Ban Ki-moon said these things in his speech at the environmental conference taking place these days in Doha

Pointing to the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy and other extreme weather events this year, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon said at the international climate conference in Doha on Tuesday that it was time to prove global warming doubters wrong.
According to Ban, time is running out and governments must act quickly, citing reports that show an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which scientists say are causing global warming.
"The abnormal is now the new normal," Ban told environment and climate ministers from about 200 countries.
"This year we saw Manhattan and Beijing under water, hundreds of thousands of people were washed away from their homes in Colombia, Peru, the Philippines and Australia. The signs of danger are everywhere," he said, mentioning that the polar ice caps are melting, the polar ice is melting and the sea level is rising.
Tomorrow, Friday, the two-week conference will close, in which decision-makers from all over the world discussed reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the future and climate aid for poor countries, something that the rich countries and the developing countries have not been able to agree on for years. Also in Doha, the poor countries blamed the rich countries for not increasing their commitment to a higher cut of greenhouse gas emissions, and demanded an increase in the budget for the war against global warming by 100 billion dollars by 2020. According to Ban, the rich countries, including the US, should show leadership because that they have the resources and technology to answer the problem.
On Tuesday, Britain announced two initiatives totaling $214 million to support renewable energy in Africa and a water management program that will help 18 million poor people better cope with climate change.
46 תגובות
another one
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe AGW is more serious than I think. Could that be too? Maybe they are afraid to tell the whole truth so as not to sow panic. I guess the number of scientists who think this way is not less than the number of scientists who claim that there is no AGW at all.
maybe i'm wrong But, we have raised awareness that it is very possible that man has an impact on the environment. We researched it, we did experiments, and we saw that an increase in the concentration of PAD causes the air to warm. We looked at why this happens and studied the physics behind it (I personally got to work with lasers in the IR field. We were looking for "windows" where the air does not absorb the radiation).
Nissim, the argument between us is over - I don't have the strength to continue trying to convince you that there is a chance that you might be wrong.
Itzik:
---------
2. There are ways to reduce the carbon dioxide rates even without such high costs, there are also ways to reduce the methane rate. The issue is whether the person chooses to address the problem or not.
Humanity lives in the world as if there is no tomorrow. How many people are able to go to the market or the supermarket for example and not need disposable plastic bags? How many of us will agree to give up dairy and meat products?
The average person in the world is a stupid type. He smokes cigarettes while he knows it's harmful to his health, he uses electrical products that emit radiation while he knows it's harmful, he drives a polluting car that is usually more valuable to him than his own life, he still has trouble picking up after spending time in the park.
———————–
Itzik should beware of the sin of arrogance - the assumption that most people are stupid usually hides within it sometimes even unconsciously 'except for us - we know better'.
This way of thinking leads to mental elitism which leads to narrow horizons.
איציק
I don't see where I and you disagree....I try to do my part....
another one
This is the difference between us. I thought like you more than 30 years ago. It seems to me such nonsense, how much does man already influence the world? I have studied several degrees since then and traveled the world a lot and talked to people.
We cause the extinction of more species of life than any other event in our history. In my lifetime the amount of people on Earth has doubled, and there is a good chance it will double again in my lifetime. The amount of PAD in the atmosphere increased during my lifetime by 30%.
You can believe what you want. Even in 20 years you will find excuses, I have no doubt.
Avi :
Thanks for the link.
Miracles + one other:
1. I wasn't talking about "skepticism" in the sense of those groups of people who come out against esoteric teachings and other witchcraft and other delusional things. I'm talking about a scientific procedure that talks about questioning anything that doesn't have a solid scientific basis!!! And as evidence and because we mentioned the esoteric teachings and medicine (and history confirms this) the story with that doctor who claimed to have discovered the "memory of water", if doubt had not been cast on the truth tables of his experiment,...homeopathy would have been seen as a scientifically based way of healing. Not that it prevents homeopaths from still claiming the memory of water as a reliable thing...but casting doubts on science is a way to get to the truth in things that are far from having a logical characteristic.
2. There are ways to reduce the carbon dioxide rates even without such high costs, there are also ways to reduce the methane rate. The issue is whether the person chooses to address the problem or not.
Humanity lives in the world as if there is no tomorrow. How many people are able to go to the market or the supermarket for example and not need disposable plastic bags? How many of us will agree to give up dairy and meat products?
The average person in the world is a stupid type. He smokes cigarettes while he knows it's harmful to his health, he uses electrical products that emit radiation while he knows it's harmful, he drives a polluting car that is usually more valuable to him than his own life, he still has trouble picking up after spending time in the park.
3. The human problem is that we have not yet matured, we suffer from "childhood diseases", we have not yet internalized the idea of equality in society, we have difficulty with normal conversation procedures in a democratic society, that is, we do not respect opinions
The ones that are different from ours. Women are still traded in our world like animals in a slaughterhouse. We remain subject to our fears and are afraid to speak openly about the problems that trouble us and place the responsibility on unseen forces. we
Lazy and lazy and still prefer (in the 21st century!!!!) to believe in all kinds of ancestors, mystics and demons and the evil eye in which the culprit is that we don't have a livelihood or all the other evil that we can't solve by ourselves in our lives...
May God and maybe in my lifetime we will be able to solve/exonerate the "childhood diseases of humanity"...first we manage to treat one and then the other, everything else will be child's play...
Miracles-
I will not convince you in any way no matter what I say.
In ten to twenty years we will see how accurate your observations are.
Happy holiday.
another one
Read the http://www.green-logic.info/2012/12/blog-post_4.html
He concludes, "These numbers also clearly show that all the talk about targets for reducing GHG emissions is idle talk, this is not possible, the targets have not been achieved and cannot be achieved. It's all fantasies, chatter, and idle waste."
You explain to me how he reaches these conclusions from the data he presents. I understand his words - "We are all going to die, so until then - let's celebrate!!!!!"
another one
The "green blog" is not a source. I didn't see any research there…….
The article I brought is one of those 24 peer-reviewed studies, so it's worth referring to them.
It's interesting that for real research that justifies your own position you happen to be "anonymous research".
The green blog is not a source of information. I have nothing to say about it. He also does not refer to real studies.
The amount of energy absorbed by the FDF is simple (precise - know how to calculate it). We know how much energy comes from the sun, and how much is absorbed - both computationally and by measuring satellites. No physical explanation that ignores this phenomenon can explain the measurements that exist.
Again and again and again - this is how most people who understand the subject think. This is how the vast majority of studies show.
It convinced me (in the past I thought otherwise).
another one
I did'nt read.
Say, you don't mix main and treat? I answered what you asked of me. Isn't that what matters?
--------
Nissim - I wanted to see what your argument was - I wanted you to go to a source like the green blog and see a claim that you always quickly resolved as incorrect and explain why - you think it is incorrect / give sources or some kind of logical explanation.
Instead you brought me reviews for some research that you didn't even bother to read!
Referring to a short article on the green blog should be much simpler than criticizing a heavy and long scientific article, right?
But just giving me a link to some unknown study is much simpler, right?
In the interpretation I brought the green blog as an example.
If you don't have the strength to find something you oppose - even though you said you saw the claims and you know they're not true - then just say so.
-----
I want you to explain something to me. According to the laws of physics, there should be warming due to the emission of GHG. Most of the measurements confirm the theory. Why would anyone who makes sense conclude anything other than AGW?
-----
Miracles according to the laws of gravity planes should fall - only there is another fiscal law that prevents them from falling right?
So here, too, there are many things that are not known - the sensitivity of the climate to an increase in the FDF.
We do not fully understand the mechanism of cloudiness which is very relevant to the energy balance of the world - and also relevant to the climate.
You present it as if it were elementary physics when even most supporters of the theory say it is not that simple.
another one
I did'nt read.
Say, you don't mix main and treat? I answered what you asked of me. Isn't that what matters?
I want you to explain something to me. According to the laws of physics, there should be warming due to the emission of GHG. Most of the measurements confirm the theory. Why would anyone who makes sense conclude anything other than AGW?
So I can assume you haven't read the study?
another one
I am not interested in this study. You asked me to go to some site and bring you an argument and an explanation of why the argument is wrong. I did it.
The green blog cites press... you don't really expect me to refer to what is written there - do you?
I asked you - not a link to someone else.
You are not one
Not an explanation for an explanation.
your explanation
You shouldn't have brought someone else's claims.
but use your own words.
Tell me, did you even read the study?
another one
No, no, I'm not ready. You asked for an article and an explanation of why it is wrong. Now you want an explanation for an explanation.
You are the one going against the consensus. You will contradict the articles.
And more than that - you have to contradict the basic physics that says that the FAD absorbs energy.
good luck with that
It's a good miracle that you found an article or study that someone else brought to light on the problems in it.
But that's not quite what I asked for-
I asked you to go to a site such as the green blog and find there a claim that you claim is incorrect and explain why.
You won't find a scathing criticism of any research that, as far as I know, is really not good-
Plus 5 years is a long time in this kind of science.
Since then much progress has been made on the AWG questioning front.
On occasion, I might get into the thick of this Chinese article and see if I, with the help of my basic understanding of physics, can understand part of it (that is, a part of a pdf that can be read).
------------------------
איציק
With your permission, I will refer to what Nissim wrote to you
----------
". The skeptic community is not a group of all those who express doubt about something. It is a community of groups such as the brights, the skeptic society, and sites such as skepticalscience and talk origins. All these people support evolution and human influence on global climate warming (AGW). They deny things such as homeopathy and acupuncture and the like.
There is a small and noisy community that opposes everything. 9/11, the moon landing and AGW. They are very angry that they are included together but that's how I see it. "
———–
I hope that you understand that both Nisim and my father have a tendency to exaggerate a bit and they see serious scientists who disagree with them as conspiracy theory lunatics and then they also have enough sense of Homer to say there in favor of skepticism - as long as it's only skepticism about things they themselves doubt (in their view, by the way Casting doubt = absolute negation)
———–
". The evidence unequivocally indicates that AGW is happening - the climate is changing in a way that cannot be explained without human influence. The scientific theory behind this is simple - GHG is a greenhouse gas that absorbs the sun's energy, and we know what the rate of GHG emissions by man is ."
———–
First thing - there are alternative explanations that explain why there is warming.
Second thing - even if there were no alternative explanations - lack of alternative answers does not mean that your answer is more correct.
Let's say two thousand years ago they would have asked why there is lightning - and the only answer they would have received was - probably the god Zeus is angry - does since there is no other explanation - does that make it a fact?
GHG is indeed a greenhouse gas - but the models that predict the warming include many elements that are supposed to give positive feedback.
One of the mechanisms that many PRO AGWists say that little is known about is the mechanism of clouds which are a very important mechanism in the climate.
It is a fact that most of the models given in 1999 completely missed what was observed. And a little bit expected the decrease in the rate of warming (that's what those on the site here deny/excuse/ignore it depends on what the mood is)
-------
." I'll say it again. AGW is proven to be true. You will of course find studies - good and real studies!!! - that show otherwise. That's fine and it should be. An interesting example - a 1979 study by Wertheimer and Lipper showed a direct connection between power lines high to death from cancer. After that it was proven that there is no connection between the things - despite the research.
What does it resemble? I am making a theory - if you stand on your left foot and toss a coin 20 times then all of them will fall "tree".
And now - doing a million such experiments. Do you understand what will happen? It is expected that the experiment will be successful!!!! It's the same with AGW."
-------
As I said to Nissim when he made this argument in front of me-
Medicine is a statistical science - if that researcher did not correctly isolate all the variables and there was another cause of cancer in an area that he did not discover - or if he happened to fall on a community with particularly bad luck - then it makes sense that out of many studies one will get results that do not match the rest - in science The climate - there are no statistics by patients - there are databases - some even global - there is no room for randomness here - the same measurement is the same measurement no matter who uses it for their research.
-------
". The AGW deniers have a number of statements that are nonsense. On the one hand, some of them claim that there is no warming at all. On the other hand, they claim that warming is part of a natural cycle. On the third hand, they claim that the increase in the concentration of PAD is good for plants (it has been proven that it is harmful). On the fourth hand, they claim that the green solutions are more polluting than oil.
"
------
There are many arguments against AWG - not all of them are necessarily good arguments - it is not a uniform group and uniform scientists who go together and agree on everything.
- The claim that there is no warming at all is quite rare - but there are those who question the accuracy of the measurements and believe that the magnitude of the warming is exaggerated.
- There are warmings and coolings as part of a cycle in nature.
- I may have seen one study that claims that excess carbon dioxide is good for plants - I doubt that the increase that is being talked about is somehow significant for most plants - in any case, this is not really an argument against AWG but an argument in favor of PADH.
- Some of the green solutions are more polluting than oil- for the simple reason that they require a lot of energy (which is produced, among other things, from oil) and save too little or no biodiesel - I understood that there are types of biodiesel that when you take into account the energy of its production, and you are the fuel that it releases in its combustion - You get a balance that is not small and sometimes even bigger than that of regular fuel. - Many greens also spoke against this type of biodiesel - but because For politicians, the money of farmers for whom they organized subsidies (and their vote in the elections as well) is more important, stopping such a farce is more difficult.
----------
"AGW deniers claim to be a big group. They're not. They're just very vocal"
----
Size is relative.
Note the repeated use of the term "denies"
- In my opinion, they are losing the public's trust - for the simple reason that the increase in energy prices is a tangible thing that is happening - and the rate of warming is no longer as great as it was.
---
"
. I will give you a small example. Another writes "Most would agree that the world on average is indeed warming but that humanity is the main cause of warming? That is something else." It can be understood from it that the majority does not support AGW. There is research done on publications on the subject. 13926 publications supported AGW, and 24 rejected (see James Powell's site)."
----
My feature is that most of the doubters will agree that the world is warming, but not most of the climate researchers.
And it's related because?
Are you willing to briefly explain in your own words what the study says and what is the problem with it according to the review?
another one
You wrote "I don't know how good this peer-reviewed research is"
This is one of the 24 studies. 🙂
another one
I don't follow you. There is a small body of research that claims there is no AGW. I gave an example of one of them and an explanation (not mine - of a geophysicist) what is not good in this research.
You are making a very unusual claim, unusual in that there are very few scientists who support Ba. You have to bring proof - not me.
What exactly do you want me to explain?
Miracles-
I don't know how good that research is being reviewed there-
On occasion, I might read the pdf there and see if I understand something-
By and large, I don't need to contradict the criticism you brought to the study because he was all talking about errors in the study - he did not attack any popular skeptical claims -
It is quite possible that that study is really wrong for many reasons-..
That's not exactly what I meant by offering this challenge.
- To begin with, I wanted you to explain in your own words - you would not bring someone else to criticize a long study.
Mainly a response to something from the green blog - or even Gabi Avital (who says a lot of things I don't agree with either - even outside of his unfortunate creationism).
- Regarding one of the things you wrote to Itzik:
I meant that most skeptics accept that there is warming but doubt that its main cause is human.
Not all researchers whatsoever.
I thought it was understandable in context.
another one
It's really a derogatory term. Like saying "evolution deniers".
I have a real problem with their belief not being based on evidence - religion, homeopathy, Bigfoot. What happens is that they start to invent evidence, and believe in all kinds of "so-called evidence".
Again 24 articles out of 13950….
It is simply unbelievable how "belief" produces facts and what are opinions, and hence the road to the denial of the other is completely paved. Is there a principled connection (not economic or political - Brazilian for example) between ethanol and other alternative clean alternative energy???. Is the acid rain an invention of Obama the Democrat to confuse the creationists in the Bible belt??? Is it because Al Gore had a mistress? The glaciers in the Himalayas are melting or maybe it's because of eruptions in the sun, etc., etc.
In short, a little less bickering, a lot more shared learning, with maximum openness and scientific honesty and without any "ideology" (I know it's utopia) and then there might be some chance of environmental correction.
Itzik, if you think there is no consensus in science regarding the cause of warming, it is only because of the deception of the deniers. When you actually check the data, there is wall-to-wall agreement.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-earth-is-warming-and-human-activity-is-the-primary-cause-221112/
another one
Here is an article denying AGW
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00703-006-0199-2
Here is the contradictory explanation
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/08/31/multiscale-analysis-of-global/
To contradict me - bring an article that contradicts the contradiction... Two can play this game 🙂
איציק
So we disagree and I'll try to explain why.
1. The community of skeptics is not a group of all those who express doubt about something. This is a community of groups such as the brights, the skeptical society, and sites such as skeptical science and talk origins. All these people support evolution and human influence on global climate warming (AGW). They rule out things like homeopathy and acupuncture and the like.
There is a small and loud community that opposes everything. 9/11, the moon landing and AGW. They are very angry that they are included together but that's how I see it.
2. The evidence shows unequivocally that AGW is happening - the climate is changing in a way that cannot be explained without human influence. The scientific theory behind this is simple - GHG is a greenhouse gas that absorbs the sun's energy, and we know what the rate of GHG emissions by man is.
3. I'll say it again. AGW is proven true. You will of course find studies - good and real studies!!! - that show otherwise. That's fine and that's how it should be. An interesting example - a study by Wertheimer and Lipper from 1979 showed a direct connection between high voltage lines and death from cancer. After that it was proven that there is no connection between the things - despite the research.
What does it resemble? I make up a theory - if you stand on your left foot and toss a coin 20 times, then all of them will fall "tree".
And now - doing a million such experiments. Do you understand what will happen? It is expected that the experiment will be successful!!!! That's how it is with AGW.
4. The AGW deniers have a number of claims that are nonsense. On the one hand, some claim that there is no warming at all. On the other hand, they claim that the warming is part of a natural cycle. On the third hand they claim that the increase in the concentration of PAD is good for plants (it is proven that it is harmful) on the fourth hand they claim that the green solutions are more polluting than oil.
5. AGW deniers claim to be a large group. they are not. They are just very loud.
6. I will give you a small example. Another writes "Most would agree that the world on average is indeed warming but that humanity is the main cause of warming? That is something else." It can be understood from it that the majority does not support AGW. There is research done on publications on the subject. 13926 publications supported AGW, and 24 rejected it (see James Powell's site).
Itzik - AGW is not a theory. It happens, just like a stone you throw falls back down. Or is this also a subject of "skepticism"?
No - this term is no longer accepted in the population - it is a derogatory term among all the green sheep who understand nothing about science and think that they are more enlightened and wiser when they adopt the "correct" opinion.
A skeptic is someone who doubts - you have no right to steal this definition and apply it only to those you agree with.
another one
The more common term is climate change denier. Your term is accepted among the deniers but not among scientific circles. I hate you, but that's how it is.
You are right about your response to Itzik. partially at least. The issue is really important and it cannot be ignored "for now".
Miracles-
I understand you don't accept the challenge.
Yours has a certain connotation for the word skepticism does not give you a monopoly on the word. Klimt Skeptic is a term that is used.
There is a difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming.
The majority will agree that the world on average is indeed warming, but is it that humanity is the main factor in the warming? It's something else.
For you, it is the skeptics who have to prove that there is no AWG - strange, I thought it was necessary to prove that there is something, not that there isn't something.
I guess it's different here.
I told you to choose an article and explain why it is not true.
You can't do that and in a few words you dismiss all the claims as nonsense and the people as eccentrics.
I'll give you another question - what needs to happen for you to be convinced that the AWG theory is weaker than you thought.
-------------
Itzik -
The main problem is that all the solutions that the Greens come up with to fight the FDF are expensive, destructive and usually don't really save the FDF.
Corn based ethanol for example is a catastrophe that even most greens agree is a bad idea.
In most cases, renewable energy hardly matters in terms of FDF because it is inefficient
Factories simply move to less restrictive countries when restricted due to pollution
And a hybrid car pollutes more than normal cars if you take into account their manufacturing process.
All these things mean that even if we have a problem - our solutions are not good -
Our green politicians have joined the new industry and are making money and political capital on nonsense they sell with the help of scaremongering at the end of the world.
You cannot, under the logic of 'Pascal's wager' here, let them destroy the world economy, starve people in developing countries, divert attention from real pollution - and in the end not really save the Fed - all of this
Does not bother you?
Miracles :
I don't agree with any of you!
Skepticism in my eyes is not a rejection of anything, I think that initial skepticism is a scientific tool to put everything
before tools in order to test the correctness of this (it goes without saying that I am talking about established scientific tools and not "literature" which I am not sure who wrote them....).
The problem is that all parties present theories and not unequivocal scientific findings.
I am not sure of the existence of the greenhouse effect, for the reason that there is still no unequivocal agreement regarding the correctness of the data. But this is more important than anything else, I believe that in anything you are not familiar with and there is a chance of risk, I claim that the matter should be seen as likely to materialize as true and until the data becomes clear, the things must be enforced!
For example, in the example we are dealing with of "yes to the greenhouse effect" or "no..", I think that for the sake of all of us, until things become clear, we should take the approach of "yes to the greenhouse effect" and see if due to conservation there is a change for the better.
If there is, then the likelihood is that the new data is due to the changes we took upon ourselves.
another one
You don't exactly understand what a "skeptic" is. This concept has a certain connotation and does not mean "questioning the scientific consensus". It means critical thinking about things like homeopathy and telekinesis.
Global warming is a fact. Just like my beer glass is empty now. There are very few real studies that claim that warming is not affected by man. Of course they can't prove it.
The green blog is full of crap like a pomegranate. He cites all sorts of delusional articles by eccentrics like Watts. On the green blog I read that PADH is good for plants and that wind turbines are unreliable and so much nonsense that I stopped reading there.
איציק
You agree with me….
Itzik - The UN Secretary General is a politician - and the information he has is the same information that the UN has had for a long time -
He has the studies and models that support AWG. nothing new .
A nation has a natural desire to be more significant than it is - and controlling the emission of nuclear weapons is one of the ways I can make the UN more relevant - that's why the UN is the same completely unreliable organization that let Gaddafi be the head of the Human Rights Council and condemns Israel in an average year From any other country (sometimes than the rest of the world) he is not exactly an example of any honesty.
This is a rather useless organization that is also often harmful.
- Miracles There is a difference between reporting and science -
In science there are evidences, measurements, models, predictions, confirmations and refutations. no "facts"
- at least not in the sense of happy everyday life.
"Facts" are facts only when all parties agree on them - that is, the fact that the thermometer measured X temperature - one could claim that the thermometer was broken or was not placed well - but would still agree to the measurement value (unless there is a claim that there is a falsification in the measurements of course.) - if there is Argument So in the relevant discussion they cannot be facts - if someone comes and disbelieves in the convention - you cannot say that he is wrong because he is arguing with facts, you have to look at his own argument and judge it on its merits.
To say that AWG is a fact and therefore anyone who disputes it is wrong - because it is a fact - is stupid and unscientific behavior (and unfortunately still common).
I saw you more or less claim on one occasion that you disproved all the arguments of the skeptics as incorrect.
And on another occasion you claimed that you are not sure what motivates the skeptics - perhaps wishful thinking.
So I have a simple challenge for you –
Go to "The Green Blog" for example or any other website of skeptics, preferably in Hebrew and preferably non-religious - (that is, don't go to the site of creationists) - search for some article (preferably from recent years) - and see where they are wrong - something.
It should be simple - surely you know the answer to some argument - right?
They have a lot of articles - they must make a mistake somewhere - right? Especially with them going against the "facts".
Miracles and one other.
It seems that most of your words are for the sake of the debate itself and nothing else.
I am satisfied if a person in a position like the Secretary General of the United Nations stood on the stage and said his words in front of the representatives of the member states of the United Nations without having any solid information on the subject that we do not know about yet.
You don't think that his words are based on the opinion of scientists who do understand something about the subject. He may not understand something in the field and is not authorized to determine, but his words may be after he received the information about his position.
I just don't understand how a person in his position would not say his words after examining them with authorities on the subject.
another one
You really looked for material that shows there is no AGW. I didn't find anything convincing.
I wrote this comment - it is a scientific fact. The light in my living room is on. it rained today. There are facts...
Miracles, I didn't say there is a Bigfoot - I said you can't rule out a claim just because it doesn't go with the consensus - you can rule it out with their evidence, they're not good.
You know nothing - at least you claimed so - about the allegations against AWG.
You admitted ignorance on this site that all you know about the arguments of the skeptics is wishful thinking
You are ignorant of choice in this section.
More than that, you use the oxymoronic term 'scientific fact' - there is no such thing.
There is no such animal - science does not work like that.
another one
Regarding Bigfoot I checked because it really interested me. There is no reliable evidence, except for some eccentrics who drank cheap whiskey with him in some bar in Western Canada....
And those who reject AGW - exactly the same……..
I have said many times - I have no personal opinion about AGW. I accept this as a scientific fact, and I see no reason to change my understanding.
Yes - why listen to people who have a different opinion than yours?
What can they already know?
(sarcasm for those who don't understand)
If the existence or existence of Bigfoot is something you are interested in it certainly makes sense to look at what the proponents say and see if they have any shred of consistency or evidence.
The idea that something should be ruled out in advance just because it is unconventional or goes with what the vast majority of scientists say is ridiculous.
another one
Skeptical science? Why listen to a handful of wacky scientists who speak without any evidence?
There are scientists like Grover Kranz and Jeffrey Meldrum who believe in Bigfoot. So should you listen to them?
Who mentioned my wealth????
True - but only if it's the science you agree with right?
If he listens to the science of doubters - then he is suddenly in the pockets of the wealthy, right?
another one
Scientists have the intelligence to discover the problem.
Politicians have the power and the right to address the problem.
When a wise politician listens to science.
It is so simple….
איציק
-------
You destroy me, I read your comments here and I am amazed that what interests you all the time are the trivial things. I don't understand what is important now how they got rich, if they have a scientific background or a scientific degree of one kind or another. The important thing is that unlike many people who have influence on important bodies and powers, they at least express support.
--------------
This is what I do not support, I am very cynical about the participation of politicians in a scientific debate that they have no background in
And they still come and say something like that?
There is no such thing as denial of warming - if Ban Ki Moon Bam put it that way, it is serious - but not surprising.
-------------
How many people here on this site, for example, have a turn who dared to act on this matter?
-----
and do what?
--------
In my opinion, the denial stems from the economic motives of entities that reducing pollution will harm them financially, such as polluting factories and even polluting countries.
--------
Well you have a right to any opinion whatsoever. But that doesn't make it connected to reality.
There are enough economic entities that benefit from promoting policies that deal with AWG and there are enough politicians whose prestige is linked to it - why is their integrity automatic for you?
———————–
And another thing that is important to understand, the people sitting there did not reach their position without the support of bodies standing behind them, meaning that behind their words there is the consent of those they represent.
---
It's very simple, politicians you agree with represent their public - and politicians you don't agree with - mislead those who voted for them - right?
-----------
Miracles
My main problem is the politicization of science - a politician has no place to decide what is right and wrong from a scientific point of view - and a scientist has no mandate to decide what needs to be done from a political point of view - this mixing between science and the state is dangerous for me.
another one
Did you think that maybe, just maybe, you should not attack people and instead listen to what they say?
I used to think AGW was bullshit. Until I studied in depth. I admit I was wrong.
You destroy me, I read your comments here and I am amazed that what interests you all the time are the trivial things. I don't understand what is important now how they got rich, if they have a scientific background or a scientific degree of one kind or another. The important thing is that unlike many people who have influence on important bodies and powers, they at least express support.
How many people here on this site, for example, have a turn who dared to act on this matter?
In my opinion, the denial stems from the economic motives of entities that reducing pollution will harm them financially, such as polluting factories and even polluting countries.
And another thing that is important to understand, the people sitting there did not reach their position without the support of bodies standing behind them, meaning that behind their words there is the consent of those they represent.
But they have no deep understanding of science - they are politicians - they have a worldview - one is from the left who has money and prestige based on AWG and the other is from the UN which has been promoting this issue for a long time for its own reasons.
In both cases I don't see why they should be more reliable than any other politician.
Is the UN an organization that needs to have some level of credibility?
What has Ban Kai Moon or Al Gore done that you think defines them as smart people other than supporting the AWG?
another one
There is no difference
Both are people who on the one hand care about the world and on the other hand are not stupid.
And they are also willing to invest their time and try to take care of the problem.
I didn't know Ban Ki Moon had any training in science.
What is the difference between him and Al Gore?
Encouraging, maybe we'll wake up, maybe we'll be saved