Contact   Imprint   Advertising   Guidelines

climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Forum for snow- and landkiters
User avatar
Havre
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:38 am
Kiting since: 2015
Local Beach: Oslo
Favorite Beaches: Jericoacoara (area) & Cabarete
Gear: Ozone Zephyr 17m, Ozone Enduro v1 12m, Ozone Enduro v1 9m, HQ Topaz 7m, Shinn Ronson Player, Mystic Majestic X Harness, Mystic Stealth Bar
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Havre » Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:13 am

Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:58 am
Havre wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:08 pm
Tongue-in-cheek I guess. Slightly humorous.

I find it interesting how seemingly the "science" differs with actual behaviour. We have our "priests" on here as we find them elsewhere as well, but how many are actually willing to sacrifice material goods for that belief? Some clearly do, but I would argue the "masses" are only doing so very superficially.

In Norway almost all of our electricity is hydropower. So I guess after we have ruined our rivers etc. they are "renewable". So unlike if you are buying an electric car in Poland you are actually running on somewhat clean energy here (if you are not assuming we could sell that energy abroad if we didn't use electric cars). On top of that Norway is one of the richest countries in the world (ironically mainly due to oil and gas). Meaning most Norwegians could easily "sacrifice" some material goods and still be far better off than most people on this planet. So are we? Electric cars are heavily subsidized and whenever some benefit is taken away there is an outcry among our local "priests" fearing that people will then stop buying them. Why? Do we not believe in "science"?

Yes, I completely agree with this. The very large majority of people seem to be selfish or weak. We should all ask ourselves "Am I doing enough ?" In my case (though I hope I'm not seen as a preacher) I freely admit I'm not.. I think this doesn't mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion. But other opinions should be respected off course.
You are not one of the preachers.

I do not mind people having an opinion of course. I do not mind people disagreeing with me - or deferring to some authority for their opinion (in the end we all do for almost anything). But I do find the "arrogance" seen among those that are so certain Co2-emissions will lead to some sort of disaster quite scary. Especially since many will just refer to x no. of scientists thinks so - so therefore you are a fool not to agree with "me".

Being able to convince me of something isn't necessarily a goal - or anything to strive for, but if you can't argue your case with your own words (obviously by all means use references) then it is just like Catholics some hundred years ago - not wanting to translate the Bible from latin so that the "masses" could actually try to interpret the text themselves. I will tell you how it is - and you will accept this truth based on me telling you.
Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:38 am
SimonP wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:35 pm
Except its not actually a question anymore. It is almost certain that 50% of the observed warming is anthropogenic in cause. It is highly likely that more than 100% of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Temperatures will rise 1 - 3°C by the end of the century depending upon future greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of doing nothing has been shown in numerous studies to exceed the cost/opportunity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is why every country in the world signed the Paris Agreement, which requires every country to meet individual target goals.
That would be a scientific debate and I'm really not qualified or probably able to quantify what the likelihood of AGW is. I believe it because the majority of scientists appear to think it is so. And as you say, the cost of doing nothing seems to be so high that even a likelihood of 50% or even less makes it worth "acting". But that doesn't invalidate some of Matteo's, Havre's and other comments.
On the point of disagreement. I would encourage more people to try to explore how we should deal with things. I personally do not wish for the world to "end" due to too high Co2-emissions. In that sense I should be an easy target - because I would be inclined to agree with people that argue for lowering Co2-emissions. Now I might be completely wrong, but I do not see anyone (I am sure are some that I am unaware of - which is one of the reasons why I write in threads like this - in case someone refers me to a good source for "new" information) going about this in a rational and balanced way. One question would be; could we live on this planet even if it became 3 degrees warmer? Or another can we lower the temperature of the atmosphere without reducing Co2-emissions? Especially the latter would then quickly lead us in to a discussion about the cost it has, especially for currently poor countries, to reduce Co2-emissions.

For me this comes down to a much bigger question - when do we transfer responsibility to "experts"? If you look around we rarely do so unchecked. One could argue a jury at least partially goes against just leaving things to experts. The jury would have to in the end evaluate if the DNA evidence is strong enough to get someone found guilty or not. Why should you leave that to "normal" people? Probably a better example would be politics. Currently we got a plumber, someone that worked as a secretary for a charitable organization 30 years ago or something and someone educated for 2 years within hotel hospitality and who worked at a hotel in his late teens early twenties almost 30 years ago being the three key people taking decisions on Covid-19 in Norway. Why? They are certainly not the "scientists"/"experts" we are here talking about. Have the Norwegian society gone so wrong? Probably not as I guess you would find many similar stories around the world among top politicians. Not saying scientists and experts are pointless, but isn't there a tendency to refer to those kind of people whenever we find someone we agree with? And that we tend not to listen to scientists and experts that we do not agree with? If we can't be knowledgeable enough to evaluate the subject matter - how can we be knowledgeable enough to evaluate which scientist or expert to "believe" in? I don't know, but it might mean that not everyone that disagree with "you" on climate change might not be fools just because there are x no. of scientists apparently meaning something - I'm not even sure what they agree on?

elguapo
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 818
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2019 6:01 pm
Favorite Beaches: long bay tci
Gear: ..
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 0
Been thanked: 147 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby elguapo » Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:38 am

hey now...
covid is the new fake science boogeyman to keeping useful idiots of the world happily enslaved.

the bogus climate change crew can live on as memes... but their time on stage is no longer needed.
let it go..


Image

slide
Frequent Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:54 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Weight: 75kg
Local Beach: Brancaster Norfolk 46 miles- just need a hard beach
Favorite Beaches: mablephorpe , cleephorpes uk-just need a hard beach
Style: landboarding with a petzl work harness
Gear: old blades and old flysurfer's , ckb/dex carbon landboards, modified airdeck and a home made snow board with barrel wheels ,soul's , spd5's
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: east anglia, uk
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby slide » Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:30 pm

not very intelligent once again , childish and very ignorant :claps:

slide
Frequent Poster
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2018 12:54 pm
Kiting since: 2003
Weight: 75kg
Local Beach: Brancaster Norfolk 46 miles- just need a hard beach
Favorite Beaches: mablephorpe , cleephorpes uk-just need a hard beach
Style: landboarding with a petzl work harness
Gear: old blades and old flysurfer's , ckb/dex carbon landboards, modified airdeck and a home made snow board with barrel wheels ,soul's , spd5's
Brand Affiliation: None
Location: east anglia, uk
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby slide » Tue Mar 23, 2021 12:31 pm

and pointless trolling :claps:

Pemba
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Eleveight FS, Shinn Bronq
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Pemba » Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:26 pm

Havre wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:13 am

You are not one of the preachers.

I do not mind people having an opinion of course. I do not mind people disagreeing with me - or deferring to some authority for their opinion (in the end we all do for almost anything). But I do find the "arrogance" seen among those that are so certain Co2-emissions will lead to some sort of disaster quite scary. Especially since many will just refer to x no. of scientists thinks so - so therefore you are a fool not to agree with "me".
I agree but you really don't have to look far to see that the arrogance applies to both "sides". Neither "side" seems to actually take in an argument from the "other side" and that's why this topic has become really repetitive.
Havre wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:13 am
Being able to convince me of something isn't necessarily a goal - or anything to strive for, but if you can't argue your case with your own words (obviously by all means use references) then it is just like Catholics some hundred years ago - not wanting to translate the Bible from latin so that the "masses" could actually try to interpret the text themselves. I will tell you how it is - and you will accept this truth based on me telling you.
Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 7:38 am
SimonP wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 6:35 pm
Except its not actually a question anymore. It is almost certain that 50% of the observed warming is anthropogenic in cause. It is highly likely that more than 100% of the observed warming is anthropogenic. Temperatures will rise 1 - 3°C by the end of the century depending upon future greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of doing nothing has been shown in numerous studies to exceed the cost/opportunity of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. That is why every country in the world signed the Paris Agreement, which requires every country to meet individual target goals.
That would be a scientific debate and I'm really not qualified or probably able to quantify what the likelihood of AGW is. I believe it because the majority of scientists appear to think it is so. And as you say, the cost of doing nothing seems to be so high that even a likelihood of 50% or even less makes it worth "acting". But that doesn't invalidate some of Matteo's, Havre's and other comments.
On the point of disagreement. I would encourage more people to try to explore how we should deal with things. I personally do not wish for the world to "end" due to too high Co2-emissions. In that sense I should be an easy target - because I would be inclined to agree with people that argue for lowering Co2-emissions. Now I might be completely wrong, but I do not see anyone (I am sure are some that I am unaware of - which is one of the reasons why I write in threads like this - in case someone refers me to a good source for "new" information) going about this in a rational and balanced way. One question would be; could we live on this planet even if it became 3 degrees warmer? Or another can we lower the temperature of the atmosphere without reducing Co2-emissions? Especially the latter would then quickly lead us in to a discussion about the cost it has, especially for currently poor countries, to reduce Co2-emissions.

For me this comes down to a much bigger question - when do we transfer responsibility to "experts"? If you look around we rarely do so unchecked. One could argue a jury at least partially goes against just leaving things to experts. The jury would have to in the end evaluate if the DNA evidence is strong enough to get someone found guilty or not. Why should you leave that to "normal" people? Probably a better example would be politics. Currently we got a plumber, someone that worked as a secretary for a charitable organization 30 years ago or something and someone educated for 2 years within hotel hospitality and who worked at a hotel in his late teens early twenties almost 30 years ago being the three key people taking decisions on Covid-19 in Norway. Why? They are certainly not the "scientists"/"experts" we are here talking about. Have the Norwegian society gone so wrong? Probably not as I guess you would find many similar stories around the world among top politicians. Not saying scientists and experts are pointless, but isn't there a tendency to refer to those kind of people whenever we find someone we agree with? And that we tend not to listen to scientists and experts that we do not agree with? If we can't be knowledgeable enough to evaluate the subject matter - how can we be knowledgeable enough to evaluate which scientist or expert to "believe" in? I don't know, but it might mean that not everyone that disagree with "you" on climate change might not be fools just because there are x no. of scientists apparently meaning something - I'm not even sure what they agree on?
I appreciate the "bigger question" referred to. Negative examples of people just going along with politicians and scientists without thinking much about it themselves are everywhere (the holocaust comes to mind..). But in the end as you said we defer to some authority about many many things. We can't question everything. When (etc) ? There's no general answer. Everybody has their own point when they start "proving" things for themselves I think, depending on personal interest/the issue, responsibility, intelligence, education, etc. It seems (to me ?) that in recent years it has become more and more acceptable for "those in power" to blatantly lie and this has been changing things a bit for me. Maybe I'm just getting old..

In this particular case (AGW), in my opinion, the majority of scientists seem to agree this is a big issue. There are others that don't agree, there are reasons why some scientists are not objective etc etc. I accept there are lobbies working on both sides as well. But unless you can personally interpret all data and establish confidence levels etc then you are kind of stuck with that. The idea that this majority somehow has been bought or fooled by China or something is just too far fetched for me to just go along with. There are also scientists that believe in aliens, UFO's etc. Some say the holocaust never happened. I can't (dis) prove many of these for myself so I go along with what the majority claims. Also, given what is said to be at stake, it doesn't seem to be a huge deal to work towards reducing CO2 emissions. I almost feel the "non believers" have a point to prove... Meanwhile, off course we should listen to other opinions while trying to increase our knowledge. While I haven't changed my opinion, this topic has in that respect been quite educational for me. Anyway, I've said all of this before, I'm becoming part of the problem now..

User avatar
Havre
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:38 am
Kiting since: 2015
Local Beach: Oslo
Favorite Beaches: Jericoacoara (area) & Cabarete
Gear: Ozone Zephyr 17m, Ozone Enduro v1 12m, Ozone Enduro v1 9m, HQ Topaz 7m, Shinn Ronson Player, Mystic Majestic X Harness, Mystic Stealth Bar
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Havre » Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:59 pm

Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:26 pm

I agree but you really don't have to look far to see that the arrogance applies to both "sides". Neither "side" seems to actually take in an argument from the "other side" and that's why this topic has become really repetitive.

I appreciate the "bigger question" referred to. Negative examples of people just going along with politicians and scientists without thinking much about it themselves are everywhere (the holocaust comes to mind..). But in the end as you said we defer to some authority about many many things. We can't question everything. When (etc) ? There's no general answer. Everybody has their own point when they start "proving" things for themselves I think, depending on personal interest/the issue, responsibility, intelligence, education, etc. It seems (to me ?) that in recent years it has become more and more acceptable for "those in power" to blatantly lie and this has been changing things a bit for me. Maybe I'm just getting old..

In this particular case (AGW), in my opinion, the majority of scientists seem to agree this is a big issue. There are others that don't agree, there are reasons why some scientists are not objective etc etc. I accept there are lobbies working on both sides as well. But unless you can personally interpret all data and establish confidence levels etc then you are kind of stuck with that. The idea that this majority somehow has been bought or fooled by China or something is just too far fetched for me to just go along with. There are also scientists that believe in aliens, UFO's etc. Some say the holocaust never happened. I can't (dis) prove many of these for myself so I go along with what the majority claims. Also, given what is said to be at stake, it doesn't seem to be a huge deal to work towards reducing CO2 emissions. I almost feel the "non believers" have a point to prove... Meanwhile, off course we should listen to other opinions while trying to increase our knowledge. While I haven't changed my opinion, this topic has in that respect been quite educational for me. Anyway, I've said all of this before, I'm becoming part of the problem now..
On the first part there are certainly people on both sides failing. And I am not defending posts/people who are mainly ridiculing others etc. even if I would happen to agree with them on the subject (on the contrary I like it when those I agree with hold a higher standard than those that I disagree with). But I do believe that in general whoever holds the majority position should be extra careful. Probably more so in the Covid-19 thread, but to me there has been at times a clear attempt to just silence that thread by ridicule, spam etc. from those holding the majority position. It is extremely easy to ridicule someone when you know you are in the majority. Even if the effort is unintelligent, unnecessary etc. you are safe from being called out. The opposite is true when you are in the minority.

I'm not sure how anyone can prove that something isn't happening? But in the case of challenging the claims made by the "other side" would you support scientists etc. financially to do that kind of work? Would you even allow them to get air time in the media? I know there are fairly large conferences happening in Norway (before Covid-19 of course) with "skeptics" (or whatever they see themselves as). So clearly there are enough people who could represent the "other side" in debates etc., but I can't think of a single time I have seen anyone whenever those debates are being held. Usually those conferences are covered by the media as to show the rest of the population that we got these "freaks" walking around being skeptical about AGW or whatever. Now some of them are probably just "freaks" and obviously as you say we will always find someone that has some opinion about some issue, but I find it interesting how we treat those people. Not with curiosity and respect, but with ridicule and arrogance - as if anyone will hold the majority opinion on every issue. If someone do so I would be almost more scared. Meaning you would probably want to be treated with respect talking about the issues you are in the minority so why not apply the same for others?

Another thing is how no-one is able to explore anything any longer. What if I get convinced that AGW is "real" 2 years from now? I'm pretty sure I would be ridiculed by the usual suspects on here for not having understood it earlier - as if it would be impossible for new information in between. So we stick to our guns - and when you try to be moderate you get people like jumptheshark calling you out for being fake or whatever. All good fun.

As for this thread it is running a bit on fumes at the moment. I guess the discussion might kick off again if only Biden can get onboard that plane.
These users thanked the author Havre for the post:
Pemba (Tue Mar 23, 2021 3:41 pm)
Rating: 6.67%

Pemba
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2015 5:39 am
Kiting since: 2002
Local Beach: Murrebue
Gear: Eleveight FS, Shinn Bronq
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 111 times
Been thanked: 30 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Pemba » Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:55 pm

Havre wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:59 pm
Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:26 pm

I agree but you really don't have to look far to see that the arrogance applies to both "sides". Neither "side" seems to actually take in an argument from the "other side" and that's why this topic has become really repetitive.

I appreciate the "bigger question" referred to. Negative examples of people just going along with politicians and scientists without thinking much about it themselves are everywhere (the holocaust comes to mind..). But in the end as you said we defer to some authority about many many things. We can't question everything. When (etc) ? There's no general answer. Everybody has their own point when they start "proving" things for themselves I think, depending on personal interest/the issue, responsibility, intelligence, education, etc. It seems (to me ?) that in recent years it has become more and more acceptable for "those in power" to blatantly lie and this has been changing things a bit for me. Maybe I'm just getting old..

In this particular case (AGW), in my opinion, the majority of scientists seem to agree this is a big issue. There are others that don't agree, there are reasons why some scientists are not objective etc etc. I accept there are lobbies working on both sides as well. But unless you can personally interpret all data and establish confidence levels etc then you are kind of stuck with that. The idea that this majority somehow has been bought or fooled by China or something is just too far fetched for me to just go along with. There are also scientists that believe in aliens, UFO's etc. Some say the holocaust never happened. I can't (dis) prove many of these for myself so I go along with what the majority claims. Also, given what is said to be at stake, it doesn't seem to be a huge deal to work towards reducing CO2 emissions. I almost feel the "non believers" have a point to prove... Meanwhile, off course we should listen to other opinions while trying to increase our knowledge. While I haven't changed my opinion, this topic has in that respect been quite educational for me. Anyway, I've said all of this before, I'm becoming part of the problem now..
On the first part there are certainly people on both sides failing. And I am not defending posts/people who are mainly ridiculing others etc. even if I would happen to agree with them on the subject (on the contrary I like it when those I agree with hold a higher standard than those that I disagree with). But I do believe that in general whoever holds the majority position should be extra careful. Probably more so in the Covid-19 thread, but to me there has been at times a clear attempt to just silence that thread by ridicule, spam etc. from those holding the majority position. It is extremely easy to ridicule someone when you know you are in the majority. Even if the effort is unintelligent, unnecessary etc. you are safe from being called out. The opposite is true when you are in the minority.

I'm not sure how anyone can prove that something isn't happening? But in the case of challenging the claims made by the "other side" would you support scientists etc. financially to do that kind of work? Would you even allow them to get air time in the media? I know there are fairly large conferences happening in Norway (before Covid-19 of course) with "skeptics" (or whatever they see themselves as). So clearly there are enough people who could represent the "other side" in debates etc., but I can't think of a single time I have seen anyone whenever those debates are being held. Usually those conferences are covered by the media as to show the rest of the population that we got these "freaks" walking around being skeptical about AGW or whatever. Now some of them are probably just "freaks" and obviously as you say we will always find someone that has some opinion about some issue, but I find it interesting how we treat those people. Not with curiosity and respect, but with ridicule and arrogance - as if anyone will hold the majority opinion on every issue. If someone do so I would be almost more scared. Meaning you would probably want to be treated with respect talking about the issues you are in the minority so why not apply the same for others?

Another thing is how no-one is able to explore anything any longer. What if I get convinced that AGW is "real" 2 years from now? I'm pretty sure I would be ridiculed by the usual suspects on here for not having understood it earlier - as if it would be impossible for new information in between. So we stick to our guns - and when you try to be moderate you get people like jumptheshark calling you out for being fake or whatever. All good fun.

As for this thread it is running a bit on fumes at the moment. I guess the discussion might kick off again if only Biden can get onboard that plane.

Yes, I completely agree with what you have said. I guess I meant even a relatively low degree of certainty of the AGW argument being true would be enough for me to act upon it (I really don't need "proof"). I did say almost... Yes, off course I would also support scientists from "the other side". Actually I would prefer scientists that have no side but I guess that's impossible.

Also the last point where you said you would be ridiculed if ... etc, completely agree. Today, if one's ideas change/evolve, if one is anything else than completely convinced of something, that is perceived as some sort of sign of weakness or something. Same with apologies and with being wrong by the way. Admitting is seen as a sign of weakness. Outright lying on the other hand, doesn't really seem to matter. There seems to be a link to politics. Anything that could be considered political becomes polarized with little space for normal discussion and exploration of the "middle ground".

Matteo V
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:42 pm
Local Beach: US, Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas/Utah/Oregon Coast
Favorite Beaches: Ft. Stevens, North coast of Oregon
Style: Just like school in summertime
Gear: Delta Kites and LF Kitefish QuadMod
Snowboard (Cambered and Rockered)
Foil kites on the snow
Brand Affiliation: NONE F--- the corporate world
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 235 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Matteo V » Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:07 pm

Havre wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 2:59 pm
So clearly there are enough people who could represent the "other side" in debates etc., but I can't think of a single time I have seen anyone whenever those debates are being held.
Neither side has has anything beyond conjecture and belief to present in a debate on AGW.

This tends to make the believers of AGW look bad, when thier arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny. While this is equally damning on the side of the AGW deniers, those deniers ally with skeptics and take the position of reality that is - 'we just dont know'. Thus from an objective stand point, deniers and skeptics win the debate because thier position of unsurety is provable. And the surety of the predictions made by AGW belivers are obviously inaccurate, inconsistent, and often rigged.


So now you know why you don't see free debates welcomed by AGW belivers.

Matteo V
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 2672
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:42 pm
Local Beach: US, Iowa/Nebraska/Kansas/Utah/Oregon Coast
Favorite Beaches: Ft. Stevens, North coast of Oregon
Style: Just like school in summertime
Gear: Delta Kites and LF Kitefish QuadMod
Snowboard (Cambered and Rockered)
Foil kites on the snow
Brand Affiliation: NONE F--- the corporate world
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 235 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Matteo V » Tue Mar 23, 2021 5:29 pm

Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 6:13 am
Matteo V wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 7:43 pm
Pemba wrote:
Mon Mar 22, 2021 3:40 pm
Almost 200 pages now.. This topic can be summarized by one side saying "people are causing climate change" and the other side saying "there is no proof of that". Repeat, repeat. Question would be are the indications strong enough for us to "do something" or not.
Those seem to be the two sides as definded by those buying into the global warming narrative. But that explanation is very much wrong.

The reality is that most of the skeptics out there see the real issues as being deeper than that such as:

1. Legislation/mandates in the west creating huge profits for corporations via subsidies being sold as a way to create jobs and continue the "growth". All the while "growth" is the problem we should be fixing.

2. International agreements that specifically weaken the west, and strengthen the 2nd and 3rd world. This eventually leads to point where there is 100% surety that the west will no longer have any say in enviormental (or human rights) policy globally in the future. And it is also clear that the 2nd and 3rd world will not think or act as kindly to the earth with respect to the global enviorment as the west has.

3. The enviormental destruction caused by the supposed solution (wind, solar, biomass) to the supposed fossil fuel problem - having the potential to be more of an environmental disaster than what it is there to fix.


So no, it is not that as simple as the AGW narrative you have bought into. I would suggest you watch "Planet Of The Humans".



Very good film, but the real eye opener is the attacks the creators have suffered by those who have seen it as an attack on thier sacred enviormental narrative of AGW. Even more interesting is how the large corporations, whose profit and growth stems from the subsidies which the AGW narrative supports, are actually "in bed with" nearly all leaders of the enviormental movement for the purpose of profit.
Why so condescending/patronizing all the time Matteo ?

Although you seem to be calling my summary of this topic "very much wrong" you're not pointing out why or what about it is wrong. Just adding to the "there is no proof of that" side of the argument (which I am not refuting by the way).
As I said, the AGW narrative is that there are 2 sides on this issue, AGW "belivers", and AGW "deniers".

This is incorrect as there are also skeptics that scrutinize both sides for lack of data, falsified data, inaccuracies of past predictions, basing calls for actions on emotion and propaganda, the failings of enviormental initiatives to remedy the problem(s) short or longterm, and the enviormental disaster(s) created by those same environmental initiatives.

Thus this topic cannot be summarized in the manner as you have suggested above. Though, to your credit, you could define the "extremes" with your range given above.

BUT we must be careful to not define any issue solely on its extremes.

User avatar
Havre
Very Frequent Poster
Posts: 1212
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:38 am
Kiting since: 2015
Local Beach: Oslo
Favorite Beaches: Jericoacoara (area) & Cabarete
Gear: Ozone Zephyr 17m, Ozone Enduro v1 12m, Ozone Enduro v1 9m, HQ Topaz 7m, Shinn Ronson Player, Mystic Majestic X Harness, Mystic Stealth Bar
Brand Affiliation: None
Has thanked: 153 times
Been thanked: 177 times

Re: climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

Postby Havre » Wed Mar 24, 2021 2:52 pm

Pemba wrote:
Tue Mar 23, 2021 4:55 pm
Yes, I completely agree with what you have said. I guess I meant even a relatively low degree of certainty of the AGW argument being true would be enough for me to act upon it (I really don't need "proof"). I did say almost... Yes, off course I would also support scientists from "the other side". Actually I would prefer scientists that have no side but I guess that's impossible.

Also the last point where you said you would be ridiculed if ... etc, completely agree. Today, if one's ideas change/evolve, if one is anything else than completely convinced of something, that is perceived as some sort of sign of weakness or something. Same with apologies and with being wrong by the way. Admitting is seen as a sign of weakness. Outright lying on the other hand, doesn't really seem to matter. There seems to be a link to politics. Anything that could be considered political becomes polarized with little space for normal discussion and exploration of the "middle ground".
Absolutely. Another cool discussion of course on how anyone would get involved with something. Pure objective curiosity or because you either would want to change something or react to something? I guess we agree - as my point wouldn't be to invite ideologues from the "other side" - no more than I want to hear from ideologues from any side - but to invite scientists, experts, whatever who based on their interpretation of the data might have drifted to the other side. I'm not sure why it all went wrong, but today we can't seemingly even have to "experts" in the room calmly discussing if saturated fat is harmful or not (we have this funny debate going on in Norway - where I have yet to see the two camps actually discussing the issue with each other publicly).

As for acting. I have obviously zero issues with people acting on their beliefs, but the bar, for me, needs to be a lot higher when moving from acting on your own beliefs and expecting others to do so as well (not to say the bar can't be reached). On that part I do tend to find myself in the minority on quite some issues though. People are in general a lot more inclined to expect others to behave in a way they find "correct" than I do. Not that that is a new insight. Most of human history has been that way. Religion, sexuality etc. has all been heavily dictated by some majority on to a minority - and the silent "masses" have just accepted it.


Return to “Snow / Land”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests