Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Gandahar]

LoonyTunes said:

That ain't ever gonna stop. These old farts have got oil and gas share portfolios to protect.

I don't think this is true but I do think it is due to being narrow minded and objecting to being forced to put another 50p in the electricity meter when it could be spent on the the turbo V8.

I would suggest that they think Galileo was a scientist beyond his time and unfairly persecuted in the past, but now act like a modern day armchair hobbyist church themselves, armed with the Google search engine Bible fine tuned to pick out links by tinfoil hat people mainly from the USA.

That most climate skeptics are from the USA in itself shows that it is a mass populist geographical issue and not a scientific one.

As climate change is not proven, neither is it disproven, no matter how hard they try. They cannot just say, well let's see what transpires scientifically, because they "dislike" it for non-scientific reasons.

It's like the thread IS THE END NIGH FOR THE EURO or whatever it is called. It's been going on for donkeys years now and the answer is plainly NO. It should really be called I WANT THE EURO TO FAIL but the original author had no balls. Strangely the GREAT BRITISH POUND is more likely to fail currently.

So this thread should be called

Is the End Nigh for Climate Change? And we can go onto volume MCXXXXVIII

It keeps Turbobloke off the streets or pestering his blow up doll for sex though, so it does have some benefit.

[durbster]

El stovey said:

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.

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.

Don't forget:
4) Exposed by people on the internet with no relevant expertise

[Gandahar]

durbster said:

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?

Let's not forget that corporations have never sponsored scientists to do research and provide findings.

No.

Never.

No proof of that whilst every scientist who takes a government grant knows the secret handshake

Got to go now, have to take my beagle out for a walk, can't go far poor bugger, has a smokers cough .....

Edited by Gandahar on Friday 14th September 20:30

[Gandahar]

durbster said:

El stovey said:

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.

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.

Don't forget:
4) Exposed by people on the internet with no relevant expertise

5) Who are mainly based in the USA as have more hands on their time than a person spending 16 hours per day in China making the next Apple £1499 phone.

[turbobloke]

With all the excitement recently including another strawman conspiracy loop, it looked for a minute as though an agw supporter had located that elusive visible causal human signal in global climate data linked to tax gas emissions, but no. What a disappointment

This pixellated effluent (below) should cheer the thread up. In an upcoming tweet a UN bod will show how to bang pieces of wood together to scare off the sky dragon in a solar eclipse.



Changing the weather it's the way they tell 'em. More voodoo has emerged with an infamous politician 'complicit' in a hurricane. Yet according to the data as re-published recently by impacts researcher Dr R Pielke Jr., landfalling hurricanes (overall & major) in the US of A are down since 1900. The carbon dioxide holiday is worse than previously thought.

[wc98]

durbster said:

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?

as already said, no conspiracy required. try writing two grant proposals for the same research. one mentions a link to climate change/agw/cagw the other just focuses on the research topic with no predetermined outcome. guess which one ( same research proposal remember) will get the funding.

[Gandahar]

Hee Hee

https://twitter.com/gourdnibler/status/10406785722...


and they are just wearing shorts

[turbobloke]

In fairness I spent a few short not shorts minutes online to see if Edenhofer had been up in an aircraft operating under IMC throwing silver iodide or potassium iodide crystals out into the misty grey expanse, but apparently that singular event hasn’t happened. Therefore - no objective evidence of changing the weather. Another option apart from the iodide method involves shovelling dry ice into the murky void but I didn’t bother with that as I wouldn’t expect anybody associated with the UN to go near the stuff, it’s like kryptonite allegedly.

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

Because I’m only 97% certain I know why!

If you think you know why then you're undoubtedly going to be misrepresenting my position.

And what position is that? Why are you asking the mods to start a new thread? Simple enough question no?

[durbster]

wc98 said:

as already said, no conspiracy required. try writing two grant proposals for the same research. one mentions a link to climate change/agw/cagw the other just focuses on the research topic with no predetermined outcome. guess which one ( same research proposal remember) will get the funding.

But that doesn't make sense.

If it's sound science, what difference does it make how the funding came about? The results and data won't be different. Polar ice doesn't suddenly start melting because you mention AGW in your funding request.

So, the inference is the science is fraudulent, and deliberately portraying an inaccurate picture of our climate; and that thousands of scientists have been doing this for decades with no apparent motive (other than funding). And none of them have spoken up.

I'm sure there are lots of games played to get funding, and biases are always present, but the same is true of all science so you can't just accept it all except the one field that tells you things you're uncomfortable with.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

Because I’m only 97% certain I know why!

If you think you know why then you're undoubtedly going to be misrepresenting my position.

And what position is that? Why are you asking the mods to start a new thread? Simple enough question no?

They are always stopped at about 500 pages, you know that right? See the football forum for people asking for a new thread almost everytime 500 is reached.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)

Why do you think its been requested?

[hairykrishna]

wc98 said:

as already said, no conspiracy required. try writing two grant proposals for the same research. one mentions a link to climate change/agw/cagw the other just focuses on the research topic with no predetermined outcome. guess which one ( same research proposal remember) will get the funding.

Have you ever written a grant proposal?

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Who is Big Green? NASA? The (Tory) UK Govt? Can you let me have a list of "Big Green" and their funding outlay.

This is a reasonable place to start your research:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...

[LoonyTunes]

gadgetmac said:

They are always stopped at about 500 pages, you know that right? See the football forum for people asking for a new thread almost everytime 500 is reached.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)

Why do you think its been requested?

It'll be a conspiracy of some kind, involving all of the believers on this thread out to stifle debate by opening new threads without telling him.

[anonymous-user]

LoonyTunes said:

gadgetmac said:

They are always stopped at about 500 pages, you know that right? See the football forum for people asking for a new thread almost everytime 500 is reached.

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&... (12th post down)

Why do you think its been requested?

It'll be a conspiracy of some kind, involving all of the believers on this thread out to stifle debate by opening new threads without telling him.

Lefties and believers want a new thread for wealth redistribution and increasing government control. I don’t trust people that want new threads, they’re being sponsored by the green blob and the bbc are in on it,

Even though threads have always gone to he next volume in every forum around 500 pages, there’s data to show that anyone wanting a new thread is a political agent controlling PHs statements,

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

Who is Big Green? NASA? The (Tory) UK Govt? Can you let me have a list of "Big Green" and their funding outlay.

This is a reasonable place to start your research:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...

That's £6m annually and not for scientific research. Keep up.

How about you post up your list of 'big green'?

I'd love to see who is on it and how much they are contributing. It's a 2:1 ratio I'm told although the denier-in-chief seems a little shy to post up the facts behind that.

[turbobloke]

More voodoo exorcised.

Hurricane Florence Is Not an Omen About Climate Change

David Kreutzer on 14 Sept said:

In today’s hyper-politicized world of climate science, hardly a thunderstorm passes without somebody invoking the “scientists say” trope to blame it on carbon emissions. The logic seems to be: If it’s bad, it was caused by carbon emissions, and we are only going to see more and worse. More and worse floods, droughts, tornadoes, and of course, hurricanes.

The problem with this argument is that overall, we are not seeing more floods, droughts, tornadoes, or hurricanes in spite of the steady rise in the small amount of carbon dioxide, and in spite of the mild warming of the planet. The data show that there is no significant upward trend in any of these weather events. These are not the conclusions of climate skeptics. They are conclusions drawn by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Daniel Sarewitz said:

Prof Roger Pielke Jr summarizes those facts to answer the question, “Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change?” Many people do worry that climate change is causing disasters to get worse, but Pielke presents a wealth of data, including the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to show why such concerns are not supported by the available science.

That's what the data and the science say, no opinion will trump that. Credible data and science will reliably gore any alarmist bull.

[LoonyTunes]

El stovey said:

Lefties and believers want a new thread for wealth redistribution and increasing government control. I don’t trust people that want new threads, they’re being sponsored by the green blob and the bbc are in on it,

Even though threads have always gone to he next volume in every forum around 500 pages, there’s data to show that anyone wanting a new thread is a political agent controlling PHs statements,

Well, I laugh but you can almost see one or two of them thinking that...

[turbobloke]

Talking of baseless hype - here's some more being shot down. The modern alarmist 'meeja' gets a well-deserved pasting. Using recycled paste of course.

In no particular order a USA State Climatologist who has not yet been sacked by a gullible politician said:

Occasionally though the time comes when I must address claims made by those whose intention is not to inform but to promote false alarm – this usually happens when an environmental pressure group generates a press release whose dramatic statements are published by a willing media (without any fact-checking.) This is one of those times, and I’m sure it will not be the last.

The (NY) Times story was designed to create alarm and promote the claim that humans who use carbon-based energy (gasoline, natural gas, coal) to help them live better lives are making our summers ever more miserable. Be aware reader, this webtool is not designed to provide accurate information.

Who could possibly have thought it would :sonar ok apart from those with unshakeable faith but no credible empirical data with the established causality to humans needeed to support it.

https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/alclimatereport/

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

LoonyTunes said:

Who is Big Green? NASA? The (Tory) UK Govt? Can you let me have a list of "Big Green" and their funding outlay.

This is a reasonable place to start your research:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/...

That's £6m annually and not for scientific research. Keep up.

How about you post up your list of 'big green'?

I'd love to see who is on it and how much they are contributing. It's a 2:1 ratio I'm told although the denier-in-chief seems a little shy to post up the facts behind that.

Did you read the article? You do understand its implications: EU is funding green lobbying groups to er lobby the EU and influence its policy. As I said, this was not a bad place to start your research.