Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
wc98 said:
zygalski said:
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
on that we agree ,certainly not those involved in receiving public funding for nothing, absolutely nothing of value to those paying the bill.Nobody.
Nada.
Given that belief statements are in vogue - but ultimately worthless in scientific terms, as opposed to politicking terms - we can easily achieve more of a balanced perspective on PH while giving believers a wider range of authorities to appeal to (not that this generous offer will be taken up).
“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
UN IPCC's Tom Tripp
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!” NASA Scientist Dr Leonard Weinstein, NASA 30 yrs+ then a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself. Climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself."
Nobel Laureate and Stanford University Physicist Dr Robert B. Laughlin, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen. Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data.”
Dr Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate. The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”
Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences. AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”
Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, author of The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency."
"I am an environmentalist, but I must disagree with Mr. Gore"
Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science 'community' is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”
Research scientist William C. Gilbert author of studies published in the journal Energy & Environment titled 'The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field."
“The dysfunctional nature of climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science community. The global warming establishment has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“Those who call themselves 'Green Planet Advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere. Diversity increases when the planet is warm with high CO2 atmospheric content. Al Gore's personal behaviour supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his multiple homes does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”
Engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith. My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -Atmospheric Physicist Dr John Reid, previously with Australia‘s CSIRO‘s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening."
Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens‘ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC?s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud."
South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
“We're not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”
UN IPCC's Tom Tripp
“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!” NASA Scientist Dr Leonard Weinstein, NASA 30 yrs+ then a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.
“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself. Climate is beyond our power to control. Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation. You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself."
Nobel Laureate and Stanford University Physicist Dr Robert B. Laughlin, formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn't happen. Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data.”
Dr Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University.
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate. The planet's climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”
Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences
“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences. AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”
Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, author of The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency."
"I am an environmentalist, but I must disagree with Mr. Gore"
Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland
“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today. The science 'community' is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what 'science' has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.”
Research scientist William C. Gilbert author of studies published in the journal Energy & Environment titled 'The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere" and "Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field."
“The dysfunctional nature of climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science community. The global warming establishment has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”
Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.
“Those who call themselves 'Green Planet Advocates' should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere. Diversity increases when the planet is warm with high CO2 atmospheric content. Al Gore's personal behaviour supports a green planet - his enormous energy use with his multiple homes does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”
Engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan
“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith. My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” -Atmospheric Physicist Dr John Reid, previously with Australia‘s CSIRO‘s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography.
“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening."
Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens‘ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.
“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC?s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it's fraud."
South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.
The stance from the deniers in this thread seems to be that you have a surfeit of sound evidence that refutes AGW, however, it can't be tested in a court, and even if it could be, there's not a single person or organisation on the entire planet who has an incentive to take a legal stand against this global AGW conspiracy.
The AGW lies are exposed here, however, for a few dozen lucky folk, in a backwater section of a car owner's website.
Do you guys not realise how utterly mad this stance is? I mean it's beyond grassy knoll bonkers.
The AGW lies are exposed here, however, for a few dozen lucky folk, in a backwater section of a car owner's website.
Do you guys not realise how utterly mad this stance is? I mean it's beyond grassy knoll bonkers.
zygalski said:
I picked the Oxford University paper purely at random.
I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
So not much research on your part?I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
Inadvertent cherry picking or did you just stop because the first reference you "found" satisified your political needs?
Oh well, at least it seems to have been politically motivated - in the widest sense of the word.
LongQ said:
zygalski said:
I picked the Oxford University paper purely at random.
I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
So not much research on your part?I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
Inadvertent cherry picking or did you just stop because the first reference you "found" satisified your political needs?
Oh well, at least it seems to have been politically motivated - in the widest sense of the word.
No conspiracy involved I'm afraid, Mr Grassy Knoll.
zygalski said:
LongQ said:
zygalski said:
I picked the Oxford University paper purely at random.
I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
So not much research on your part?I'm sure you conspiracy buffs/deniers can find a paper which supports AGW that obviously could be contested?
Aah, yes, but nobody has an incentive to stop the AGW consensus, do they?
Nobody.
Nada.
Inadvertent cherry picking or did you just stop because the first reference you "found" satisified your political needs?
Oh well, at least it seems to have been politically motivated - in the widest sense of the word.
No conspiracy involved I'm afraid, Mr Grassy Knoll.
Have you run out of medication?
Is there anyone we could call to get help to you?
Meanwhile, in the real world, companies continue to develop renewables, keep investing billions of their own money in green tech, all to help perpetuate the AGW sham which they could easily disprove, if only they visited this thread, looked at a few graphs and read 'spam's copy/pastes.
durbster said:
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the f
k ups these idiots have managed in the past.
The case for AGW denial has been made in court in the United States by Peabody.k ups these idiots have managed in the past.They even called in some of this thread's favourite bloggers - the ones we're told to believe over the peer reviewed science.
They lost, obviously.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...
Article said:
A Minnesota judge found the preponderance of evidence did not favor coal industry climate science denial
“Witnesses like Andrew Dessler and John Abraham who represent the 97% expert consensus. “
Says all you need to know about the verdict then, don't it. The phantom 97% !
zygalski said:
Meanwhile, in the real world, companies continue to develop renewables, keep investing billions of their own money in green tech, all to help perpetuate the AGW sham which they could easily disprove, if only they visited this thread, looked at a few graphs and read 'spam's copy/pastes.
Nope they do it to make a profit and guess what? It’s not “their own money”!!dickymint said:
zygalski said:
Meanwhile, in the real world, companies continue to develop renewables, keep investing billions of their own money in green tech, all to help perpetuate the AGW sham which they could easily disprove, if only they visited this thread, looked at a few graphs and read 'spam's copy/pastes.
Nope they do it to make a profit and guess what? It’s not “their own money”!!
GreenBlobbery and its taxpayer subsidies are well and truly milked due to The Cause and The Team's ramping efforts.
Laughing at politicians and other AGW disciples is the best medicine; believing in invisible entities used to be limited to infantile behaviour in very young people, now its endemic in the political class and a shocking number of motivated acolytes. Those fairies at the bottom of the garden must be envious of Gaia in terms of agw.
dickymint said:
zygalski said:
Meanwhile, in the real world, companies continue to develop renewables, keep investing billions of their own money in green tech, all to help perpetuate the AGW sham which they could easily disprove, if only they visited this thread, looked at a few graphs and read 'spam's copy/pastes.
Nope they do it to make a profit and guess what? It’s not “their own money”!!Sounds like tin foil hat bulls
t to me.Proof please...
Also, how much are the US subsidies for fossil fuel production?
Edited by zygalski on Saturday 25th November 14:21
Check that garden believers, invisible entities can be seen with sufficient faith. As you already know.
Meanwhile...some climate politics from the CFACT political blog Climate Depot.
Morano vs Macron
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/11/15/skeptic-mor...
Former UN Climate Drone tries to laugh off her call for UN ‘centralized transformation’ shhhh it's a secret
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/11/14/exclusive-v...
Meanwhile...some climate politics from the CFACT political blog Climate Depot.
Morano vs Macron
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/11/15/skeptic-mor...
Former UN Climate Drone tries to laugh off her call for UN ‘centralized transformation’ shhhh it's a secret
http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/11/14/exclusive-v...
grumbledoak said:
durbster said:
All the data supports AGW.
If that were true these threads would not exist...It's only evidence that people are drawn to an exciting fantasy over a tedious reality.
grumbledoak said:
...and no-one would have ever used the word "consensus".
We would never have heard the name Oreskes, and "97%" wouldn't be a running joke.
You believe the 97% thing is not accurate. OK.We would never have heard the name Oreskes, and "97%" wouldn't be a running joke.
If you really believe there are a vast number of climate scientists out there who reject AGW, where the hell are they?
For example, why do you think there are no stories in New Scientist about this great debate that's apparently still raging?
And before the inevitable repetitive turbowaffle about the consensus being meaningless; the point of putting a figure on the scientific consensus was only to address the public misconception that AGW was still unproven. That clearly wasn't true ten years ago and absolutely isn't now, since the evidence has only grown.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff