Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 167 replies
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 11517 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Roger B

If this survey is real the messages these young people are receiving are completely wrong.

We need to reduce our impact on our planet but CO2 is a complete red herring. The current ECS (temperature increase for a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is centred around 3°C (IPCC AR6). The 2°C will destroy civilisation is simply made up.

 

 

Parents
  • 0

    davezawadi (David Stone): 
    The IPCC ….. is an entirely political organisation, not a principally scientific one.

    Here is the list of all 234 authors of the AR6 WG1 Report

    https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=35&p=

    Among them are 23 working in Britain, at the Met Dept, Uni Reading; NCAS Uni Reading; Dept Geography, KCL; Uni Leeds; Uni Bristol; Uni Exeter; UEA; National Oceanography Centre; Met Office Hadley Centre; Imperial College. All “entirely political”, “not principally scientific”? It should be obvious that you can't get a job at any of those places unless you are a scientist. 

    The other 211 also work primarily for scientific research organisations. 

    Exactly what politics do you imagine all these people might have in common? As distinct from the science, which they do all have in common.

    You, on the other hand, like to promote the work of a US “think tank” which wrote a report on how Rachel Carson was wrong and DDT is OK, and which has regularly received tobacco and fossil-fuel industry money. Not hard to imagine what politics it may promote, in particular since it was documented by Oreskes and Conway. 

Reply
  • 0

    davezawadi (David Stone): 
    The IPCC ….. is an entirely political organisation, not a principally scientific one.

    Here is the list of all 234 authors of the AR6 WG1 Report

    https://apps.ipcc.ch/report/authors/report.authors.php?q=35&p=

    Among them are 23 working in Britain, at the Met Dept, Uni Reading; NCAS Uni Reading; Dept Geography, KCL; Uni Leeds; Uni Bristol; Uni Exeter; UEA; National Oceanography Centre; Met Office Hadley Centre; Imperial College. All “entirely political”, “not principally scientific”? It should be obvious that you can't get a job at any of those places unless you are a scientist. 

    The other 211 also work primarily for scientific research organisations. 

    Exactly what politics do you imagine all these people might have in common? As distinct from the science, which they do all have in common.

    You, on the other hand, like to promote the work of a US “think tank” which wrote a report on how Rachel Carson was wrong and DDT is OK, and which has regularly received tobacco and fossil-fuel industry money. Not hard to imagine what politics it may promote, in particular since it was documented by Oreskes and Conway. 

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines