into the population helps the leadership to maintain its position

.
+100
Like so many things... follow the money.
I think it was Pilkey but it may have been one of the others stated that for him Global Warming is his religion.
Many are sincere and I think that is why they are willing to lied and cheat to win.

[strad]

I haven't read Crichton but I have read a few non fiction books on the subject. Can ya tell?

[Big Tea]

I haven't read Crichton but I have read a few non fiction books on the subject. Can ya tell?

All his books had a hook, and were well researched.

I have not been to his site for a long time but it seems to me there is a lot of stuff removed.

still worth a visit what ever your interests.

http://www.michaelcrichton.com/visionary/

[Just_a_fan]

I haven't read Crichton but I have read a few non fiction books on the subject. Can ya tell?

Confirmation bias works both ways...

[Big Tea]

I haven't read Crichton but I have read a few non fiction books on the subject. Can ya tell?

Confirmation bias works both ways...

But it's only bias if its someone else's opinion

[Just_a_fan]

I haven't read Crichton but I have read a few non fiction books on the subject. Can ya tell?

Confirmation bias works both ways...

But it's only bias if its someone else's opinion

Er, no. Confirmation bias is going to look for information that supports your own position on a subject.

[Andres125sx]

Everybody lies, but when it´s IPCC who lies, then they loose 100% of his credibility instantly?

Have you ever considered that they may be lying in good faith to exaggerate the situation trying to mentalize people about something wich may be catastrophic for humankind? Because we know about global warming for decades, we know the planet can´t cope with our current emission levels, but what are we doing? Increasing our emissions year by year We indeed need someone who is able to make people wake up

But people do prefer to buy reports paid by petrol companies or countries with no interest on renouncing to their dominating position based on petrol, weapons, etc...

[Andres125sx]

governments need a boogie man and warming was a convenient replacement for the nuclear threat.

Sorry but that´s a fairly simplistic view of humans. Not sure about others, but I can worry about different things, actually I do worry about politics, economics, environement, emissions...

Also, if governments need a boogie man and warming was convenient for them, they´re all complete retards doing so little at the respect and forcing people like myself to be against them because they continue doing all they can to slow down sustainability, green power generators, etc.


If that´d really be a boogie man, governments would be first and most fanatic environment defenders, but they´re far from that, actually they still favour petrol companies much more than green ones with fresh ideas.


It´s not governments trying to make us afraid, it´s petrol companies and some governments trying to make us think global warming is false, so they can continue leading the world with their old strategies.

The funny thing is some people provide more credit to these known liers than they do to scientiests all around the world, using some rare case of a scientist who disagree as an unquestionable evidence he´s right and the rest of the world wrong

[zac510]

It's a bogey man.

A boogie man is a dancing man. If governments need a dancing man, that's fine by me.

[Tommy Cookers]

[quote=Andres125sx].... the planet can´t cope with our current emission levels, but what are we doing? Increasing our emissions year by year #-o [/quote]

global CO2 emissions aren't yet falling - but they've stopped rising
despite the cheats like India
(who have agreed only to the need to appear to agree and are still increasing their huge coal burning)

eg yesterday the UK was told it has reduced CO2 emission by 43% (its goal is 80% by 2050)
vehicular and heating CO2 is (now) not falling enough - because of our population explosion of imported people
the mainstay of our economy is asset speculation (inflated property values) driven by low interest rates
so more people travel relatively long distances to work (they can't afford to buy a house there)
the economy 'grows' which our leaders love as it maintains the national ability to borrow massively and cheaply
producing further spurious 'growth'
this compelling cycle has in the past come crashing down
but might not do so now as we import most manufacture from countries whose wealthy eg like their assets here in the UK

[Big Tea]

governments need a boogie man and warming was a convenient replacement for the nuclear threat.

Sorry but that´s a fairly simplistic view of humans. Not sure about others, but I can worry about different things, actually I do worry about politics, economics, environement, emissions...

Also, if governments need a boogie man and warming was convenient for them, they´re all complete retards doing so little at the respect and forcing people like myself to be against them because they continue doing all they can to slow down sustainability, green power generators, etc.


If that´d really be a boogie man, governments would be first and most fanatic environment defenders, but they´re far from that, actually they still favour petrol companies much more than green ones with fresh ideas.


It´s not governments trying to make us afraid, it´s petrol companies and some governments trying to make us think global warming is false, so they can continue leading the world with their old strategies.

The funny thing is some people provide more credit to these known liers than they do to scientiests all around the world, using some rare case of a scientist who disagree as an unquestionable evidence he´s right and the rest of the world wrong

The fact that you spend so much time here, and are willing to debate, explain, and discuss things moves you out of the 90%.

News, be it TV, Radio or printed press today is ALL opinion guided. The days when facts were presented neutrally are gone. Usually the first sentence from the newscasters mouth lets you know how you should feel about an item.

Just stand in your local news agent and read the headlines on say 10 news papers.
Even then, if you read the text of the item it often bares little resemblance to the headline.

[Fulcrum]

I'm surprised people are surprised by climate change. Climate stasis would be truly anomalous in my opinion.

Also, wouldn't it be far more catastrophic to have global cooling by X degrees?

[Tommy Cookers]

we know from ice and other cores there has been catastrophic cooling in quite recent times
(Heinrich events - quickly developing 'mini ice ages')

but warmism imposes 19th century view saying ice needs coincidence of 3 Earth orbit variations so gives 30000 years warning
global warming was invented 'by accident' in anticipation of public fears of the next Heinrich event

the last ice age finished less than 10000 years ago - strictly speaking we are still in an ice age
some IA experts have said the next icing phase has already started

[roon]

Confirmation bias works both ways...

But it's only bias if its someone else's opinion

Er, no. Confirmation bias is going to look for information that supports your own position on a subject.

I would call that cherry-picking. Confirmation bias is about deriving false conclusions from pattern recognition. I would say it is often, maybe only, a subconscious phenomenon. Like when a person notices the time 11:11 on a digital clock; they may eventually attempt to derive meaning from the easy-to-recognize, unique shape of four ones, while ignoring the other 720 permutations the clock face presents to them.

[Just_a_fan]

But it's only bias if its someone else's opinion

Er, no. Confirmation bias is going to look for information that supports your own position on a subject.

I would call that cherry-picking. Confirmation bias is about deriving false conclusions from pattern recognition. I would say it is often, maybe only, a subconscious phenomenon.

Confirmation bias is "The tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories." There are those who support the idea of AGW who will find information to support their view. There are those who disagree with AGW and will find information to support their view. Both will ignore evidence/data that is contrary to their position even though the evidence/data is valid. Both are guilty, in such a situation, of confirmation bais. Heck, you can even get people using the a single piece of evidence to support diametrically opposed positions.