Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
join...skeptical science etc....
Purely on that score, some of us have been there got the T-shirt and the deleted posts and the ban, and not for trolling. At least Gandahar and other believers can still post on here within the rules if they wish. A telling difference when PH climate threads are being criticised. Naturally the strong suspicion is that if believer advocacy blogs allowed open contributions period, they would lose the debate.
t trolling from tts like gandahar.Anybody that joins/comments at Skeptical Science..
please don't forget to ask John Cook and his mates why they had this photo... in their images directory.
(John Cook photoshopped as Himmer - swastikas swapped for the Skeptical Science logo, cap badges, lapel, etc)
oh and this one... (Nuremburg rally, look at the flags)
Google/wayback machine cached them, their image directory was open to anybody that deleted an image from the url, and just searched ../images
Rule 1 of credible climate communication, don't let your mates photoshop you as Himmler
Rule 2 - don't keep it
Rule 3 don't let it leak....
it was a real WTF - OMG moment a while back, I saw it when a physics Prof tweeted it and said OMG!
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/skepticalscience-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-sc...
please don't forget to ask John Cook and his mates why they had this photo... in their images directory.
(John Cook photoshopped as Himmer - swastikas swapped for the Skeptical Science logo, cap badges, lapel, etc)
oh and this one... (Nuremburg rally, look at the flags)
Google/wayback machine cached them, their image directory was open to anybody that deleted an image from the url, and just searched ../images
Rule 1 of credible climate communication, don't let your mates photoshop you as Himmler
Rule 2 - don't keep it
Rule 3 don't let it leak....
it was a real WTF - OMG moment a while back, I saw it when a physics Prof tweeted it and said OMG!
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/08/skepticalscience-...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/06/skeptcial-sc...
Edited by BJWoods on Saturday 13th February 12:58
Edited by BJWoods on Saturday 13th February 13:53
Otispunkmeyer said:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/02/30-percen...
Oh dear
or perhaps not?
What they mean by missinformation is that 30% of teachers haven't swallowed the bks.
Following on from this (seen on the IFL Science page today)...Oh dear
or perhaps not?
What they mean by missinformation is that 30% of teachers haven't swallowed the b
ks.
...and at the foot of the page...
I wonder why?
ETA - This comment (as well as most of the others on FB) did make me chuckle...
Edited by nelly1 on Saturday 13th February 18:39
Bad news for IPCC favourites Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
gazza285 said:
Bad news for IPCC favourites Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
mybrainhurts said:
gazza285 said:
Bad news for IPCC favourites Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
Totally agree with mybrainhurts
Link said:
In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.
But but but all those hundreds of papers wafted like hot air by credulous believers are peer reviewed or is it now more a case of 
Edited by turbobloke on Saturday 13th February 19:30
On balance this is worth an explicit airing, full-frontal as it were.
More snips from the link with my emphasis added said:
As an inadvertent courtroom martyr for climate skeptics Dr Ball has destroyed the credibility of both the IPPC paleoclimate record (Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph ‘science’) and all those IPCC computer model ‘projections’ of a dangerously warming climate (Weaver’s ‘science’).
The threat of the cold light of truth being shone on their “secret science” was a step too far for Mann and Weaver. As such, the alarmist (false) claims of a cooler past climate presented by Mann, and doomsaying computer model projections of a dangerously warming future climate, presented by the still hugely influential Weaver would not stand up in court.
By tenaciously and bravely defending his actions for three long years the mild-mannered septaugenarian has single-handedly proved that the very core of government climate science is junk.
Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.
The threat of the cold light of truth being shone on their “secret science” was a step too far for Mann and Weaver. As such, the alarmist (false) claims of a cooler past climate presented by Mann, and doomsaying computer model projections of a dangerously warming future climate, presented by the still hugely influential Weaver would not stand up in court.
By tenaciously and bravely defending his actions for three long years the mild-mannered septaugenarian has single-handedly proved that the very core of government climate science is junk.
Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.
gazza285 said:
Bad news for IPCC favourites Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver...
http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
That's made my week. I won't hold my breath waiting for it to appear on the BBC.http://principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces...
Nope just business as usual - an article on US 21st Century dust bowl risk, which ties itself in knots trying not to disclose that it was hotter back in the 1930s than now!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3556...
I really hate to be a party pooper, but that story is two years old.
I remember when climategate broke. I really thought that the scam was over. Yet, many years later, we still have public policy dictated by the alarmists. We have expensive electricity, winter deaths in our aged population, and whole industries closing down.
A few years ago I saw a comment that "they want to bomb us back into the Stone Age". At the time, it struck me as a bit hysterical.
Now, I see that it was absolutely true. Unfortunately, the general public still feel the way that I did.
They cannot believe that some scientists are liars.
They cannot believe that the BBC is biased.
It is very depressing.
I remember when climategate broke. I really thought that the scam was over. Yet, many years later, we still have public policy dictated by the alarmists. We have expensive electricity, winter deaths in our aged population, and whole industries closing down.
A few years ago I saw a comment that "they want to bomb us back into the Stone Age". At the time, it struck me as a bit hysterical.
Now, I see that it was absolutely true. Unfortunately, the general public still feel the way that I did.
They cannot believe that some scientists are liars.
They cannot believe that the BBC is biased.
It is very depressing.
Somebody is bound to find where it was actually on PH in 2014 but using the PH search function and wider online searches with obvious forms of words around Mann, Weaver, Tim Ball, Steyn, Court case etc have drawn a blank.
One interesting result of looking was to discover from one PH source, the Climate Cat thread, that a link within it relating to Tim Ball and a Canada Free Press article does indeed return a blank now, following removal of the lot around the Mann case initiation. Free press, free speech...will they now be re-instated? Probably not.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
One interesting result of looking was to discover from one PH source, the Climate Cat thread, that a link within it relating to Tim Ball and a Canada Free Press article does indeed return a blank now, following removal of the lot around the Mann case initiation. Free press, free speech...will they now be re-instated? Probably not.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17102
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
I really hate to be a party pooper, but that story is two years old.
No pooping there don4l, can't recollect seeing it before so it's welcome news. Do we know the state of the counterclaims?The legal process is slow after all.
Unfortunately, we have seen many cases where we thought that the public/judges would come to their senses. Actually, we want politicians to see sense.
The truth is that the wider public do not see things the same way that we do.
Most people are swayed by "the scientists say" argument.
don4l said:
turbobloke said:
don4l said:
I really hate to be a party pooper, but that story is two years old.
No pooping there don4l, can't recollect seeing it before so it's welcome news. Do we know the state of the counterclaims?The legal process is slow after all.
Unfortunately, we have seen many cases where we thought that the public/judges would come to their senses. Actually, we want politicians to see sense.
The truth is that the wider public do not see things the same way that we do.
Most people are swayed by "the scientists say" argument.
For example, regarding scientists, in the European Science Foundation survey of scientists, climate change finished last (0%) in a ‘what will finish off mankind?' survey.
More than half, a majority, nay a consensus
of climate scientists don’t don't agree with the IPCC take on man-made climate change as found in a study from the Dutch government which surveyed 6550 scientists in climate science and related fields. Only 43% of nearly 2000 respondents agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of global warming from 1951 to 2010 was caused by human activity”. Given that the 95% figure is made up, pure conjecture from self-appointed 'experts' and has no statistical basis despite fancy wrapping designed to make it look that way, this is not surprising, the surprise is that so many are still taking the green shilling.A survey of the public asked 'has global warming been exaggerated by scientists?' and at the last time of looking, 85% of replies had said Yes representing 139,394 votes.
Then there was that international UN poll which placed action on climate change dead last in people's priorities.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 14th February 08:41
Almost forgot this one.
Report on Ipsos MORI poll said:
People all around the world, responding to a survey by Ipsos MORI, have generally agreed with the ideas that scientists don't really know what they're talking about when it comes to the climate – and that governments are using environmental issues as an excuse to raise taxes.
These not-so-green views were transmitted as part of Ipsos MORI's new Global Trends 2014 survey...
Respondents were asked to respond "agree", "disagree" or "don't know" to various statements.
On balance the people of the world concurred with the statement "even the scientists don't really know what they're talking about on environmental issues", with only 42 per cent disagreeing and 48 per cent agreeing. Disbelief in scientific climate expertise was strongest in China, Japan and Germany. In Britain, the US and Australia, people were less sceptical, with those populations pretty much evenly split as to whether scientists know what they're on about regarding the environment.
The survey respondents also strongly endorsed the idea that "the government is just using environmental issues as an excuse to raise taxes", with 58 per cent in agreement and just 31 per cent disagreeing worldwide.
These not-so-green views were transmitted as part of Ipsos MORI's new Global Trends 2014 survey...
Respondents were asked to respond "agree", "disagree" or "don't know" to various statements.
On balance the people of the world concurred with the statement "even the scientists don't really know what they're talking about on environmental issues", with only 42 per cent disagreeing and 48 per cent agreeing. Disbelief in scientific climate expertise was strongest in China, Japan and Germany. In Britain, the US and Australia, people were less sceptical, with those populations pretty much evenly split as to whether scientists know what they're on about regarding the environment.
The survey respondents also strongly endorsed the idea that "the government is just using environmental issues as an excuse to raise taxes", with 58 per cent in agreement and just 31 per cent disagreeing worldwide.
Meanwhile in other news, remember that manifesto pledge to cut funding for onshore wind farms?
Well they're about to renege on it.
http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-government-may-break-ple...
Complete con, the public will still be paying but they will be subsidy free due to renaming the payments and calling them something other than subsidy.
What The jolly old F...?
Well they're about to renege on it.
http://www.thegwpf.com/uk-government-may-break-ple...
Complete con, the public will still be paying but they will be subsidy free due to renaming the payments and calling them something other than subsidy.
What The jolly old F...?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff