Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
zygalski said:
I'd have thought all these wealthy US conservative interest groups would have had a pot to piss in with regards to researching and challenging the establishment ref AGW, but apparently not.
Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
The problem is that research establishments are predominantly left wing, I remember driving around Cambridge in the lead up to an election, the large number of liberal democrat bill boards Was in contrast to other towns I had passed through,Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
How can any group challenge the establishment where money is unlimited via the tax payers, where do they get the massive amounts of money that are required?
The Table is fixed, all that remains is web sites and YouTube,
What are your thoughts on Peter Ridd and the way scientists are treated if they speak out ?
Do you not see that basically an alternative view is not allowed, you will not get a grant and speak out and your sacked.
zygalski said:
I'd have thought all these wealthy US conservative interest groups would have had a pot to piss in with regards to researching and challenging the establishment ref AGW, but apparently not.
Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted, focussed effort to challenge the establishment.
Value for money - funding people to write articles for the internet which then get echoed around the denilosphere is good bangs per buck. Much better value than funding real research, and of course the target audience they're trying to influence is the general public, not the scientific community.Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted, focussed effort to challenge the establishment.
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I'd have thought all these wealthy US conservative interest groups would have had a pot to piss in with regards to researching and challenging the establishment ref AGW, but apparently not.
Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
The problem is that research establishments are predominantly left wing, I remember driving around Cambridge in the lead up to an election, the large number of liberal democrat bill boards Was in contrast to other towns I had passed through...Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
To say the issue of tackling AGW is a left wing conspiracy perpetuated by left wingers is totally inaccurate.
More climate politics stateside - the time for debate is over now, and it's hotting up.
http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t-wpengine.netdna-ss...
http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t-wpengine.netdna-ss...
kerplunk said:
zygalski said:
I'd have thought all these wealthy US conservative interest groups would have had a pot to piss in with regards to researching and challenging the establishment ref AGW, but apparently not.
Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted, focussed effort to challenge the establishment.
Value for money - funding people to write articles for the internet which then get echoed around the denilosphere is good bangs per buck. Much better value than funding real research, and of course the target audience they're trying to influence is the general public, not the scientific community.Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted, focussed effort to challenge the establishment.
Perhaps they feel that putting it into anti-AGW research would be a lost cause or at best a waste of resources.
Is the thread following climate politics money? Shades of 5 to 6 years back when this cropped up.
European Union pays €tensofmilliions to unelected pressure groups
-BBC €6,100,987 (£4,854,039) in addition to previous €24.4m (£19.4) in grants covering 5 years
-Friends of the Earth €4,188,230 (£3,332,220)
-WWF €5,344,641 (£4,252,279)
Bye bye taxes, wasted.
European Union pays €tensofmilliions to unelected pressure groups
-BBC €6,100,987 (£4,854,039) in addition to previous €24.4m (£19.4) in grants covering 5 years
-Friends of the Earth €4,188,230 (£3,332,220)
-WWF €5,344,641 (£4,252,279)
Bye bye taxes, wasted.
jshell said:
He won't come back at you with anything. He'll pause a while and then just come back with more of 'nothing' as he does. Standard m.o.
And.....zygalski said:
It's a shame none of these conservative Republican anti-AGW think tanks you keep on quoting have any funding. None of these right wingers seem happy to put their money where their mouths are, do they?
I can see why they just post their blogs now.
Thanks for clarifying.
I can see why they just post their blogs now.
Thanks for clarifying.
turbobloke said:
More climate politics stateside - the time for debate is over now, and it's hotting up.
http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t-wpengine.netdna-ss...
But, but nobody can believe that there is any professional dissent...http://1ggye33lc4653z56mp34pl6t-wpengine.netdna-ss...
More tenuous links to CC
Climate change: Rugby World Cup highlights injustice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...
"Ahead of the Rugby World Cup in Japan, a report from Christian Aid highlights what they term the "climate injustice" endured by Pacific island participants.
Fiji, Samoa and Tonga face an uncertain future in a warmer world, with rising seas and increased storms.
But rich rugby nations like Japan and Australia are blocking aggressive climate action, the study says.
Christian Aid says this mirrors the exploitation of the Pacific islands for their best rugby players......continues"
Climate change: Rugby World Cup highlights injustice
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...
"Ahead of the Rugby World Cup in Japan, a report from Christian Aid highlights what they term the "climate injustice" endured by Pacific island participants.
Fiji, Samoa and Tonga face an uncertain future in a warmer world, with rising seas and increased storms.
But rich rugby nations like Japan and Australia are blocking aggressive climate action, the study says.
Christian Aid says this mirrors the exploitation of the Pacific islands for their best rugby players......continues"
This is yet another regular scientific fail from agw alarmism.
Pacific atolls are at greater risk when located above a geological subduction zone yet even then the prognosis is good. Kench et al looked at Pacific island atolls and found a net 7% increase in island area over the period 1897-2013. If an island is overtopped anywhere around its boundary for any reason including slow subduction effects or more rapid storm inundation, this increases sediment supply and deposition so the island remains above sea level. It's a basic mechanism known for decades. Overall the research results reveal an optimistic future for the habitability of atoll nations compared to climate hysteria-related scaremongering, particularly from former USA VP Al Gore (Morner demolished claims for the Maldives - Indian ocean? - by carrying out research there).
Pacific atolls are at greater risk when located above a geological subduction zone yet even then the prognosis is good. Kench et al looked at Pacific island atolls and found a net 7% increase in island area over the period 1897-2013. If an island is overtopped anywhere around its boundary for any reason including slow subduction effects or more rapid storm inundation, this increases sediment supply and deposition so the island remains above sea level. It's a basic mechanism known for decades. Overall the research results reveal an optimistic future for the habitability of atoll nations compared to climate hysteria-related scaremongering, particularly from former USA VP Al Gore (Morner demolished claims for the Maldives - Indian ocean? - by carrying out research there).
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I'd have thought all these wealthy US conservative interest groups would have had a pot to piss in with regards to researching and challenging the establishment ref AGW, but apparently not.
Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
The problem is that research establishments are predominantly left wing, I remember driving around Cambridge in the lead up to an election, the large number of liberal democrat bill boards Was in contrast to other towns I had passed through...Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
To say the issue of tackling AGW is a left wing conspiracy perpetuated by left wingers is totally inaccurate.
Trump administration is trying to change California's laws regarding emissions.
And all the time India and China have massively increased the amount of coal they use.
I see you cut out the part on Peter Ridd and his sacking, have you no view on the way science is politized?
And the endless drip of CC stories still extrudes from the Beeb.
How to Save the World: Is individual action pointless in the face of climate change?
Let's not beat around the bush: the simple answer has to be yes; individual action is pointless.
Think about it: what difference does one person forgoing a lamb chop for a lentil bake, deciding to catch the bus rather than take their car, or deciding not to jet off for that autumn getaway away in the Balearics make if the other 7,699,999,999 of us humans here on Earth don't do anything?
It is a dispiriting conclusion and begs an obvious question, and one that I am sure has already occurred to you: why bother?
That's exactly what I asked the 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg when I met her last month. Rather than fly to her climate change meetings in New York, Miss Thunberg had opted to be whisked across the Atlantic on racing yacht......continues
I wonder if Justin Rowlattl will now pop off, and seek the views of the many who can show CC to be rubbish?
How to Save the World: Is individual action pointless in the face of climate change?
Let's not beat around the bush: the simple answer has to be yes; individual action is pointless.
Think about it: what difference does one person forgoing a lamb chop for a lentil bake, deciding to catch the bus rather than take their car, or deciding not to jet off for that autumn getaway away in the Balearics make if the other 7,699,999,999 of us humans here on Earth don't do anything?
It is a dispiriting conclusion and begs an obvious question, and one that I am sure has already occurred to you: why bother?
That's exactly what I asked the 16-year-old climate activist Greta Thunberg when I met her last month. Rather than fly to her climate change meetings in New York, Miss Thunberg had opted to be whisked across the Atlantic on racing yacht......continues
I wonder if Justin Rowlattl will now pop off, and seek the views of the many who can show CC to be rubbish?
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I'd have thought all these wealthy US conservative interest groups would have had a pot to piss in with regards to researching and challenging the establishment ref AGW, but apparently not.
Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
The problem is that research establishments are predominantly left wing, I remember driving around Cambridge in the lead up to an election, the large number of liberal democrat bill boards Was in contrast to other towns I had passed through...Seems to be limited to the internet & appearances on youtube uploads & Fox News.
It would be interesting to know PH AGW denier thoughts on how well or how poorly the anti-AGW groups are dealing with these issues.
It does seem like it's easier herding cats than getting them to all make a concerted effort to challenge the establishment.
To say the issue of tackling AGW is a left wing conspiracy perpetuated by left wingers is totally inaccurate.
Trump administration is trying to change California's laws regarding emissions.
And all the time India and China have massively increased the amount of coal they use.
I see you cut out the part on Peter Ridd and his sacking, have you no view on the way science is politized?
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...
http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/d...
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/04/04/here-what-shel...
Edited by zygalski on Friday 20th September 08:17
The newsreader on local radio this morning had clearly benefited from a good education as they know what two plus two equals, unlike the unfortunates in the news...the reader of the news mentioned the unacceptability of 10% UK pupils leaving school at 18 without good GCSEs (grade C in old money) then went straight on to describe pupils truanting on the streets today, missing school to protest against something they don't understand, which is hardly surprising as politically appointed IPCC scientists don't understand it (their words in climategate emails). Great juxtaposition and surely not accidental 
Climate change: Arctic expedition to drift in sea-ice for a year
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...
It's being described as the biggest Arctic science expedition of all time.
The German Research Vessel Polarstern is about to head for the far north where it intends to drift in the sea-ice for an entire year.
HUNDREDS of scientists will visit the ship in that time to use it as a base from which to study the climate.......Continues
If the isn't a Beano outing for HUNDREDS of scientists, then I'm a banana. Just what are a few weeks bobbing about in the middle of some ice going to reveal? The explanation of what they are supposedly doing could easily be done without the expedition to the ice being necessary. Not much more than a publicity stunt really. £150 million down the drain then. Don't mention the CO2 consumed though.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-497...
It's being described as the biggest Arctic science expedition of all time.
The German Research Vessel Polarstern is about to head for the far north where it intends to drift in the sea-ice for an entire year.
HUNDREDS of scientists will visit the ship in that time to use it as a base from which to study the climate.......Continues
If the isn't a Beano outing for HUNDREDS of scientists, then I'm a banana. Just what are a few weeks bobbing about in the middle of some ice going to reveal? The explanation of what they are supposedly doing could easily be done without the expedition to the ice being necessary. Not much more than a publicity stunt really. £150 million down the drain then. Don't mention the CO2 consumed though.
Cut air pollution to fight climate change - UN
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-491...
Getting countries to cut down greenhouse gases that cause global warming is proving an uphill task......................
"Focus on CO2
When scientists talk about cutting down greenhouse gases that are blamed for warming the planet, they are mainly targeting carbon dioxide (CO2).
That is because it amounts to nearly two-thirds of emissions and can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Last year, it reached 411 parts per million (ppm) at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, the highest monthly average ever recorded.
Some experts say 350ppm is the safe limit while others argue 400ppm should be the reasonable target.
Burning of fossil fuels, wood and solid waste leads to CO2 emissions. Some industrial processes and land-use changes, including deforestation, also lead to emission of this major greenhouse gas.
But because the world's economy still largely runs on fossil fuels, energy politics has severely hindered progress in CO2 emissions reduction to fight climate change.
But scientists say there are other gases that pollute the air and also warm the planet."
That is full of so much b
ks, I'm not sure where to start !!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-491...
Getting countries to cut down greenhouse gases that cause global warming is proving an uphill task......................
"Focus on CO2
When scientists talk about cutting down greenhouse gases that are blamed for warming the planet, they are mainly targeting carbon dioxide (CO2).
That is because it amounts to nearly two-thirds of emissions and can stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years.
Last year, it reached 411 parts per million (ppm) at Hawaii's Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory, the highest monthly average ever recorded.
Some experts say 350ppm is the safe limit while others argue 400ppm should be the reasonable target.
Burning of fossil fuels, wood and solid waste leads to CO2 emissions. Some industrial processes and land-use changes, including deforestation, also lead to emission of this major greenhouse gas.
But because the world's economy still largely runs on fossil fuels, energy politics has severely hindered progress in CO2 emissions reduction to fight climate change.
But scientists say there are other gases that pollute the air and also warm the planet."
That is full of so much b
ks, I'm not sure where to start !!zygalski said:
Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...
I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ? Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.
Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
Oh come off it. You really are absolutely full of the brown stuff.
Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...
I never mentioned Big oil, is that your fallback answer ? Big oil don't do their own research?
They knew about it before it became a widespread public issue:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-k...
Can you direct me to grants available from big oil for scientific research to refute climate change, all companies are influenced by public opinion, oil companies are no different.
Still no opinion on sacking scientists who don't conform to the preachings.
Big oil found they could no longer deny what their own research had been telling them for decades. They were brought kicking & screaming into the present, much like BAT eventually was with respect to smoking being a cause of cancer.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff