Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Mr GrimNasty]

V88Dicky said:

Ooh, last month was the hottest June on record apparently.

Not bloody here it wasn't!

Did you notice how the BBC graph stopped at the El Nino peak and lacked the dramatic drop off!

They also didn't explain that a large part of the 'warming' has been man-made by 20th/21st C. data adjustments to old data!

Or that it is only the Karl fake ocean data makes the globe the warmest, the individual continental temps. aren't, but anyway the global coverage is very poor.

Or that the satellites disagree - increasingly.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/19/june-2016-g...

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/nasa-preanno...

[robinessex]

How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?

[telecat]

I noticed the "scientist" they produced was a climate expert at the University of East Anglia!!!! Not the best source of info I would have though.

[El Guapo]

There are striking similarities in the evolution of the "science" when comparing AGW and HIV-AIDS.
- Initial hypothesis rapidly adopted by the government & its agencies
- Billions of dollars of funding made available (to those on message)
- Widespread skepticism from qualified & respected scientists
- Officially-sanctioned remedies causing more harm than benefit
- Vested interests & profiteering
- Condemnation of "deniers"
- Little coverage of skeptical opinion in MSM

The HIV-AIDS case is a little different in that money has not been demanded with menaces from the entire population, but the corruption of the scientific process is the same. I'm sure that there are other examples.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?

Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":

e.g.
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-367940...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june...
ABC Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june...
7 News Australia: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32103801/global-...
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-2016-hott...
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/2...
Newseek Pakistan: http://newsweekPakistan.com/last-month-was-hottest...
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/last-year-was-hottest-on...
Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Latino Fox News: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/07/20/l...
Irish Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/last-month-wa...
Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-wa...
Phys: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-month-hottest-june-no...
Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/june-2016-...
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/...
RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0719/803294-weather/
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-07/21/conte...
Hawaii News Now: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32393811/hot-we...
Times South Africa: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/01/22/201...
Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/oceania/first-half-of-201...

...and so on.

[durbster]

El Guapo said:

There are striking similarities in the evolution of the "science" when comparing AGW and HIV-AIDS.
- Initial hypothesis rapidly adopted by the government & its agencies
- Billions of dollars of funding made available (to those on message)
- Widespread skepticism from qualified & respected scientists
- Officially-sanctioned remedies causing more harm than benefit
- Vested interests & profiteering
- Condemnation of "deniers"
- Little coverage of skeptical opinion in MSM

The HIV-AIDS case is a little different in that money has not been demanded with menaces from the entire population, but the corruption of the scientific process is the same. I'm sure that there are other examples.

Widespread skepticism? Where's that then?

[El Guapo]

durbster said:

El Guapo said:

There are striking similarities in the evolution of the "science" when comparing AGW and HIV-AIDS.
- Initial hypothesis rapidly adopted by the government & its agencies
- Billions of dollars of funding made available (to those on message)
- Widespread skepticism from qualified & respected scientists
- Officially-sanctioned remedies causing more harm than benefit
- Vested interests & profiteering
- Condemnation of "deniers"
- Little coverage of skeptical opinion in MSM

The HIV-AIDS case is a little different in that money has not been demanded with menaces from the entire population, but the corruption of the scientific process is the same. I'm sure that there are other examples.

Widespread skepticism? Where's that then?

Not sure if serious

[durbster]

El Guapo said:

Not sure if serious

Completely serious. People say that, then point to random blogs, public opinion or one highly dubious survey done in the 90s years ago. What other evidence is there?

There's zero indication in science media of AGW being at all controversial, no credible scientific institutions dispute it, and every single peer-reviewed study on scientific opinion is overwhelmingly in support. Every time the notion that AGW is subject to some great dispute is tested, it comes back false.

Which means the skepticism seems to exist exclusively in the world of website comments sections and internet blogs (which, more often than not, are written by people who aren't scientists).

[Hosenbugler]

durbster said:

El Guapo said:

Not sure if serious

Completely serious. People say that, then point to random blogs, public opinion or one highly dubious survey done in the 90s years ago. What other evidence is there?

There's zero indication in science media of AGW being at all controversial, no credible scientific institutions dispute it, and every single peer-reviewed study on scientific opinion is overwhelmingly in support. Every time the notion that AGW is subject to some great dispute is tested, it comes back false.

Which means the skepticism seems to exist exclusively in the world of website comments sections and internet blogs (which, more often than not, are written by people who aren't scientists).

"Billions of dollars of funding made available (to those on message)"

Pay people enough they will say anything you like. AGW is a UN sponsored scam.

Its all here , quotes one of their own publications.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Rev...

Those with their snouts firmly in the trough can also get nasty.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/france...

All in all, the entire scam is about taxation , control and an excuse to "support" poorer countries.

[LongQ]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

How much longer do we have to put up with the Beebs utter claptrap and biased CC and GW reporting ? Where is the balance reporting that they should be producing?

Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":

e.g.
Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-367940...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/19/weather/hottest-june...
ABC Australia: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/hottest-june...
7 News Australia: https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/32103801/global-...
HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/june-2016-hott...
Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jul/2...
Newseek Pakistan: http://newsweekPakistan.com/last-month-was-hottest...
Sky News: http://news.sky.com/story/last-year-was-hottest-on...
Indy: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-c...
Latino Fox News: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2016/07/20/l...
Irish Examiner: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/last-month-wa...
Yahoo News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/earth-another-record-wa...
Phys: http://phys.org/news/2016-07-month-hottest-june-no...
Tribune India: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/june-2016-...
Times of India: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/...
RTE: http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0719/803294-weather/
China Daily: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2016-07/21/conte...
Hawaii News Now: http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/32393811/hot-we...
Times South Africa: http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2016/01/22/201...
Gulf News: http://gulfnews.com/news/oceania/first-half-of-201...

...and so on.

Hmm.

Hundreds of "media" "news" retailers publish a press release storm because they know a good "scare" story sells views.

Also it's easier work that trawling Twitter and Facebook and having to do all that awkward cut and paste stuff with graphics. Plus if you do that everyone knows you're not really a "journalist" at all. On the other hands a bit of re-organising of a press release provided, handily, in electronic form and reference to one of the authors writing something in "an email" to make it look as if some additional investigation might have been carried out (for balance of course) and the job is done.

Never mind. Seeing the same thing repeated many times satisfies some people's curiosity and the repetition lends the press release and aura of unquestionable authority and thus bulk appeals to it. All very self referencing.

And much more public than one expects from most sciences. Other than "climate" only health matters seem to get this level of politicised attention to "research papers".

[durbster]

Hosenbugler said:

"Billions of dollars of funding made available (to those on message)"

Pay people enough they will say anything you like. AGW is a UN sponsored scam.

You could equally turn that around and say the fossil fuel industry is funding anti AGW lobbying groups. At least there is actual evidence of that happening (see: Exxon).

Hosenbugler said:

Those with their snouts firmly in the trough can also get nasty.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/france...

A French weatherman got sacked. we don't know why. This is hardly compelling evidence of a global conspiracy.

Hosenbugler said:

All in all, the entire scam is about taxation , control and an excuse to "support" poorer countries.

Sorry but tax and control is the go-to reason for all the world's favourite conspiracy theories so I can't take it very seriously.

It doesn't stand up. If a Government wants to raise or invent taxes, they just raise or invent taxes. They don't need to use an absurdly complicated global fraud that will outlast a politician's career, and is based on falsifiable science if all they want to do is extract an extra £10 from us all.

They just stick a bit more on cigarettes and tampons.

LongQ said:

Hmm.

Hundreds of "media" "news" retailers publish a press release storm because they know a good "scare" story sells views.

Err, yeah, maybe, but you've missed the point.

The oft-repeated claim that the BBC is the only media outlet running climate change stories as part of a concerted propaganda campaign is bks, proven by the simple fact that pretty much every media outlet across the world runs the same stories.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 21st July 17:18

[robinessex]

Durbster, I don't know if you are the thickest, dumbest, or most stupid individual I’ve encountered. Despite almost 100’s of reposts to your belief(s) which invariably include scientific based evidence, not hearsay as you claim, you are still banging the CC and GW drum. I’ve come to the conclusion that must have some sort of ‘CC death wish’ Quite frankly, it’s a waste of time you being here, as you never will believe other than what you want to, so kindly leave, and save us all your idiotic postings. I’m quite a amazed that a sensible, balanced individual, who supposedly can think for himself can continue to post here, knowing that all you post will be shot down in flames. By the way, the earth ISN’T flat you know !! PS, Have you submitted your claim for the $100,000 if you can prove what you believe ?

[Hosenbugler]

durbster said:

Hosenbugler said:

"Billions of dollars of funding made available (to those on message)"

Pay people enough they will say anything you like. AGW is a UN sponsored scam.

You could equally turn that around and say the fossil fuel industry is funding anti AGW lobbying groups. At least there is actual evidence of that happening (see: Exxon).

Hosenbugler said:

Those with their snouts firmly in the trough can also get nasty.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/weather/topstories/france...

A French weatherman got sacked. we don't know why. This is hardly compelling evidence of a global conspiracy.

Hosenbugler said:

All in all, the entire scam is about taxation , control and an excuse to "support" poorer countries.

Sorry but tax and control is the go-to reason for all the world's favourite conspiracy theories so I can't take it very seriously.

It doesn't stand up. If a Government wants to raise or invent taxes, they just raise or invent taxes. They don't need to use an absurdly complicated global fraud that will outlast a politician's career, and is based on falsifiable science if all they want to do is extract an extra £10 from us all.

They just stick a bit more on cigarettes and tampons.

LongQ said:

Hmm.

Hundreds of "media" "news" retailers publish a press release storm because they know a good "scare" story sells views.

Err, yeah, maybe, but you've missed the point.

The oft-repeated claim that the BBC is the only media outlet running climate change stories as part of a concerted propaganda campaign is bks, proven by the simple fact that pretty much every media outlet across the world runs the same stories.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 21st July 17:18

Durbster, you are just a prime example of the brainwashed simpletons who take in and beleieve the AGW nonsense you are fed, either that, or you are self delusional, or indeed, in the trough yourself. Pointless showing facts to the intentionally blind.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

It doesn't stand up. If a Government wants to raise or invent taxes, they just raise or invent taxes.

It does stand up, because from time to time there will be UK governments of a flavour that involves less taxing and less controlling.

At those mostly Conservative times, the EU gift of socialism via the back door comes into its own. This EU back door to socialism was opened to the TUC back in 1988 when Jacques Delors was invited to speak at one of their conference shindigs.

After he invited them to support the EU with europe-wide socialism as the reward, the assembled comrades sang Frère Jacques to serenade the chap.

EU climate policy is bonkers. Just thought it worth a mention.

[wc98]

durbster said:

It doesn't stand up. If a Government wants to raise or invent taxes, they just raise or invent taxes. They don't need to use an absurdly complicated global fraud that will outlast a politician's career, and is based on falsifiable science if all they want to do is extract an extra £10 from us all.

They just stick a bit more on cigarettes and tampons.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 21st July 17:18

if that is how you think it works, i have a bridge to sell you. how would it look if camerons father in law got 2 million quid a year from the tampon tax for instance ? maybe a bit too blatant even for today's troughers .

the green energy sector is the perfect example of redistribution of taxpayer money for the return of nothing, except more expensive energy and the decommissioning bills in the future.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Durbster, I don't know if you are the thickest, dumbest, or most stupid individual I’ve encountered.

Well which is it? Thickest, dumbest or most stupid? Let me know when you've decided.

You see, I could be offended by your insults, but then I remember that most of the smartest people on the planet are on my side of the argument. Who are you looking up to for guidance? Donald Trump?

robinessex said:

... 100’s of reposts to your belief(s) which invariably include scientific based evidence, not hearsay as you claim, you are still banging the CC and GW drum.

Shame on me for recognising that I'm not qualified to understand the nuances of this field of study and so accept the conclusions of peer-reviewed science rather than let myself be swayed by blogs written by unqualified amateurs, or research by fossil fuel funded lobbying groups. What a fool I am.

robinessex said:

Quite frankly, it’s a waste of time you being here, as you never will believe other than what you want to

I absolutely will change my mind. Just as soon as the research points another way. Let me know when that happens. Besides, I've changed my position on this subject once already so have proved I'm willing to follow the evidence. Have you?

robinessex said:

so kindly leave, and save us all your idiotic postings

No ta. I'm fine. I don't recall any correspondence from moderators, as despite provocation I'm not throwing insults or writing anything even remotely controversial to anyone that doesn't hold an extreme position. My only position here is to try and convey what the science says. If you can't deal with that and think it's unreasonable or offensive, perhaps you're not as confident in your position as you like to portray.

Somebody has to interject some of the real world amongst the tedious links to the same advocacy blogs. After all...

robinessex said:

Where is the balance...?

[robinessex]

Durbster, I read today that 'now we have climate change' Can you tell me the date it started then? I must have missed it. Have you put in for the $100,000 award yet then ? And if not, why ? The science is overwhelming according to you !! And have a read of this:-

https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.scienc...

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 21st July 18:33

Edited by robinessex on Thursday 21st July 18:53

[Mr GrimNasty]

durbster said:

Everybody everywhere is reporting this "biased claptrap":

The BBC article was deliberately misleading in a number of ways, in excess of the other sources.

The BBC also packs its science section and weather forecasts page with completely irrelevant 'climate chaos' stories.

The vast majority of it's output contains constant reiteration of the key dogma phrases and message reinforcement and a complete obsession with the issue.

You really would have to be blind.

As for no counter evidence - there is plenty - a recent Chinese summer climate reconstruction found 20th C warming not obvious, the Medieval Warm Period project has shown it was global in scope, Antarctica is confirmed cooling for 20 years, etc. etc.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

Notricks zone also list hundreds of 'scpetic' published papers.

You really would have to be blind.

[mybrainhurts]

Durbster, busy, earlier ---->

[durbster]

Hosenbugler said:

Durbster, you are just a prime example of the brainwashed simpletons who take in and beleieve the AGW nonsense you are fed, either that, or you are self delusional, or indeed, in the trough yourself.

Yep, maybe. Or maybe you're a prime example of the brainwashed simpletons who take in and beleieve the anti-AGW nonsense you are fed. How would you know?

There is a difference: the overwhelming weight of evidence and scientific opinion is on my side.

Hosenbugler said:

Pointless showing facts to the intentionally blind.

You haven't used any facts.

wc98 said:

the green energy sector is the perfect example of redistribution of taxpayer money for the return of nothing, except more expensive energy and the decommissioning bills in the future.

OK. What's a better solution to addressing the warming caused by increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere than replacing fossil fuels with something else?

Mr GrimNasty said:

As for no counter evidence - there is plenty ...
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-revi...

I can only wonder what you think this proves beyond the existence of research into various aspects of climate.

Er, great. Of course there is. That's how science works. That's a good thing. It shows the field is healthy.

But you seem to be heralding this as the only research we should listen to for some reason i.e. picking out the small parts that you agree with while completely ignoring the vast majority.

I mean...

Mr GrimNasty said:

You really would have to be blind

...to do that, wouldn't you.

Mr GrimNasty said:

tarctica is confirmed cooling for 20 years

Again, you're undermining your own arguments. If the global data is deliberately corrupted to create non-existent warming, it begs the question: why not do the same to the Antarctic?