Sheaf Saint

At the risk of sounding like a stuck record Scally, what is your evidence for this? Contemporary models are far more sophisticated than the early ones from the 70s, and include numerous different variables that the older ones could not account for. Yet those old ones have been proven to be mostly accurate. Models are fed with various different future CO2 emissions scenarios to predict the climatic responses to each one. So how can you possibly say they can't predict with any accuracy when we simply don't know what the future emissions (and other natural forcings) will be yet?

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming Perhaps you missed this when I posted it a couple of days ago. Or maybe you just ignored it because it doesn't fit your narrative (more likely). Either way, I'll share it again.

You've literally just copied and pasted that from the Wall Street Journal article. A notoriously biased publication. I would like you to explain, in your own words, why you think a man with strong historical links to the fossil fuel industry and no previously published climate research to his name deserves more credence on the subject than people who have dedicated their entire professional careers to research in this field. I'll wait.

What data? Evidence please.

I literally said in my previous post that he is obviously an intelligent person. What is it you think this wiki profile tells you that proves he should be listened to? It doesn't list a single bit of actual climate research he has conducted, because he never has. What makes him more qualified than actual climate researchers to be an authority on the subject?

Not at all. I'm just pointing out that if someone is going to release a book essentially telling an entire branch of science that they are all wrong about something, that person needs to demonstrate a decent grasp of the basics if he wants to be taken seriously. Of course climate is constantly changing, because the Earth's climate is an extremely complex, fluid system and not one single climate scientist claims to fully understand it 100%. Koonin does raise an interesting discussion about exactly how much impact our activities will have on the climate in future and to what degree we should invest in mitigation measures, and there is no absolute right or wrong answer to that. But by failing to distinguish the difference between peak temperature records and long-term average trends, he's displaying a horrendous ignorance of the very basics of climate science. It would be like someone writing a supposedly comprehensive insight into the world of football but not even understanding the offside rule.

The fact that this Koonin guy is unable or unwilling to distinguish between individual peak temperature records and global mean surface temperature tells you all you need to know about him. Yet another of Scally's sources that can be safely ignored. Even if he does make some good points worthy of discussion, this kind of schoolboy 'error' destroys any credibility he may have.

I've not read the book that this article is plugging, so I'm not in a position to discuss everything that's in it. Stephen Koonin is obviously an intelligent man, but he also has a known recent history of making fallacious arguments regarding climate change. He also used to work as the chief scientist for BP, which just further demonstrates the strong links between climate change 'skeptics' and the fossil fuel industry. Why do you automatically assume that this man is more knowledgeable about climate than people who have spent their entire careers studying it? He acknowledges “it’s true that the globe is warming, and that humans are exerting a warming influence upon it.” This statement contradicts the claims you have made in the past that human activity does not influence climate and that it is all just made up. He claims that CO2 levels are "at a low that has only been seen once before in the past 500 million years", but this claim is completely false. They are currently higher than at any time in the last 3.6 million years, according to the most recent research. Yes, it's true that CO2 concentration has been higher in the past, but humans didn't exist at that point, so it is impossible for us to know how those conditions would have impacted on human life.

Like the time he did a video interview on a BBC news program about abortion, and spat his dummy out and ended the interview after accusing Andrew Neil of being left wing.

Absolutely mental. I posted a link to a study showing that even the earliest climate models from the 70s have turned out to be eerily accurate, and yet you just won't accept it will you. And even if some people got something wrong 50 years ago, what does that prove? Our understanding of science is evolving and improving all the time. The people you were listening to in the 70s, who said we were due another ice age, are the ones who have been proven wrong. You're literally defeating your own argument.

I don't. I understand that they are an important part of the energy mix, but I have never claimed they are the answer to all our problems because they are quite obviously not. Why are you arguing against things I haven't said?

I already did, on a previous thread... https://www.saintsweb.co.uk/topic/57530-extinction-rebellion/?do=findComment&comment=2773938 You ignored it then, just as you will ignore it now.

My 'view' is based on the fact that I've got an honours degree in environmental science, and the politics of climate change denialism formed a large chunk of one of the modules I studied.

Neither of those people are qualified scientists, let alone climate scientists. You are literally just doubling down and proving my point that you have no idea how science works and are only interested in listening to voices saying what you want to hear. Who was? If you're referring to that documentary that you linked to once, presented by Leonard Nimoy, then see my point above. Actual climatologists weren't predicting a new ice age in the 70s. The models being used even back then, that predicted warming in response to increased CO2 concentrations, have actually turned out to be scarily accurate... https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming "The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph. Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations"

With all due respect Scally, given your previous posts about climate change, you quite obviously don't understand how science works. A climate change denier is somebody who deliberately sets out to spread false information about climate change, in order to protect the vested interests of the multinational corporations who stand to lose a lot of money and power if we go carbon-free. It's a well-funded, global network of pseudo-scientists and 'journalists' (like Shapiro) working together to muddy the waters and delay the required action to protect corporate profits. I've tried to explain this to you before on a previous thread, and presented plenty of evidence to prove it to you, but you're not the slightest bit interested in listening. You've read some baseless bullshit somewhere that fits with your world view, and made your mind up that you are right and everybody else is wrong. And yet, you dare to accuse other people of being deluded and unscientific. Your lack of awareness in this regard is truly staggering.

He used to write for Breitbart. Nuff said.

Ben Shapiro is highly intelligent?

Ben Shapiro is an absolute fucknugget. He's so stupid, he thinks people living in low lying areas threatened by rising sea levels will be perfectly OK because if the sea levels do rise they can just sell their houses and move away. That's the towering intellect of this man. And so to this video, where he once again shows how terrifyingly thick he is. His whole central claim is that the media are only talking about cop-on-black violence and they're not reporting the regular black-on-black violence/murders that occur in the US, so it must be part of some awful leftie conspiracy. But he completely fails to realise that exposing the widescale failure of the American media to report on stories of black-on-black violence actually just reinforces the argument that there is a deep-rooted racist undercurrent in American society. Genius.

Fucking hell Weston. Are you really that dim or are you just trying to get a bite? Of course it doesn't mean they exist, but it absolutely doesn't *prove* that they don't. This Officer Tatum guy only opposes BLM because Trump does. If you don't believe me then just watch some of the videos he released during the election campaign. The lengths he will go to to defend Trump and attack Biden is painful to watch. His whole schtick is akin to someone only ever watching one Saints game and seeing them win, then spending the rest of their life claiming that Saints don't have a problem with conceding goals and losing games because they have never personally seen it. That's how dumb his logic is. The anecdotal evidence of the personal experiences of one man - a man with blatant political bias - in a country with a population of over 300 million, with a bitter history of racial disharmony, where black people weren't even allowed to go to school or get on a bus as recently as around 60 years ago, is completely meaningless and adds nothing of any value to the debate.

OK I've watched the section you recommended, and he is obviously an intelligent guy who makes some very valid points. The bigger problem with the US police is undoubtedly the corruption. And he's right that, of course, it is not just black people who are the victims of this. The regularity of incidents of lethal force involving American police is very worrying, regardless of the ethnicity of the victim, so the bigger concern should be to improve training (particularly firearms training) and reduce the level of corruption which sees so many of these officers spared any criminal charges for their misconduct. But some of his claims are just plain wrong. He repeats the claim that there is no disparity between black and white victims, but statistical analyses show there clearly is (as per my previous link). It's interesting what he says about videos of black people being abused and killed being more widely reported on. It's undoubtedly true that black killings are more widely publicised. But that doesn't contradict the statistical data. I don't believe that any police forces deliberately set out to be racist. Of course they don't. But, sadly, racist attitudes are still quite prevalent in America (and here as well). You only have to read some of the more moronic comments on social media posts to recognise that. When you combine that with a glaring lack of training and vetting of police recruits, and a corrupt culture of "close ranks and look after our own", it's little wonder that there are more than a few bad eggs like Chauvin in the various American PDs who believe they are untouchable, and whose own racist tendencies make them more likely to target black people.

No, of course he isn't. Just because he hasn't personally had any experience of systemic racism in the police, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The evidence speaks for itself. Black people in the US are up to 6 times more likely to be killed by police than white people. For this guy to deny there is a problem, based on nothing more than his own personal experience, is blinkered in the extreme. He's a hyper-partisan political commentator, and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near mainstream BBC news. The fact they invited him on without checking on his background is highly worrying

What the actual fuck are the BBC doing inviting this loon to speak on the news? I've seen his Youtube channel before and he's basically just a rabid Trump supporter who has somehow made himself famous (and rich) by making videos claiming that America can't possibly have a problem with racism because he is black, he has never personally experienced racism, and he managed to become a cop.

And none of the studio pundits mentions it. Instead just praising VAR for getting the right decision. Utter bullshit.

This. If the shot had gone in, VAR would rule it out for handball in the build-up. Absolute fucking joke.

Wtf? That was outside!