Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
turbobloke said:
LoonyTunes said:
Science moves in the direction that the all of the perceived evidence is pointing until other evidence becomes available to show that it's wrong.
Evidently not as evidence refuting agw has been available for years.How will science move in a direction when that direction has no funding for research? I fear your response is both naive and biased.
turbobloke said:
LoonyTunes said:
Both are currently being worked, pro and anti agw research
In what ratio?In the UK there is no public funding for academics to use to carry out non-agw research.
turbobloke said:
LoonyTunes said:
Frankly I'm surprised the ratio is only 2:1 in terms of financing and the anti-agw camp must be spending vast sums of money to achieve that outcome .
Compared to the 2x bigger sum being spent by Big Green. Aye,turbobloke said:
LoonyTunes said:
To date, none of the scientific institutions or Governments have seen evidence to sway them in another direction.
For insitutions you mean their activists. For governments, politicians don't work on the basis of evidence. There are many examples.For the sake of completeness your point isn't accurate, the USA government has moved against agw so on your basis this means they've seen evidence against it.
After all there's plenty out there.
LoonyTunes said:
Every fool and his brother knows why the US has turned against AGW and it isn't because of evidence. Doesn't the fact that you have to get into bed with Trump and other creationist loons give you any pause for thought?
You do know the Catholic & English churches are both alarmists.And "creationist loons".
People in glass houses etc.
Or to put it another way don't dismiss a point of view on one subject because of the person's POV on another.
jet_noise said:
LoonyTunes said:
Every fool and his brother knows why the US has turned against AGW and it isn't because of evidence. Doesn't the fact that you have to get into bed with Trump and other creationist loons give you any pause for thought?
You do know the Catholic & English churches are both alarmists.And "creationist loons".
People in glass houses etc.
Or to put it another way don't dismiss a point of view on one subject because of the person's POV on another.
LoonyTunes said:
Every fool and his brother knows why the US has turned against AGW and it isn't because of evidence.
As expected, thanks. USA gov't policy isn't because of evidence. Politicians not relying on evidence - your earlier post might have mentioned that when running yet another appeal to consensus/appeal to authority joint logical fallacy about what governments are doing or not doing.There's little difference elsewhere. Governments fund pro-agw research - in the UK only that type of research is publicly funded by politicians - and even so efforts are made by those well-funded scientsts in The Team to keep any research that gets through peer review gatekeeping and can 'do damage' (to The Cause) out of IPCC reports 'even if it means redefining what the peer review literature is'. The resulting one-sided advocacy is then fed back to the governments that paid for it in IPCC SPMs, which the science sections must conform to within IPCC protocols. The issue of manmade warming is opinion not objective evidence (IPCC SPM footnote says so: "Magnitude of anthropogenic contributions not assessed. Attribution for these phenomena based on expert judgement rather than formal attribution studies) but governments act on it. Naturally the experts whose judgement aka opinion gets used are pro-agw political appointees, very few are not appointed by gov'ts. Their number is actually fewer than agw supporters believe.
Prof Mike Hulme of UEA CRU and IPCC in the peer reviewed paper Hulme and Mahony said:
Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous.
From the horse's mouth. Another nail hammered into the false consensus long ago and long forgotten as an inconvenient truth.Got there in the end, better late than never etc. If only agw supporters could recall this lot ^ when the need arises, attrition looping would be reduced to a more reasonable level.
turbobloke said:
From the horse's mouth. Another nail hammered into the false consensus long ago and long forgotten as an inconvenient truth.
Got there in the end, better late than never etc. If only agw supporters could recall this lot ^ when the need arises, attrition looping would be reduced to a more reasonable level.
Probably only fair to point out he goes on to say:Got there in the end, better late than never etc. If only agw supporters could recall this lot ^ when the need arises, attrition looping would be reduced to a more reasonable level.
"That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise?"
So, not exactly a nail, is it?
TTwiggy said:
Probably only fair to point out he goes on to say:
"That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise?"
So, not exactly a nail, is it?
You get used to Turbobloke misrepresenting just about everything after a while and start losing the will to reply "That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields. But consensus-making can also lead to criticism for being too conservative, as Hansen (2007) has most visibly argued. Was the IPCC AR4 too conservative in reaching its consensus about future sea-level rise?"
So, not exactly a nail, is it?
LoonyTunes said:
dickymint said:
dickymint said:
LoonyTunes said:
Mods: Any chance of a new thread? 500 pages is the normal cut off point I believe.
Is it a problem for you?
I'm intrigued to know why you're intrigued to know...
El stovey said:
We’d only be on volume 2 if the cult didn’t keep spamming the thread with pointlessly long click and paste propaganda taken from their advocacy blogs.
just for clarity is it only links from sceptics that can be termed advocacy blogs ? i think my last link was to a reviewer of the ipcc assessment reports,would that be an advocacy blog ?turbobloke said:
...Governments fund pro-agw research - in the UK only that type of research is publicly funded by politicians ...
How exactly does somebody "fund pro-agw research"? Can you describe the process? Take, say, a science team in the arctic. Are they told by the government to invent some findings to promote AGW - in other words, to deliberately commit fraud? And nobody involved questions this, only a handful of non-scientist bloggers from the United States? There's no dissent, not a single one of them over more than half a century has ever dared refuse to go along with it.
I mean, it's an amazing achievement if you're right. Several successive governments over several decades, thousand of people involved and none of them have spoken up! Imagine if all government initiatives were so effective. Scary stuff.
turbobloke said:
and even so efforts are made by those well-funded scientsts in The Team to keep any research that gets through peer review gatekeeping and can 'do damage' (to The Cause) out of IPCC reports ...
It's just remarkable how "they" get thousands of scientists and institutions, universities and governments from all over the world to go along with this isn't it. Thousands upon thousands of scientists, decades and decades of research and it's all done to deliberately misleading the public.Hang on, this is sounding a bit like a conspiracy theory, but ... it can't be ... because you say it isn't a conspiracy theory?
LoonyTunes said:
To be fair it's a conspiracy when he wants it to be and not when he doesn't.
They'll never actually say the word "conspiracy" though as they know that would invite ridicule so they skirt around it with innuendo and insinuation.
But we all know that's what they think it is
Conspiracy theory- A conspiracy theory is an explanation of an event or situation that invokes a conspiracy—generally one involving an illegal or harmful act supposedly carried out by government or other powerful actors—without credible evidence. They'll never actually say the word "conspiracy" though as they know that would invite ridicule so they skirt around it with innuendo and insinuation.
But we all know that's what they think it is
1) harmful act (redistribution of wealth, environmental taxation etc)
2) involves government and powerful actors (most governments, scientists and scientific institutions)
3) without credible evidence (anti AGW theory supported by minority of scientists, no scientific institutions, goes against scientific consensus)
Fits perfectly.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff