O/T:- ⚠️Impressed with the leadership [The UK Party Politics Thread]

[Newish Pie]

Is it not possible to have differing opinions on global warming.

I mean, it's possible. People manage. In spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus, people somehow manage to hold the opinion that the climate isn't changing in dangerous ways and that it's all a hoax because of reasons.

I don't really understand why... I mean, I get that there have been disinformation campaigns for decades that have been fooling people who are prone to conspiratorial thinking or contrarianism or spending too much time in the crankosphere. I get that it would be nice to think that we're not facing an existential threat to our way of life, and wishful thinking is more comforting than hard truths.

But unless I've misunderstood, you seem to want to be immune from criticism or mockery. You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to have that opinion taken seriously, or go unchallenged, or given equal weight to those of actual experts. People who've really, genuinely "done their own research".

[BanjoPie]

Guys, can we just stick to the main issue ie: are we impressed with the leadership of the current government!! - personally, IMO, Rishi Sunac is a downgrade on Boris!!- Thoughts?

[Elite_Pie]

Guys, can we just stick to the main issue ie: are we impressed with the leadership of the current government!! - personally, IMO, Rishi Sunac is a downgrade on Boris!!- Thoughts?

Sunak is a definite upgrade on Boris Johnson.

However, a piece of dogsh!t would be an upgrade on Boris Johnson.

[upthemaggies]

What happened the last time the planet warmed up? Too many Wildebeest using gas stoves?

"Environmental catastrophe"? What does that look like exactly and how is it going to go on long enough to have any impact whatsoever on the long term future of the planet, given the cycles it's been through in the past that have been unfit for almost all forms of life on land currently adapted to the fleeting present conditions.

Let's be honest, this has got duck all to do with saving the planet. At best it's about saving humans from extinction. In the grand scheme of things however that is completely irrelevant as well as inevitable. Logically, if you're for "saving the planet" from human activity then it will be better off without any humans on it - and that is assuming that "man made climate change" is going to completely and utterly reduce the human population to zero and that nothing else - AI, nuclear war, gain of function experiments, reactor meltdowns or whatever - is more likely to do it instead and do far more harm to the environment.

[upthemaggies]

I mean, it's possible. People manage. In spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus, people somehow manage to hold the opinion that the climate isn't changing in dangerous ways and that it's all a hoax because of reasons.

I don't really understand why... I mean, I get that there have been disinformation campaigns for decades that have been fooling people who are prone to conspiratorial thinking or contrarianism or spending too much time in the crankosphere. I get that it would be nice to think that we're not facing an existential threat to our way of life, and wishful thinking is more comforting than hard truths.

But unless I've misunderstood, you seem to want to be immune from criticism or mockery. You are entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to have that opinion taken seriously, or go unchallenged, or given equal weight to those of actual experts. People who've really, genuinely "done their own research".

Experts do not all agree and science isn't settled by consensus. That is not how science works.

[Jampie]

What happened the last time the planet warmed up? Too many Wildebeest using gas stoves?

"Environmental catastrophe"? What does that look like exactly and how is it going to go on long enough to have any impact whatsoever on the long term future of the planet, given the cycles it's been through in the past that have been unfit for almost all forms of life on land currently adapted to the fleeting present conditions.

Let's be honest, this has got duck all to do with saving the planet. At best it's about saving humans from extinction. In the grand scheme of things however that is completely irrelevant as well as inevitable. Logically, if you're for "saving the planet" from human activity then it will be better off without any humans on it - and that is assuming that "man made climate change" is going to completely and utterly reduce the human population to zero and that nothing else - AI, nuclear war, gain of function experiments, reactor meltdowns or whatever - is more likely to do it instead and do far more harm to the environment.

The last time the planet warmed up was about 12,000 years ago. The sea rose about 125 meters, ice sheets retreated, and... it became quite lovely. The climate was then mysteriously stable for about 12,000 years.

