The world's most pressing political issue explained in a diagram:

@Quizzical Has it? I haven't seen those sources and if 98% of climate scientists agree then it's good enough for me. Science has got some stuff right too.

@Burnley123 Surely you must have watched Blue Peter all those years ago and Newsround... They were constantly talking about Global Warming and CFC's, lol

@Quizzical They were right too.

@Burnley123 Well, these floods need to get a move on then. We're supposed to be at least knee deep by 2020...

I think the whole Climate Change thing has detracted from much bigger and definitely provable issues.

Pollution in our seas, our over-reliance on plastics and non-reusable energy sources, and over-population.

@Quizzical A ton of stuff has happened. Provably. The weather has gone fucking insane everywhere, glaciers and arctic ice are retreating like mad, average global temperature continues to rise.

Am I missing something?

@Quizzical Just because you personally are on high ground doesn't make a flood fiction.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I live by the sea actually

@CountScrofula I think we are ALL missing something... Which is sufficient data as the the definite causation of Climate Change.

Is it man-made or is it just part of a natural cycle.

I don't actually know to be honest, and I don't know who I can trust to tell me.

It's a VERY rare occurrence these day when a truly independent study of anything is conducted. There is always money involved, and where there is money there are people with agendas, and people with money and an agenda can twist data to fit anything they like.

I'd be more trustful if Climate Change wasn't a multi-million dollar industry...

But, as with everything else presented to us in the media, we should never blindly believe everything we are told, because there is ALWAYS a spin on it.

It's still important to question these things, even though it's not a popular thing to be seen doing, and people inevitably get over-emotional about it (as they do with EVERY big issues these days) 🙄

@Quizzical Is climate change caused by man or natural cycles? Who cares? At this point, the consequences are the same. Honestly, I've never understood the 'we didn't do it' argument.

Evidence if climate change and its considerable consequences doesn't come from the media or politicians or a few suspect research projects. It is incontrovertible in literally every scientific discipline known. The evidence is hitting us in the head.

No, we may not be knee-deep in water right now, the results of what we do today won't be seen for some time to come. We will have missed the critical mass point well before we suffer its realities.

@Quizzical Even if you buy that the vast majority of scientists in the field are corrupt (even though no motive is ever put forth) You are quibbling about deck chairs on the Titanic.

@Graylight Is climate change caused by man or natural cycles? Er... That is actually VERY important. If we did cause it then we might be able to reverse it, if it's natural than there is NOTHING we can do about it and we need to be looking at ways to alter how we live so that we can survive in those new conditions.

And the 'evidence' is not incontrovertible, otherwise there would not be differing opinions and controversy regarding the subject, which there still is amongst the scientific community.

As for knee deep in water, we were supposed to be knee deep in water already according to the original projections, which were obviously incorrect.

I am not really arguing for or against... All I am saying is, we should still look at this critically and question what we are told.

Climate Change seems to be some sort of holy grail where everything that is announced HAS to be 100% true and accurate and unable to be questioned. That in itself is rather worrying... Especially when some things have shown to be either incorrect or have been 'hidden' from public view if they don't match the official line.

@Quizzical Also something to consider. Many in the camp claiming it is a conspiracy...the few with a scientific background were "experts" for Phillip Morris in the 90s and in the famous Nicotine is not addictive video. Now they are supposed to be climate scientists. In other words they sold their credibility to the highest bidder 2 decades ago.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow No, I am just not blindly accepting everything I am fed without questioning it first...

It used to be called critical thinking. Now society would rather just be spoon-fed facts and figures without thinking at all.

Which is probably how Trump ended up as President 🤔

@Quizzical 'They will die of drowning as they look up to the rain with gaping mouths wondering where the water comes from.'

@Quizzical The problem I have is today someone like Stephen Hawking is expected to be given the same skepticism as the guy who will forge a study saying Cornflakes cause dementia for a buck.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I'm not saying it's a conspiracy! lol

I am saying we do not have enough knowledge or data, but billions of dollars are being spent on the subject

And if one 'scientist' is proven to be corrupt then you have to accept that there is a possibility that there are corrupt scientists on both sides of the issues.

We've got to look beyond face value at motivations to judge the value of the information we are being provided... and even then, that information is further being filtered down to the masses through the media, who have their own set of agenda.


Is it REALLY so bad to want to question things? To play Devil's advocate?

@Quizzical it is when you give con artists and lobbyists equal weight to geniuses and experts in the field. And the not enough data argument is basically bogus.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow He should be given the same scepticism... Everything and everyone should be.

Everything should be looked at and questioned. No-one should be given a free pass just because they happen to be well-respected or famous.

To do so would be dangerous.

People have blindly followed what others have told them in the past and it usually leads to tragedy and disaster.

Question everything, because although 99 times out a hundred you might be wrong, that 1 time out of a hundred might make all the difference.

@Quizzical you have the wrong end of it. Cons artists and shills should not be given false credibility.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow So, as I am an expert in the field of what shoes I currently have on you will totally believe me when I tell you what colour they are?

Without for a second questioning what I am telling you or asking for proof?

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow That's part of my point... You have to ask questions and research to find out if they ARE con-artists and shills.

Just because someone is a leader or expert in their field doesn't make them incorruptible or immune to pressure or coercion, or to lay their own beliefs over the data they are presenting.

@Quizzical No but if you are forced to defend your expertise against con artists spouting complete nonsense who are given a platform and credibility they have never earned the entire thing becomes a farce.

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow As I say, until you look beyond the surface you will never get to know who IS or isn't a con artist.

Unfortunately these days, any voice of dissent or a differing opinion is just shouted down...

It's actually healthy to have discourse on things like this, especially when there is still an element of doubt. It's the only way that doubt can really be banished.

@Quizzical So if I drew a picture of a building in art class a few times I should be allowed to debate actual structural engineers at an engineering conference with international coverage?

@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow If you could get that far without ANYONE questioning who you were then I would be extremely impressed...

Which is pretty much my point proven.

Questions HAVE to be asked to ascertain if the person is a valid authority.

As far as we know, NONE of the other attendees are actually structural engineers either, they just said they were and got let in alongside you...