PowerSwitch

https://vimeo.com/924719370

I quite enjoyed it, although i have no basis on which to personally verify any of the data presented. What i found shocking is how one side of this debate is actively suppressing the other, even though they are both using the same data. Has anyone else watched it?

I haven't watched it, and a brief google says there is no point in doing so.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-th ... myths.html

Which side is suppressing the other? Are you saying that "climate change skepticism" is being suppressed?

I skimmed through it, it's a mess of 20+ year old, long debunked nonsense.

Instead of making it illegal to speak unfashionable truths about "gender", maybe we should be making it illegal to spread politically-motivated anti-scientific propaganda. Maybe certain scientific truths should be protected by law. We could outlaw biblical literalist creationism at the same time.

I was told yesterday, on an obscure right-wing bulletin board, that there is no such thing as a climate scientist, and that the majority of the public, which used to believe the science, has now realised it was all lies.

UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 08:12 Which side is suppressing the other? Are you saying that "climate change skepticism" is being suppressed?

Yes, in essence that's what the contributors are claiming. It's a tactic used quite widely to create a 'skeptic' phenomenon, and always a red flag for me personally.

I think we need more data before either side can say they are right and the other lot are wrong, trends over a longer period in other words. There seems to be a concensus that rises in CO2 directly cause rises in temperature, but i agree with what one of the film's contributors says about concensus not equaling proof.

Allow me to take this opportunity to state that i do not self-identify as a 'Climate Skeptic'; broadly speaking i have far bigger fish to fry.

mr brightside wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 12:30

UndercoverElephant wrote: ↑10 Apr 2024, 08:12 Which side is suppressing the other? Are you saying that "climate change skepticism" is being suppressed?

Yes, in essence that's what the contributors are claiming. It's a tactic used quite widely to create a 'skeptic' phenomenon, and always a red flag for me personally.

I think we need more data before either side can say they are right and the other lot are wrong, trends over a longer period in other words. There seems to be a concensus that rises in CO2 directly cause rises in temperature, but i agree with what one of the film's contributors says about concensus not equaling proof.

I am struggling to think of a scientific consensus that was as solid as this one and then subsequently turned out to be wrong. People like to give broad, sweeping examples such as "quantum theory falsified classical physics, and the whole of science bought into that", but I think that is a weak argument. Classical physics works almost perfectly, almost all of the time. It wasn't a case of the whole scientific community believing a load of politically-motivated lies, which is what this film is claiming.

This is also a massive red herring, since the consensus suggests it is highly unlikely that the scientists are wrong, and the implications of them being right are world-changing. It would be very stupid to act on the assumption it is wrong because there's a 0.01% level of doubt, so why does this distinction even matter?

I think, on reflection, i prefer the term 'destabilisation' and not 'crisis' or 'emergency'; and i really do think we can't make big claims about anything without a lot more data.

mr brightside wrote: ↑11 Apr 2024, 06:59 I think, on reflection, i prefer the term 'destabilisation' and not 'crisis' or 'emergency'; and i really do think we can't make big claims about anything without a lot more data.

This is really just semantics. Yes "crisis" and "emergency" usually imply something temporary or short-term, or at least a problem which is theoretically fixable if we act in good time. We're beyond that with climate change. Sadly, I am not sure there is even a word in the English language that adequately captures the situation. "Catastrophe" maybe. Though I prefer "eco-apocalypse".

Sounds interesting and I only saw the first five minutes so far. Seemed to be a lot of footage of old tape memory computers and interviews with old men who want BAU to continue until they are too old to fly first class and play golf.

I will watch further when time and World of Tanks allow.

I think it's the nature and causality of the 'eco-apocalypse' that is in dispute here, not whether it's happening or not. Some people think humans are doing it, some think we aren't. The influence of vested interests isn't making the situation any easier either.