Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
powerstroke said:
LoonyTunes said:
Yeah, whilst those on the corporate payroll will all be beyond reproach. 
Yes but what about people apposed to green peace ??
LittleBigPlanet said:
This is most likely in response to recent TCFD (Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure) recommendations (TCFD was set up by the FSB, chaired by BoE's Mark Carney).
Plenty of support in the financial sector on this as the sector is quickly realising how climate and weather-related events impact their porfolios/assets.
given the no trend facts relating to extreme weather events and a reduction in hurricanes making landfall over the last decade or two i take it we will all be seeing huge reductions in premiums any time now and shareholders will be receiving record dividends ?Plenty of support in the financial sector on this as the sector is quickly realising how climate and weather-related events impact their porfolios/assets.
wc98 said:
LittleBigPlanet said:
This is most likely in response to recent TCFD (Task Force for Climate-Related Financial Disclosure) recommendations (TCFD was set up by the FSB, chaired by BoE's Mark Carney).
Plenty of support in the financial sector on this as the sector is quickly realising how climate and weather-related events impact their porfolios/assets.
given the no trend facts relating to extreme weather events and a reduction in hurricanes making landfall over the last decade or two i take it we will all be seeing huge reductions in premiums any time now and shareholders will be receiving record dividends ?Plenty of support in the financial sector on this as the sector is quickly realising how climate and weather-related events impact their porfolios/assets.
This is definitely not an attempt to put words in other people's keyboards but what was said in the post you replied to isn't where it's at (as you clearly know already!),
Corporate political animals can smell which way the wind is blowing, and which way their political overlord grasshoppers want them to bend when it blows, o'sensei. They are well aware of what various baseless predictions made using junkscience plugged into gigo climate models say about weather events, but not quite as unaware as they are over what the data and science is saying (that the gigo models are wrong). These political animals do understand that in situations where they may be able to make a quick buck, political reality is more germaine than scientific reality, so they bend (over).
LoonyTunes said:
Not sure how much notice I'd take of a corporate shill to be honest
Easily google-able but here's some Dr P Moore 'facts'..
While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.
Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.
Moore’s claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that “clear-cutting is good for forests” and Three Mile Island was actually “a success story” because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying “my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn’t die.”
By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media – especially conservative media – give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.
Moore was paid by the British Columbia Forest Alliance, an industry-front group set up by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller (the same PR firm that represented Exxon after the Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the Bhopal chemical disaster). The BC Forest Alliance is funded primarily by the
logging industry. He also has ties to other corporations including Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser.
how about i come round to your house and remove every single item that is related to a company that is involved in "pollution" ? or do you live in a mud hut and wear nothing but hemp ?Easily google-able but here's some Dr P Moore 'facts'..
While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he “saw the light” but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.
Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who’s Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.
Moore’s claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that “clear-cutting is good for forests” and Three Mile Island was actually “a success story” because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying “my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn’t die.”
By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media – especially conservative media – give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.
Moore was paid by the British Columbia Forest Alliance, an industry-front group set up by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller (the same PR firm that represented Exxon after the Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the Bhopal chemical disaster). The BC Forest Alliance is funded primarily by the
logging industry. He also has ties to other corporations including Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser.
sanctimonius hypocritical enviro mentalists,with the emphasis on the mental, clowns donating to the likes of greenpiss,wwf and fiends of the earth are a large part of the problem when it comes to true environmentalism. things like increased palm oil production with the associated impacts on forestry, pollution and general environment are a direct result of the s
te constantly spewed by virtue signalling silver spoon idiots that don't have a clue.some of these orgs have been complicit in massive environmental damage as a result of collusion with some of the companies you mention. you might want to start tracing some of their biggest donations to get a better idea of what i mean.
ENGOs have been deliberately targeted by corporate strategists and in several cases they have been captured at management level. For example, Holmes (2011) reports on some of the boards of American ENGOs that include large numbers of current or former directors of major transnational corporations:
TNC 15 out of 26; Conservation International 26 out of 36; WWF-USA 13 out of 21. In addition, ‘these NGOs each have a business council, made exclusively from corporate directors, to advise the board of directors’ (Holmes, 2011: 9). Besides TNC, Conservation International and WWF, Hari (2010) cites the National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council as all suffering from corporate capture and conformity to the basic tenets of neoliberalism. This is the spread of what I have referred to as new environmental pragmatism (Spash, 2009). The inroads into conservation by corporate interests are deep. Recently, Adams (2017) has analysed the pragmatic reasons behind this alliance, terming it ‘sleeping with the enemy’ and a ‘Faustian bargain’, that is sold as promoting the mythical Green and growing economy. There is, then, much to concern environmentalists about the role of environmentalism today and whether it can help or will hinder the achievement of a more just, ethical and equitable future.
http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/category/organizat...
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
...stuff...
...stuff..Yet you copy pasted obviously biased crap about Dr Patrick Moore (did you check your source on this)?
Corporate shill, environmental organisation shill (both are big money) neither should be trusted without verification (a wise man may still say foolish things and a fool may speak wise words) .
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
wc98 said:
LoonyTunes said:
...stuff...
...stuff..Yet you copy pasted obviously biased crap about Dr Patrick Moore (did you check your source on this)?
Corporate shill, environmental organisation shill (both are big money) neither should be trusted without verification (a wise man may still say foolish things and a fool may speak wise words) .
Just because the good Doctor gives his opinion doesn't make it true. Greenpeace are every bit as entitled to give their opinion questioning the Dr's motivations and explaining why they think he's saying these things - which they have - saying that he has or has had financial backing from interested parties.
If that's true anything he says is tainted just as much as anything Greenpeace say might be - which is the point I'm making.
If you're going to quote people try quoting those with no skin in the game.
LoonyTunes said:
Jeez this aint difficult. My source on that was Greenpeace itself. Hence my "2 sides to every story" remark.
Just because the good Doctor gives his opinion doesn't make it true. Greenpeace are every bit as entitled to give their opinion questioning the Dr's motivations and explaining why they think he's saying these things - which they have - saying that he has or has had financial backing from interested parties.
If that's true anything he says is tainted just as much as anything Greenpeace say might be - which is the point I'm making.
If you're going to quote people try quoting those with no skin in the game.
Erm - Climate change - We all have skin in this game Just because the good Doctor gives his opinion doesn't make it true. Greenpeace are every bit as entitled to give their opinion questioning the Dr's motivations and explaining why they think he's saying these things - which they have - saying that he has or has had financial backing from interested parties.
If that's true anything he says is tainted just as much as anything Greenpeace say might be - which is the point I'm making.
If you're going to quote people try quoting those with no skin in the game.
Jinx said:
LoonyTunes said:
Jeez this aint difficult. My source on that was Greenpeace itself. Hence my "2 sides to every story" remark.
Just because the good Doctor gives his opinion doesn't make it true. Greenpeace are every bit as entitled to give their opinion questioning the Dr's motivations and explaining why they think he's saying these things - which they have - saying that he has or has had financial backing from interested parties.
If that's true anything he says is tainted just as much as anything Greenpeace say might be - which is the point I'm making.
If you're going to quote people try quoting those with no skin in the game.
Erm - Climate change - We all have skin in this game Just because the good Doctor gives his opinion doesn't make it true. Greenpeace are every bit as entitled to give their opinion questioning the Dr's motivations and explaining why they think he's saying these things - which they have - saying that he has or has had financial backing from interested parties.
If that's true anything he says is tainted just as much as anything Greenpeace say might be - which is the point I'm making.
If you're going to quote people try quoting those with no skin in the game.
It is interesting to note that Moore is described as a 'corporate shill' - is everyone employed by an incorporated company therefore a 'shill' by Greenpeace standards?
Of course, Greenpeace is an unelected acivist organisation which operates outside of democratic processes, and when chooses, outside of the law too whilst invoking the end justifies the means.
Really, there is not much to choose between the church and greenpeas in a spouting nonsense competition.
Of course, Greenpeace is an unelected acivist organisation which operates outside of democratic processes, and when chooses, outside of the law too whilst invoking the end justifies the means.
Really, there is not much to choose between the church and greenpeas in a spouting nonsense competition.
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
It is interesting to note that Moore is described as a 'corporate shill' - is everyone employed by an incorporated company therefore a 'shill' by Greenpeace standards?
And yet everyone who believes in AGW is also on some gravy train or other. Go figure.Those in the 'coincidence of vested interests' include researchers (generous grant funding in this area with nil in the UK for research not intended to support AGW), pressure groups like FoE and GP using moral blackmail based on climate fairytales to increase income from donations / EU grants and increase influence, renewables subsidy farmers, BBC with their pension deficit £zillions heavily invested in the green blob and ramping AGW at every opportunity, specific climate lobbyist organisations including Bob Ward's employer after he left the RS, climate-related quangos, politicians in countries trying to boost their coffers and local electability by claiming yet more £zillions from western nations as climate compo...there are more but time is short all-told the climate industry is itself huge in financial terms.
Dr P Moore was a darling of the believers until he realised what was happening, noted that it involved the abandonment of science and logic, and decided to speak out against the unwarranted alarmism and unscientific bunk being peddled. Since then the organisation he once co-led has been trying to ease him from their past. This re-writing of history is a widespread tactic used not least in the failed attempt by The Team to erase the MWP.
He's one of the last people whose work could be described as corporate shillism, this is just the usual name-calling to vilify people who could "do serious damage" (see Climategate emails for that type of phrase) while at the same time discouraging others from putting their head over the parapet. Same old.
Try these if you're new to Moore, but it's not soundbite in nature so go to the transcript if a long-ish vid is too long:
Vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0Z5FdwWw_c
Transcript
https://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-ce...
Today Beeb CC puff story by crazybin
Young will pick up climate change bill, advisers warn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-446...
Young people will be left to pick up the bill for climate change because politicians are dodging the issue, a UK report warns.
The government must act faster to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from road traffic, homes and farming, the Committee on Climate Change says.
Without action, the coming generation will have to pay much more to curb emissions in a heating world.
The government says it is committed to being a world leader on climate change.
It will introduce its low-carbon transport plan soon......................continues
So how much Have we spent on climate change so far world wide?
£300 BILLION
The cost of the Climate Change Act
Peter Lilley MP
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/12/CC...
Young will pick up climate change bill, advisers warn
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-446...
Young people will be left to pick up the bill for climate change because politicians are dodging the issue, a UK report warns.
The government must act faster to cut carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from road traffic, homes and farming, the Committee on Climate Change says.
Without action, the coming generation will have to pay much more to curb emissions in a heating world.
The government says it is committed to being a world leader on climate change.
It will introduce its low-carbon transport plan soon......................continues
So how much Have we spent on climate change so far world wide?
£300 BILLION
The cost of the Climate Change Act
Peter Lilley MP
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2016/12/CC...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff