Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
turbobloke said:
Scorchio! The pic may be dodgy though as New York was predicted to be under water by 2015 
The Great Tax Gas Holiday continues.
I don't know about the met office but somebody ought to point out the difference between weather and climate to TB The Great Tax Gas Holiday continues.
Where do you get your briefing notes from gadgetmac?
Do the notes include a full list of all of the organisations that provide funding for the future Armageddon proposers?
If so, in the spirit of openness that you espouse, could you share them? And the names of the 'leaders' that run them.
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Is that some sort of conspiracy theory?
It's exactly like when the tobacco industry funded the pro smoking groups. Of course on here smoking probably still has no proven link to bad health 
ks reply. The two scenarios are not in the least bit comparable. If you can't see that, it explains a lot about you. In fact, that you have the audacity to say it says even more.LongQ said:
Ho ho ho, what a wag the mac is.
Where do you get your briefing notes from gadgetmac?
Do the notes include a full list of all of the organisations that provide funding for the future Armageddon proposers?
If so, in the spirit of openness that you espouse, could you share them? And the names of the 'leaders' that run them.
We'll unlike yourself I'm not part of TB's weekly round robin memo group so I don't get my briefing notes from there. Where do you get your briefing notes from gadgetmac?
Do the notes include a full list of all of the organisations that provide funding for the future Armageddon proposers?
If so, in the spirit of openness that you espouse, could you share them? And the names of the 'leaders' that run them.
I've just pointed out the links to profit-motivated vested interest on the the denier side, YOU do the same for the tens of thousands of scientists on the pro side.
Start with the PRP named in the top post on page 120 some 90 minutes ago.
The biggest source of AGW funding is ultimately governments. Usually via grants to educational organisations, E.G. Universities. So, not wishing to bite the hand that feeds them, they’re hardly likely to say “Thanks for the £2,000,000 you donated to AGW research. Unfortunately, we found out it just too complex to give meaningful answers, but we’d be obliged if you could keep the cash rolling in for ever, as we’re obviously saving the planet. Which is a good bandwagon for the government to promote for their own self esteem.” PS. Extra tax as well of course !!
gadgetmac said:
Start with the PRP named in the top post on page 120 some 90 minutes ago.
What has that got to do with the funding question I asked - other than as a strong pointer to the involvement of governments under the influence of their 'advisors' - not a few of whom are academics of course.That reminds me of a company I worked for some years ago. The owner, a "self made man", fancies himself as an Academic with papers to his name. He latched on to people who were academics who wanted to take ideas developed in their university work through to commercial successes and so make them rich. There was some mutual attraction between the two positions but one always got the impression that the conflict of egos would forever be problematic.
Of course he always had a "K" in mind - it seems that many government advisors may share similar personal objectives.
As for the PRP list - what do you think it proves?
robinessex said:
The biggest source of AGW funding is ultimately governments. Usually via grants to educational organisations, E.G. Universities. So, not wishing to bite the hand that feeds them, they’re hardly likely to say “Thanks for the £2,000,000 you donated to AGW research. Unfortunately, we found out it just too complex to give meaningful answers, but we’d be obliged if you could keep the cash rolling in for ever, as we’re obviously saving the planet. Which is a good bandwagon for the government to promote for their own self esteem.” PS. Extra tax as well of course !!
What extraordinary revelations you have uncovered.So do you think all governments and scientific organisations are in on this mutually beneficial scam for funding and tax?
Have they (governments and their own scientific bodies) all got together and agreed to do this as an international cooperative fraud or have they just independently made the same decisions in their own countries to fund research they know is rubbish and have scientists produce fake studies and lie about findings etc and have governments fund it all for tax and “self esteem”
It would be the biggest fraud that has ever existed, and you have uncovered evidence of it and are exposing it right here on pistonheads? Do you think you should be contacting someone more influential that other posters on this forum?
I suppose if you actually seriously believe what you have posted, you have run out of people to contact as presumably they’re all in on it?
gadgetmac said:
robinessex said:
For Mr El Stovey
Why the Beeb is very relevant to this topic
https://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-bbc-quietly-oblite...
The GWPF, well worth a listen. Why the Beeb is very relevant to this topic
https://www.thegwpf.com/how-the-bbc-quietly-oblite...
I suppose with TB now quoting it every day on various climate threads, his followers were bound to adopt it too sooner or later.
The GWPF is quite clearly a political advocacy organisation. I find it remarkable that any posters can think all the scientific organisations of any standing on the planet are wrong or lying and instead decide to get their facts from the GWPF.
TonyRPH said:
I presume that they mean sea levels could increase by 1.15 metres *globally* and not only in London.. 
Additionally, given that the sea covers ~70% of the earth's surface - a 1.15 metre rise in levels would be epic surely? Where would all that water come from?
It's estimated that 2% - 3% of water is contained in glaciers and ice caps - so even if they melt - surely that's not enough to raise the sea levels across the *entire world* by 1.15 metres?
Antarctica alone would be enough to raise the sea level by ~60m if it all melted. See; Fretwell, P., et al. "Bedmap2: improved ice bed, surface and thickness datasets for Antarctica." (2013).Additionally, given that the sea covers ~70% of the earth's surface - a 1.15 metre rise in levels would be epic surely? Where would all that water come from?
It's estimated that 2% - 3% of water is contained in glaciers and ice caps - so even if they melt - surely that's not enough to raise the sea levels across the *entire world* by 1.15 metres?
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
The biggest source of AGW funding is ultimately governments. Usually via grants to educational organisations, E.G. Universities. So, not wishing to bite the hand that feeds them, they’re hardly likely to say “Thanks for the £2,000,000 you donated to AGW research. Unfortunately, we found out it just too complex to give meaningful answers, but we’d be obliged if you could keep the cash rolling in for ever, as we’re obviously saving the planet. Which is a good bandwagon for the government to promote for their own self esteem.” PS. Extra tax as well of course !!
What extraordinary revelations you have uncovered.So do you think all governments and scientific organisations are in on this mutually beneficial scam for funding and tax?
Have they (governments and their own scientific bodies) all got together and agreed to do this as an international cooperative fraud or have they just independently made the same decisions in their own countries to fund research they know is rubbish and have scientists produce fake studies and lie about findings etc and have governments fund it all for tax and “self esteem”
It would be the biggest fraud that has ever existed, and you have uncovered evidence of it and are exposing it right here on pistonheads? Do you think you should be contacting someone more influential that other posters on this forum?
I suppose if you actually seriously believe what you have posted, you have run out of people to contact as presumably they’re all in on it?
Strong chance of a new El Niño forming by early 2019
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-463...
The World Meteorological Organization says there's a 75-80% chance of a weak El Niño forming within three months.
The naturally occurring event causes changes in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean and has a major influence on weather patterns around the world.
It is linked to floods in South America and droughts in Africa and Asia.
El Niño events often lead to record temperatures as heat rises from the Pacific....continues
Opps, nature having it's way, and being unpredictable. Unlike AGW & CC, which 'science' tells us is settled!!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-463...
The World Meteorological Organization says there's a 75-80% chance of a weak El Niño forming within three months.
The naturally occurring event causes changes in the temperature of the Pacific Ocean and has a major influence on weather patterns around the world.
It is linked to floods in South America and droughts in Africa and Asia.
El Niño events often lead to record temperatures as heat rises from the Pacific....continues
Opps, nature having it's way, and being unpredictable. Unlike AGW & CC, which 'science' tells us is settled!!
hairykrishna said:
Antarctica alone would be enough to raise the sea level by ~60m if it all melted. See; Fretwell, P., et al. "Bedmap2: improved ice bed, surface and thickness datasets for Antarctica." (2013).
How much energy would that require HK? And given the weak solar energy how much additional energy from CO2 would be required? Jinx said:
How much energy would that require HK? And given the weak solar energy how much additional energy from CO2 would be required?
st loads. It's not all going to melt. I was responding to the very straightforward question of if there was enough ice to support several meters of sea level rise. robinessex said:
You obviously don't know what a bandwagon is, how it originates, and how it keeps rolling. Suggest you read Machiavelli to see how politics works.
Wow, there it is. Conclusive proof of this mass deception and fraud involving most of the world’s governments and scientific institutions. All wrong and lying to get funding and tax. Although your claims were frankly unbelievable, you’ve explained it all perfectly by way of telling me to read Machiavelli and saying it’s all the result of the “bandwagon” phenomenon.
Do you honestly believe this stuff?
robinessex said:
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
Is that some sort of conspiracy theory?
It's exactly like when the tobacco industry funded the pro smoking groups. Of course on here smoking probably still has no proven link to bad health ks reply. The two scenarios are not in the least bit comparable. If you can't see that, it explains a lot about you. In fact, that you have the audacity to say it says even more.2 industries funding campaign groups and others to try to persuade the public that there is no scientific evidence against the use of their commodity and thats its not harmful despite the vast majority of experts telling them otherwise. And all in the name of protecting profit over the public good.
And a lot of it being done secretly as is the case with the GWPF. The Heartland institute isn’t far behind in this.
El stovey said:
Wow, there it is. Conclusive proof of this mass deception and fraud involving most of the world’s governments and scientific institutions. All wrong and lying to get funding and tax.
Although your claims were frankly unbelievable, you’ve explained it all perfectly by way of telling me to read Machiavelli and saying it’s all the result of the “bandwagon” phenomenon.
Do you honestly believe this stuff?
Do you? Oh wait, clearly you do.Although your claims were frankly unbelievable, you’ve explained it all perfectly by way of telling me to read Machiavelli and saying it’s all the result of the “bandwagon” phenomenon.
Do you honestly believe this stuff?
What I find funny about yours and other alarmists view point is that the scientists involved with AGW are beyond reproach and infallible.
El stovey said:
robinessex said:
You obviously don't know what a bandwagon is, how it originates, and how it keeps rolling. Suggest you read Machiavelli to see how politics works.
Wow, there it is. Conclusive proof of this mass deception and fraud involving most of the world’s governments and scientific institutions. All wrong and lying to get funding and tax. Although your claims were frankly unbelievable, you’ve explained it all perfectly by way of telling me to read Machiavelli and saying it’s all the result of the “bandwagon” phenomenon.
Do you honestly believe this stuff?
ks. Not once have you offered any observation of your own to back up your belief.gadgetmac said:
Nonsense, just like all of your posts. The comparisons are entirely comparable.
2 industries funding campaign groups and others to try to persuade the public that there is no scientific evidence against the use of their commodity and thats its not harmful despite the vast majority of experts telling them otherwise. And all in the name of protecting profit over the public good.
And a lot of it being done secretly as is the case with the GWPF. The Heartland institute isn’t far behind in this.
So everytime the 'experts' have put forward their theories/proposals/whatever, they have been right? 2 industries funding campaign groups and others to try to persuade the public that there is no scientific evidence against the use of their commodity and thats its not harmful despite the vast majority of experts telling them otherwise. And all in the name of protecting profit over the public good.
And a lot of it being done secretly as is the case with the GWPF. The Heartland institute isn’t far behind in this.
And any time that anyone has spoken out against 'consensus' have been shown to be wrong?
gadgetmac said:
2 industries funding campaign groups and others to try to persuade the public that there is no scientific evidence against the use of their commodity and thats its not harmful despite the vast majority of experts telling them otherwise. And all in the name of protecting profit over the public good.
Can't you see the difference between try to get the world’s population from adding 0.0000000000028% of a perfectly natural gas to the atmosphere, and inhaling a potentially toxic mix of chemicals? Says it all about you. Doesn’t it?robinessex said:
As per normal, you fail to 'get the message' All you ever do is nit-pick over what's posted here, that dares to dispute AGW. No useful contribution from yourself, only blind belief in the 'oh great scientists'. Us so called sceptics are here pointing out the numerous failings in the so called ‘science’ of AGW. Just go read the 5,000 pages of this in the previous 4 Volumes. Even if only 10% of what’ve published is correct, it makes AGW bks. Not once have you offered any observation of your own to back up your belief.
You actually believe you’re right and the scientific community are wrong and that the evidence is yours and dickymint and TBs posts.ks. Not once have you offered any observation of your own to back up your belief.This is completely delusional.
All you’re doing is constantly reinforcing your own bias and paranoia.
If “10% of what you published is correct” you would have uncovered the biggest fraud in the history of the planet. You would be causing a revolution science. That isn’t happening though because you’re wrong. You’ve been wrong all the way through the thread.
Nobody is listening to you outside this thread. Not because governments and scientists and all the scientific institutions are colluding in a global fraud and deception but because it’s nonsense.
I honestly think you’re not well. Just think about what you’re posting regarding governments and scientific institutions all working together to lie for tax and funding. It’s quite obviously delusional nonsense.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff