Strange

Good point. I'm not really aware of that happening. But if you think people are, and consider it getting off-topic or turning it into a personal attack, then please report those posts.

Really? A change from 13.2% to 13.19% is going to be a problem? (Even if that happened, which isn't obvious as the system is far more complicated.)

Because that (and reactions to her) is the topic of the thread.

That is not naive at all. It is completely divorced from reality. You can't work for climate change based on how you think people ought to be, you have to work with people as they are. (But someone has already said that.)

It certainly works both ways. But you can't fight the emotional appeals against climate change by refusing to engage emotionally.

You (and Sensei) are ignoring the fact that most people are moved by emotion but left cold by facts. Indeed. Unfortunately, being human, they are just as likely to be swayed by emotion. Of course, they have behind them a civil service and various agencies whose job is to look at the science and provide evidence-based advice. Unfortunately, they are free to ignore that. But, with people being stirred into action, even if by an emotional appeal, they might not get away with ignoring the evidence for long.

With CO2 at about 400 ppm, even a doubling of C02 would have an insignificant change on O2 levels. Even multiplying the CO2 by 10 would change the amount of O2 by less than 1% (looking just at the levels of those gases, ignoring other effects caused by increasing CO2).

my quote So you didn't read what I said? The point is that another referendum would not be the same referendum. It would not be a hopelessly naive "Do you want to leave the EU (with no idea how, what it entails, what the effects might be, etc)?" It would be "Do you want to accept this specific withdrawal agreement, with this specific political declaration on the desired future relationship with the EU, knowing that it will have these effects on trade, the economy, your rights, etc. Or would you prefer to maintain the status quo." If you think that requires a third referendum, then I would be curious to know why. That is not what democracy means. Or at least, not what modern western democracy means. There may be some places where it is acceptable for the "tyranny of the majority" to overrule the ideals, wishes and rights of the minority, but that is not the sort of democracy I would want to be part of. Also, worth noting that only about 1/3rd of the population voted to leave. And it was a very narrow majority. I disapprove of referendums in general, but I think it is very unwise to make a major constitutional change on a 50:50 result, even with a reasonably large turnout. I don't know what "pure democracy" means. There are many forms of democracy, all with different shortcomings. The UK has a representative democracy, which means that MPs are elected to represent the interests of all their constituents (not just do what some subset of them say) and the interests of the country. Often this means doing what some people, sometimes even the majority, disagree with.

Climate change deniers and others will obviously not be converted. And (as the opening post showed) will probably have their attitudes hardened by their own emotional reaction to the messenger. Seems effective so far.

And what do you propose to do about that? Read scientific papers at them, instead? I doubt many CNN viewers would watch it either. So you are highlighting the point being made: to engage people you need more than just dry facts and evidence, you need to engage them emotionally. That is what we are trying to tell you. You want get millions on the streets campaigning, writing to the politicians, changing their lifestyle, voting differently just by getting scientists to talk. You need people who can challenge them emotionally. We have had decades of scientific reports and it has made little difference. Now there is someone who can make people feel it is important and things may be changing.

Did you miss the bit about "science based expert advice"? Using emotion to engage people is NOT the same thing as using emotion as an advisor. Then you will lose your argument. However rational and fact based it is. Then the answer is to learn from them and use emotion effectively; not just give up and mumble "but facts" in the background with no one listening.. Maybe they should be. But back in the real world ...

You appear to have quoted me and changed what I said. That is against the rules.

Perhaps better if the whole country is just turned off and on again.

Sadly, it was ever thus. Most people base their decisions on emotion and gut feel, rather than a rational analysis of the facts. The theory behind representative democracy is that the masses elect representatives who have the time and expertise to understand the issues in detail and make rational, evidence-based decisions on their behalf. It doesn't really work, of course.

But 1,000s of people including scientists, politicians, activists, actors, industrialist, activists and general members of the public have been trying to spread this message for decades with limited effect. If someone can encourage more people to listen, more people to demonstrate and (maybe, just maybe) get some politicians to take the necessary action, then I don't think criticism of that person for being an effective messenger is justified. I find some of the adulation of her slightly worrying but it is just a minor distraction.

One can always do both. As you are not swayed by the evidence, either, that is not surprising. What makes you thinks is being "sent"? So, what? We should ignore her? (It is notable that she has refused awards and told people not to make a hero of her; it is the message that is important, not the messenger.)

You don't need to be of voting age, or even a voter, to suggest what world leaders (elected or not) should do. So I can't see that any of those things are problematic. There are plenty of people (young and old) saying exactly that (or something like it). The fact it is nonsense, unlike climate change, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say it.

OK. I'm pretty certain that your opinion is wrong. (Apart from anything else, the main issue is not birth control but a range of factors such as education, functioning democracy, health, wealth, etc. But that is off topic for this thread.)

Personally, I would say: not much.

I find this hard to believe. But I'm sure you can provide the reference that supports it.

! Moderator Note The still require you to describe it here. With, references to offsite material for support if necessary. ! Moderator Note That text is completely illegible. Post the material here or this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note The OP assures me that they are totally committed to mainstream physics and want to understand the mechanics of this mechanism as well as to find out what is wrong with their analysis. On that basis, I am moving it back to Physics. Any suggestion that the OP is promoting an over unity mechanism will lead to the thread being closed.

And yet the Leave campaign made a big deal of immigration (from anywhere, not just the EU) with scare stories and lies. This is not true. People who are not entitled to free treatment have to pay. One side effect of this is that there may be a large number of British people returning to the UK, because they can no longer stay in their chosen place of residence, who will not be eligible for NHS treatment or other benefits because they do not meet the criteria. Many of these may be elderly with have greater needs and less resources. Oops. (Same problem as CharonY earlier. It's a conspiracy!) Corrected now.

And also the only MEPs they ever have on are from UKIP/Brexit Party. They have never had a pro-EU MEP who might know about how the EU actually works and the benefits of membership.

Also because they believe what the experts in the field say. This acceptance may be slightly uncritical, but when the consensus is so overwhelming it makes more sense to accept it rather than reject it because you dislike the conclusions. Would those denying climate change refuse to accept their doctor's diagnosis if they didn't like it? "I demanded a second opinion. In fact I have spoken to 200 doctors and they all insist I need this operation to save my life. This demonstrates how corrupt the medical system has become. They are only interested in money. Oh, hang on, I'm not feeling too good...." Malthus certainly didn't.