MovieChat Forums > Tonyharrison > Replies
Tonyharrison's Replies
My point is that just because Al Gore isn't a climate scientist and his motives are cynical and self-serving, that doesn't discredit all the research that has been done. Furthermore, climate change is a theory and there is no debate to speak of. I discussed how there is no peer reviewed research to support an estimate that the consensus is 1.6% in the link, https://postimg.cc/QV6rLcSk. That link reminds us this is isn't the first time when an academic discipline has been attacked by unqualified claims from outsiders. Climate change denial, like that other infamous pseudoscience, creationism, can be dismissed with the same question: when is your paper due?
But as I said before, Al Gore isn't a climate scientist. If there are any climate scientists with the requisite qualifications and peer reviewed research who have sought to cynically enrich themselves, let me know. The whole time on this thread, the only links I've seen disputing climate change as a theory come from non-experts. The idea of an academic conducting peer reviewed research in any field to enrich themselves is far-fetched and if they even thought about committing academic fraud for this purpose, they would be caught out in the peer review process. I also find it strange that that these non-experts such as Alex Epstein and Lord Monckton argue that there is no consensus among climate scientist and that far from 97% of climate scientists accept the theory of human-caused climate change (who knows, it might be 96.72001% or 98.27524% of climate scientists who accept climate change), yet to date, no university or other research organisation which conducts peer reviewed research, endorses this claim. The paucity of their argument is evident in how they haven't collected any data or conducted any peer reviewed research of their own to give an alternative estimate. (And I have checked the link, https://postimg.cc/QV6rLcSk, which doesn't cite any sources to claim that 1.6% of climate scientists accept climate change.) If you want to convince me that climate change is a discredited theory, tell me who has conducted the ground breaking research in the field of climate science which has withstood the peer review process over the years and provided an alternative theory; two cases in other fields who have stood the test of time include Charles Darwin in the field of biology and Albert Einstein in physics. And no, Alex Jones has not conducted any peer reviewed research in the field of climate science: https://www.desmog.com/alex-jones/
As it stands, any domain which ends with .edu or .gov (or intergovernmental organisation such as un.org) which says something about climate change will accept that anthropogenic climate change is an established theory. Furthermore, there is simply no evidence that there is some kabalistic conspiracy among climate scientists to perpetuate falsehoods. The so-called "climate gate" farce is a case in point and as ground-breaking researchers, Darwin and Einstein remind us that in the field of scientific research, price collusion in a large market with many small competitors is simply not practical. If a climate scientist did come up with this great news that we have nothing to worry about, we would probably know it by now. Furthermore, regardless of what we may say about Al Gore, there is no government conspiracy to suppress climate research. To the contrary, while climate change denial doesn't have any academic credentials, it enjoys a very privileged status in the Murdoch press. Moreover, right wing governments have sought to defund research organisations as climate change-denying former PM of Australia, Tony Abbott, had done for the CSIRO in 2013. Hypocritically right wing governments, the Murdoch press and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones have been eerily quiet since 2013 about the unscientific claim that the planet stopped warming in 1998. As we we type the WMO reminds us that global temperatures have been increasing over May, June and July 2023: https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/07/1138512
You don't trust the SPLC. Fair enough. But where's the evidence that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy?
Sure, Al Gore is acting out of self interest but he is not a climate scientist either. However , the fossil fuel industry is no better. Neither of these two points detract from what 97 percent of climate scientists agree upon.
"It wasn’t caused by human activity, it has been occurring for billions of years."
97 percent of climate scientists would disagree with that statement (https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/)
"Those same globalists and elites that are lying about it are flying around all the time in fuel airplanes and fuel vehicles. They are getting rich and wealthy from green energy (Al Gore is one of them)."
Fossil fuel companies have got rich through greenhouse gases and have sought to undermine public awareness of the associated dangers just as the tobacco industry did in relation to the dangers associated with smoking.
"NASA and almost all the other global establishments are been funded to support that lie and deception. It is a hoax to push "Agenda 2030" along with other organizations (CBCD, WHO, UN, etc)."
The SPLC found: " Virtually none of the outlandish claims about Agenda 21 are true." (https://www.splcenter.org/20140331/agenda-21-un-sustainability-and-right-wing-conspiracy-theory)
"The Global Warming hoax is the foundation that will be used for almost every plan they have under their "Agenda 21"."
Anthropogenic climate change isn't a hoax. It's a theory like evolution and quantum physics.
Again Alex Epstein is a fossil fuel industry advocate with a Bachelor of Arts, not a climate scientist. He has no qualifications in climate science and neither has he published any peer reviewed research in the field.
The only source he quoted in his video was David Henderson who again wasn't a climate scientist but an economist: https://www.desmog.com/david-henderson/
NASA, a peak scientific research agency, published their findings long ago: https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/ I also found it strange that Alex Epstein implies that 97 percent of climate scientists agree on climate change but some of them may not agree when it's caused by human activity. However, NASA clearly stated in their findings that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is caused by human activity.
From the way you've described him, your manager sounds like someone who will probably want to chew you out. But if he has any common sense, he would also want to work out what went wrong so as to prevent it from happening again. In relation to the first point, you can cop the vitriol. I know it won't be easy but after he lets off some steam, he probably won't hold it against you because it was a mistake.
But regarding the second point, you can admit how you got the task wrong according to your responsibilities. Instead of trying to blame the colleague before you, you can emphasise that you didn't properly check the work already done and discuss what you will do to get it right next time. For example, if you can think about any training you can undertake, he might find it reassuring. You can also discuss strategies you can think of to do the task right next time.
I know this sounds strange but a lot of managers want employees who can admit they've fvcked up because they're not going to hide problems on future occasions. I hope it works out for you and either way, it might be reassuring to remember that everybody makes mistakes in their career. Every day in workplaces across the world, employees and employers are having these difficult conversations when the sh1t has just hit the fan.
I'm not bothered by your ad hominem attack. If anything, it reinforces that 1,200 climate scientists didn't really sign a declaration saying there is no climate emergency.
As I said before, Ivar Giaver isn't a climate scientist. Furthermore, Clintel isn't a climate science research organisation publishing peer reviewed research for that matter either. Anthropogenic climate change isn't a hoax but a theory upon which 97 percent of climate scientists agree. My question to Ivar Giaver and Clintel is: when is your paper due?
The "World Climate Declaration" was a hoax. 1,200 climate scientists didn't really sign a declaration saying there is no climate emergency: https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/09/16/fact-check-did-1200-climate-experts-sign-declaration-denying-climate-emergency
Ivar Giaver is not a climate scientist but a retired professor of physics. If he were a climate scientist, I guess he would be counted in the 3 percent (plus one) of climate scientists who don't believe in climate change.
Consensus is science. We call it a "theory". Theories do get discreditied by new peer reviewed research but until that happens, the theory stands. Climate change is a current theory like evolution and quantum physics.
Carl Sagan accepted climate change as a theory.
Greta Thunberg deleted the tweet which is not corroborated by what Prof. James Anderson actually said. GT isn't a climate scientist here but JA is and his findings have not been discreditied: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/greta-thunberg-deleted-2018-tweet-on-humanity/
As I mentioned previously, this website focuses on quotes from non-experts (politicians, journalists and in GT's case, activists) but says nothing about peer reviewed research.
As I mentioned previously, the website (extinction clock) doesn't really list any scientific predictions to speak of, but rather lists 27 statements made by journalists and politicians (not climate scientists). On the other hand, NASA's findings are that the scientific community's modelling and projections are accurate: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
My opinion is that who the source is, does matter. (This website doesn't disclose that information.) Without knowing the source and their credentials, we should assume that they are not scientifically qualified to comment anymore than someone who has never read a peer reviewed paper in their life.
I also mentioned previously, there are short term losses in reducing carbon emissions but there are even greater long-term losses in not reducing carbon emissions.
The wage gap and white privilege relate to political debates. On the other hand, anthropogenic climate change is an evidence-based theory based upon scientific consensus (see my last post). We are living in the age of climate change: last year's heat-related deaths during summer in Europe were the worst on record (but the data from this year's record-breaking summer in Europe is still being collected): https://time.com/6292986/europe-heat-deaths-2022-climate-change/.
I've never heard of this website called extinction clock before but it doesn't disclose who is behind it. For example, is it operated by NASA, or is it operated by Alex Jones? Needless to say, it doesn't have much substance to it in that (as of 24 July 2023) it only takes 27 quotes from politicians and journalists, but no climate scientists, and seems to take their quotes out of context. It doesn't cite any climate data to make an argument that global temperatures aren't increasing. At least the so called "climate gate" farce tried to misrepesent the actual people qualified to comment: climate scientists.
I have much more confidence in, for example , a source such as NASA which found that 97 percent of climate scientists agree on the theory of anthropogenic climate change (https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/).
I guess we can rely on news sources and other non-science publications as long as they actually cite climate scientists such as this one which cites academics in the field to argue that failing to take action on climate change now could result in a loss in 18 percent of output by 2100: https://www.reuters.com/business/cop/climate-inaction-costlier-than-net-zero-transition-economists-2021-10-25/ If the academics who have been cited find that their work has been misrepresented, they can speak up. The article points out that there are disadvantages taking action now (by reducing carbon emissions), but the consequences will be worse in the future (by not reducing carbon emissions).
But didn't the planet stop warming in 1998?
It's arguable that his approach is "cynical, targeted". After all, he's out to sell his publications like any other mainstream author. But I don't know if he can be associated with the alt right. I haven't heard him say anything that condones or encourages incels or xenophobic, racist groups.
I announce it out aloud in public so everybody else can hear.
Actually I do agree with them having safe spaces. I have no problem with her funding Beira's Place. If cisgender women don't feel comfortable with transgender people being at the same service for sexual assault survivors, I'm not going to make any value judgements.
Nonetheless crime statistics tell us there is a much higher risk that transgender people will be victims, not perpetrators, of sexual assault. If there were an alternative support service for transgender sexual assault survivors, I would eat my hat if she accepted it. And as far as I'm concerned, her following quote is hate speech: "War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. The Penised Individual Who Raped You Is a Woman."
Like I said in my last post, if reading and/or watching Harry Potter is your thing, enjoy.
Gerard Depardieu. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the allegations before a trial but while I can say he's a tax dodging mate of Putin's, he's a gifted actor regardless and his performances are mesmerising.
I don't agree with what she's said but that's no reason to stop reading/watching Harry Potter.
Apocalypse Now. I thought it was awesome as an adolescent but having then read Heart of Darkness and studied the war during my second year at uni, it didn't make much sense.