After a fast start, COP28 climate talks now in murky middle of hope, roadblocks

 carbon emissions, yet when United Nations officials were asked about how much carbon pollution was caused by bringing more than 100,000 people to Dubai, they said they had no figures but that the gathering was worth it

…

Hands up those attendees with a private jet at DXB!

What, nobody?

 carbon emissions, yet when United Nations officials were asked about how much carbon pollution was caused by bringing more than 100,000 people to Dubai, they said they had no figures but that the gathering was worth it

And they wonder why more people every day see this to be the gigantic scam it is. There's no secret conspiracy - it's right out in the open and they don't even care because they know most people aren't going to hold them to account.

And they wonder why more people every day see this to be the gigantic scam it is. 

How would the actions of these people prove the climate change crisis or the need for measures against it a scam? If billionaires have their companies pollute without control for profits, would that also prove to you that complaining about this pollution is a scam?

There's no secret conspiracy

Exactly, so believing the experts on every single institution of science in the world are hiding the reality of climate change is obviously an irrational proposition.

 it's right out in the open

Yet you have never provided any evidence to refute the climate change crisis, if it was "out in the open" it would also be trivially easy to prove it with scientific evidence.

Exactly, so believing the experts on every single institution of science in the world are hiding the reality of climate change is obviously an irrational proposition.

 it's right out in the open

Yet you have never provided any evidence to refute the climate change crisis, if it was "out in the open" it would also be trivially easy to prove it with scientific evidence.

If these experts were so worried about it, why do they fly to these events instead of lead by example and do it online? Who needs papers when their actions speak louder than words?

virusrex, you never adequately explain why we should accept the rank hypocrisy of the people who make the rules and the people who gather the evidence on which those rules are based.

If these people- including the climate scientists attending the COPS - don't lead by example, their pronouncements and findings have a very flimsy basis no matter what consensus is involved or proclaimed. If you truly value science, you should question the disparity between their words and actions.

And they wonder why more people every day see this to be the gigantic scam it is.

Every day? Where are you getting these numbers from?

You get a lot of ‘more and more people’, ‘everyone knows’, ‘nobody cares’, ‘the people have had enough of…’ on these topics without it ever being backed up.

JimizoToday  12:09 pm JST

And they wonder why more people every day see this to be the gigantic scam it is.

Every day? Where are you getting these numbers from? 

You get a lot of ‘more and more people’, ‘everyone knows’, ‘nobody cares’, ‘the people have had enough of…’ on these topics without it ever being backed up.

Perhaps you should expand your networks a little. Even on LinkedIn you'll see people from all walks of life and points on the political compass chiming in about how disgusting and blatant the hypocrisy is, so not just the channels you normally dismiss fringe dwellers.

Perhaps you should expand your networks a little. Even on LinkedIn you'll see people from all walks of life and points on the political compass chiming in about how disgusting and blatant the hypocrisy is, so not just the channels you normally dismiss fringe dwellers

Mate, just say you don’t have the numbers to back up your claim.

Saves all of us time.

Cheers.

It's extremely difficult to get accurate numbers of course, but are you denying that it's happening? Maybe it'll even happen to you one day if you're as open-minded as you claim to be. The recent Dutch and Argentina elections are indicators at a concrete level, and Germany's energy policies are proof that COP-oriented policies are a dismal failure that are getting a lot of people very angry. If you can't see it, there's not much I can do to help you.

virusrex, you never adequately explain why we should accept the rank hypocrisy of the people who make the rules and the people who gather the evidence on which those rules are based.

What hypocrisy in have you ever proved in the evidence collected and the methods that lead to the conclusions the scientific community of the world is in consensus.

If someone is a proved hypocrite and says the Earth circles around the Sun and not the opposite, is the hypocrisy of the person repeating the fact making it less true? obviously not, focusing in the people instead of the arguments that prove your claim is false is just an excuse because you can't do anything about scientific facts.

If these people- including the climate scientists attending the COPS - don't lead by example, their pronouncements and findings have a very flimsy basis

Still a nonsensical argument, again if a billionaire do not lead by the example and instead his companies pollute a lot, do that make the clear negative effects of pollution in public health "filmsy"? obviously not, the evidence is still completely valid, no matter who do you want to consider an example or not.

Address the evidence, the arguments, pretending they change according to who repeats them is still irrational.

COP28 has been dominated by the oil industry. It is a farce.

focusing in the people instead of the arguments that prove your claim is false is just an excuse because you can't do anything about scientific facts.

The point is that the people - climate scientists who go to these shindigs included - are acting in opposition to the "evidence" they proclaim and the policies derived from it. Doesn't that trouble you in the least?

This indicates to me that much of their evidence is flimsy, exaggerated, or just made up. Various reasons for this, including financial (grants, perks, etc) and ideological, or just good, old-fashioned greed. Scientists are human too and not immune to the dark side of human nature. And they have to put food on the table. If that means fudging results to get grants so they can make a living, many of them will do it. Remember Climategate, or are you just dismissing that as a conspiracy theory. It was just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

virusrex, I can't help but laugh at your continuous denial of the bleeding obvious

The only obvious thing is that you recognize you can't do anything about the evidence that clearly proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the climate change crisis is real and requires urgent action to limit the damage. Which is why you can only focus on people repeating the facts as if that magically changed the value of those facts, and baseless claims of conspiracies.

Forget the billionaires

No, forget everybody, focus on the evidence. You have not even tried to argue on the clear example that proves people acting in any way do not disprove the evidence, yet instead of addressing the evidence as anybody rational should do you keep repeating the debunked argument as if that would make it less false.

Is the climate change crisis real? yes

Will it affect you (and the 99% of the population) negatively? yes

Are any of these two things false because anybody fails to do the responsible thing? no

Then the failure would be to pretend the opposite.

This indicates to me that much of their evidence is flimsy, exaggerated, or just made up.

And that is the part where you make absolutely no sense.

To reach that conclusion you need scientific arguments, objective criticism that demonstrate the evidence is not real or the methods used to reach the conclusions not valid. You don't have those so your conclusions are forced and invalid.

This gets more complicated when every single institution of science in a related field in the whole world agrees the conclusions are correct. Obviously the scientific community of the world is much better at judging the scientific evidence than you (that provide no evidence to support your personal opinion).

At the end the result is the same, you can criticize as much as you like specific actions made by specific people that contradicts the scientific consensus, that does absolutely nothing to prove this consensus is not valid.

Try cutting off their funding and see how much agreement you get. You keep banging on about consensus, but consensus is valid only to the point where it isn't affected by forces that stand to increase their wealth and/or influence by funding research in a certain direction but witholding it in another. This is simple human nature, and ignore it at your peril.

 knew the media you consume wouldn’t have a lot to say about it. I’d have put my shirt on you following the Netherlands and Argentina. 

Best get out of your bubble which paints the kind of incomplete narrative you are coming out with.

Coming from someone who's been parroting the corporate line since at least the pandemic kicked off, you're in no position to criticise anyone.

Free-thinker bingo? Why, you're clever. You're mind is as trapped as virusrex's, only with a trace of humour on occasions. There may be hope for you yet.

Try cutting off their funding and see how much agreement you get.

Any evidence for this claim that the consensus (that runs contrary to one of the most lucrative industries in the whole world) depends exclusively from funding?

If that were the case the consensus would be in the opposite direction, Big oil is capable of funding in orders of magnitude greater degree than any university, research institute or even government. It makes absolutely no sense to pretend the opposite.

What part of the evidence/methods can you disqualify? making up global conspiracy theories is not evidence, is an excuse for not having that evidence.

I never claimed Big Oil doesn't fund research to promote its own ends. But governments do in huge amounts too. the difference is they have an almost limitless supply of taxpayers' funds to do it with, regardless of whether those taxpayers want to fund the research or not. At least with companies, you can choose whether to buy shares and therefore voluntarily participate in that funding. Governments have little accountability there and will fire off grants and subsidies to whatever person or organisation suits its preference at the time, regardless of how silly it is. Australia under the current government is a perfect example of screwing over the country with the rainbow dream of unreliables to pursue a dream that has no basis on scientific or engineering reality whatsoever. But they keep throwing good money after bad nonetheless.

I never claimed Big Oil doesn't fund research to promote its own ends.

But that argument still completely destroys the conspiracy theory that you are using to explain why you don't have any argument. No, governments of every country around the globe are not each as rich and willing to fund research as Big Oil is, and not all institutions of science receive even grants from the government. Both of these facts clearly debunk the conspiracy you are trying to use as an excuse.

You are not trying to argue how you can only find evidence from some countries, or why you can only find some institutes supporting your view from independent institutes, you are trying to explain why you could not find even one example of a respected institution contradicting the consensus, which clearly shows your explanation is impossible to believe.