This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

Climate Emergency Declaration

Are we, as the IET, declaring a climate emergency? 

It's really that simple a topic, should we be adding our professional voice to the growing number of countries and organisations declaring such an event, to bring better awareness of the threat of the climate crisis and to encourage more discussion in addressing it! 

  • Frankly I think you miss the point about climate change.

    The skeptic view and the narrative.

    You mention climate emergency which is totally wrong.

    In mine and many others view.

    I try to see both sides you don't. There you go.  When I here from climate alarmists I feel duty bound to respond. There is plenty of information to back a skeptical view I suggest you understand why that might be.

    I'm not trying to be awkward here.

  • There is plenty of information

    It's not about the volume of information, it's about the quality of the information.

    Being sceptical is about considering the quality of all information you are presented with. You may want to be careful about using the spelling "skeptical" as that seems to have acquired quite a different meaning - ironically the exact opposite of "sceptical". I find this quite interesting, "skepticism" seems to be to hold a quasi-religious belief that something you want to be true is true based on selected evidence that appears to be esoteric. ("The published papers don't say this secret hidden information known only to my gang!" "No, they don't say that information, but that's because it's not backed up by evidence.") Which of course plays into the hands of those who see the benefit of people taking this approach. And then (this gets more interesting) to claim that those who hold other views think about their views in the same way - so the "skeptics" claim that those that accept climate change consensus are basing their views on faith rather than data. And at that point the debate, as in most of these threads on this forum, becomes pointless - both sides claiming to be scientifically based with the other being belief based.

    My experience has been that the scientific community is based on genuine scepticism - the whole principle of the current scientific method is to try to disprove hypotheses and only accept them if you can't disprove them. I can see why being part of the "skeptical" movement is reassuring, but it's worth considering whether that reassurance is real. 

    The funeral last weekend made me look up how George V and George VI died. Both died of smoking related illnesses. For years the (what would now be called) "skeptical" community refused to accept the link between smoking and ill health, and successfully slowed down health promoting legislation, having been fed lots of information by the very same agencies who are now promoting climate change denial. Then those agencies were working for the tobacco industries, now they work for petrochemical interests. This is what makes some of us really quite angry, we are seeing exactly the same happening with climate change. Long term deaths for short term profit.

    Or to put it another way, and repeat a neat Twitter meme: Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

    But genuine informed scepticism based on credible information is good.

  • Your looking too deeply.

    It's just an American spelling I like to use as alot of what I read comes from the USA.

    I can assure you I'm not religious in the slightest.

  • Your looking too deeply.

    It's just an American spelling I like to use as alot of what I read comes from the USA.

    I can assure you I'm not religious in the slightest.

  • 97% believe the climate is changing.

    Quite rightly so.

    As been discussed before they don't all agree on the man made bit.