Science/Environment climate hustle documentary

Snake_Baker

L'enfant terrible
Apr 24, 2013
42,961
78,071
inside your head
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
The Unicornia Reactants
CAMBRIDGE, MA—Stating that they just want to make sure it’s something everyone keeps in mind going forward, an international consortium of scientists gently reminded the world Wednesday that clean energy technologies are pretty much ready to go anytime. “We’ve got solar, wind, geothermal—we’re all set to move forward with this stuff whenever everyone else is,” said Dr. Sandra Eakins, adding that researchers are also doing a lot of pretty amazing things with biomass these days. “Again, we’re good to go on this end, so just let us know. You seriously should see these new hydrogen fuel cells we have. Anyway, just say the word, and we’ll start rolling it out.” At press time, representatives from the world’s leading economies had signaled that they would continue to heavily rely on fossil fuels until they had something more than an overwhelming scientific consensus to go on.

https://www.theonion.com/scientists-politely-remind-world-that-clean-energy-tech-1819576507?utm_campaign=SF&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_content=Main
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,447
4,102
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I'm not going to make you do anything. But if you find some stupid quotes I'm sure I could go toe to toe and find stupid quotes from climate alarmists.
oh yeah, for sure. i aint no greenie. what i was saying was that deniers aren't skeptical.

Then again we could have a sensible discussion where you acknowledge that not every reputable climate scientist agrees with the politically motivated conclusions and positions of the IPCC. The term 'denier' has no place in a scientific debate. It's just a cheap attempt to discredit people without regard to evidence.
well that would depend on whether that person was actively denying that, for example, the principles of the greenhouse effect. you only need to read the posts by Lebbo in this thread where he does exactly that. quite obviously the term doesn't belong in a proper science debate, but i'm not sure the term pops up a lot in the published literature.

There's genuine disagreement and doubt about the climate’s sensitivity to greenhouse gases, and how much of the CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere comes from humans and how much derives from natural phenomenon. Even the most alarmist scientists do not know for sure what is the sensitivity and what the human contributions are.
yes, there are a lot of unknowns (and unknowables absent another earth to experiment on); hell, the hockey stick that upset so many clowns had 'uncertainties' in the title of its paper ffs. and there's certainly a lot of discussion by the experts re CO2's sensitivity. but often (not saying right now) the people who feel the urge to focus solely on the uncertainties are the same who first denied that the planet was warming, then denied that CO2 was to blame, then denied that humans were contributing, then denied the planet was warming again. ie they opposed the whole idea from the outset due to preconceived biases (understable, i don't like hippies either) and have simply shifted their position slightly each time it became untenable. so yeah, im gonna keep calling those people deniers.
 
Top Bottom