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!
An example of blatant ghosting of climate scepticism is the poor unfortunate Professor Peter Ridd from the James Cook Uni in Australia. Subsequently the student intake has dropped as the youth start to get a grip on the truth.
So why can't it just follow the peer review process, that sounds like that would be the easiest solution to progress this further?
That is a simple one to answer. If your research and findings do not coincide with the political narrative, they are perceived to be unfit for purpose by default, and therefore deemed to be worthless There is an awful lot of money provided by very wealthy and powerful people which is used to buy outcomes from wherever to fit whichever narrative they wish to be pursued. Anyone whose findings go against this is simply ignored or professionally 'canceled'.
There can be an element of self-censorship and editorial censorship.
If all published studies are plotted with effect v power, there should be a wide spread about the mean with lower powered studies and a narrower spread with the high powered studies so like a funnel lying on its side. The true mean is the axis of the funnel.
The problem is that the low powered studies which go against the grain tend not to appear.
You need to consider too Arron what really constitutes an Emergency? We have been told, for at least the last 40 years, that the world will end and we have 10 years to fix it. These have all been lies (I cannot be more gentle than that, because nothing serious has happened, and in fact many things like crop yields have got better). Trying to turn fake predictions, where the predictors were obviously totally mistaken, into an EMERGENCY is simply PR pressure. The fact that we have been totally misled for 40 years is ignored, and the underlying modelling problems have not been corrected! In the meantime the lies have continued, and those making money from the obvious scam have been called National Heros, typically Al Gore etc. His film (which supposedly made him a $1 Billion) has been totally discredited because the content is fake or deliberately untrue. Polar Bears are probably the most obvious example, 5,000 have become 26,000 in the past 10 years, and the population is close to being limited by the food (Seal) population .A Polar Bear eats at least 50 a year. We were supposed to be Arctic ice free in the Summer, try telling that to the fancy Cruise Companies, they do very well sailing around all the Ice and letting people stand on it.
The real question is therefore "What has changed to make the Public believe the PR now"? The answer is nothing at all.
Ice wise, you mean something like this right?
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA
I do think we need to debate this though regardless of our views on things, and come together as a collective to sort the mess we're in.
I don't disagree with you that everyone has been lied to in one form or another, and continue to be lied to.
Look at the recent interviews with the UK Gov, this morning on the BBC they're telling people the North Sea Oil & Gas licences are good for the environment...
We're about to take you to the IET registration website. Don't worry though, you'll be sent straight back to the community after completing the registration.
Continue to the IET registration site