And then, in the last 100 years, temperatures began to rise. This has been shown to have a basically 1:1 correlation with the greenhouse gases we're pumping into the atmosphere. This should surprise nobody, because it's physically impossible to increase the quantities of methane and CO2 in the atmosphere without this increasing the planet's temperature.

The last time CO2 was as high as it is now was a bit over 3 million years ago, if I recall, which was well before the series of ice ages our species evolved from. We're at +1 degrees on average at the moment and seeing considerably worse droughts, flooding, cyclones and wildfires as a result. The last time the earth was more than a few degrees hotter than it is now was the Pliestocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, where much of the world's landmass turned to desert and there was an enormous mass extinction. You had land mammals getting largely wiped out, horses the size of cats surviving and so on.

I for one think another degree or two is going to cost us a lot of money and kill some people, but I'm seriously not keen on seeing +5 or +8 degrees (like the PETM) and the impacts those are likely to have on civilisation.

We haven't had a legit dark age since the Romans fell over, and I just don't want to see another one any time in the next several thousand years. I really don't see how that could be an unreasonable position to take.

[Jampie]

Experts do not all agree and science isn't settled by consensus. That is not how science works.

The only "experts" who don't agree are a fringe minority regarded as idiots by the overwhelming majority who do agree.

And science DOES work on consensus and reproducible experimental results. All of which point to climate change being real and caused by humans.

[BanjoPie]

Sunak is a definite upgrade on Boris Johnson.

However, a piece of dogsh!t would be an upgrade on Boris Johnson.

Great - we are back on track

[BanjoPie]

Global warming is an undeniable fact that is agreed upon by the majority of the worlds leading experts on the matter. What is not an undeniable fact is the actual cause of the global warming although again, it is considered by the leading experts that the use of fossil fuels is an undeniable factor. Unfortunately, the UK and most other countries lack the leadership required to counter the issues due to incompetence and greed!.

[upthemaggies]

The only "experts" who don't agree are a fringe minority regarded as idiots by the overwhelming majority who do agree.

And science DOES work on consensus and reproducible experimental results. All of which point to climate change being real and caused by humans.

Spoken like a fully paid up member of the cult.

[Magpies1959]

EP I have never suggested GB News is completely unbiased, I see it more as something at least to put on the other end of the see saw, so that we try and get some balance. I hope you are equally as damning of Starmer, when you see how useless he is as prime minister, as you have been with Johnson and co.

[Elite_Pie]

EP I have never suggested GB News is completely unbiased, I see it more as something at least to put on the other end of the see saw, so that we try and get some balance. I hope you are equally as damning of Starmer, when you see how useless he is as prime minister, as you have been with Johnson and co.

You have suggested that GB News is unbiased because they invite guests with an opposing view. I might buy into that when they employ presenters with anything other than a strong right wing viewpoint.

If Starmer proves more useless than Boris Johnson, I will probably look to emigrate!

[Magpies1959]

How are you going to get balance by being totally balanced when you are on the down pointing part of the see saw, fair point if the other news outlets were balanced as well. Even with more Conservative 'referees', you can still have a debate allowing both sides of the story to be heard.

[upthemaggies]

How are you going to get balance by being totally balanced when you are on the down pointing part of the see saw, fair point if the other news outlets were balanced as well. Even with more Conservative 'referees', you can still have a debate allowing both sides of the story to be heard.

Sometimes I switch over from talk sport to talk radio if the former starts going on about golf, cricket, women's football or the Fword (who they do now tragically devote time to on occasion). Talk Radio do have opposing viewpoints and I think most if not all of it now doubles up as Talk TV.
I don't watch any news channel but going by the website, GB News seems far more concerned with the Royal Family soap opera than anything else that's going on, but if they do have opposing views then it's definitely a step up from the BBC who seem absolutely terrified of giving air time to anybody who isn't circle jerking in endless collective guilt struggle sessions.

[Jampie]

Spoken like a fully paid up member of the cult.

I smell projection. Or did the Chinese make you say it?