Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Working for one of your listed institutions? Where it has been shown that anyone who doesn't toe the line is in serious risk of losing their job and being shunned.

Clearly your post puts you in the Conspiracy camp.

Anyway, can you show me examples of this happening from each of the institutions please. Actually, even though you said the listed institutions (39) I'll take a quarter...say 10.

Not just one disgruntled reject moaning about 1 institute but multiple occasions of this across the spectrum. Shouldn't be hard with so many Bodies to choose from.

Or lets pick one at random...say...Geological Society of America

Genuinely interested to see you back this assertion up.

So, you can't answer my relatively simple question?

Instead, your usual tactics of accusing anyone who doesn't agree with 'concensus' science as conspiracy nut.

And no, I will not go into another loop of your usual BS "You didn't answer my question, so I'm not going to answer yours". Grow up.


Your selection of the GSA, well, a society made up of about 24,000 people across the world. Are you trying to suggest that every single one of those associates absolutely agrees with AGW?
It's not an organisation that has 24,000 employees, it has members. People who pay to be a part of it.
The society position on AGW is political. It shouldn't be on your list. Along with many of the others.

[gadgetmac]

dickymint said:

I asked Gadget the same question when he derided Tallbloke and no answer.

Some of us have to put food on the table rather than spend our days dreaming up plots for the X files so don't usually expect answers until late evening and some weekends.

Here's Tallblokes credentials

Roger Tattersall

Credentials

History and Philisophy of Science — University of Leeds (1984-1988)
HNC Mechanical and Production Engineering — Leeds Metropolitan University (1981-1985).
“8 GCSE 'O' Levels” — Allerton Grange (1973-1979).
Roger Tattersall has described himself as “a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-tattersall

Which of those qualifications are Climate Science (Climateology) related? Do your own homework to see what fields might be covered by Climatology.

[LoonyTunes]

wc98 said:

for me you have a non job. there is an entire industry of non jobs built on the back of the co2 is bad mantra.

The key part there is 'for you'.

As long as one is on the side of science and truth - who cares what you think?

[stew-STR160]

LittleBigPlanet said:

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

In Dickymint world Tallbloke is a world famous field-leading Climateologist

So, in your expert opinion, what makes one a qualified climate scientist?

Having undertaken a set course with a predefined outcome(pass grade etc)?

Working for one of your listed institutions? Where it has been shown that anyone who doesn't toe the line is in serious risk of losing their job and being shunned.

Genuinely interested to know!

I am a:
- Chartered Scientist (CSci) - through The Science Council
- Chartered Water and Environment Manager (C.WEM) - through the Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
- Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society
- Associate Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society

As part of the above, each institution requires that I agreed to, and signed, a code of ethics (sometimes also called code of conduct) which covers things like bribery, corruption and misrepresentation (to name but a few). If I am found to fail in this regard I can expect to be struck off. You can Google the above to find the various codes, none of which make any claim of suppressing free speech or scientific endeavor, amongst other claims.

In all my time being an active member of the above institutions (>15 years) I have never known any instances where individuals are aware that they may lose their professional registration by not 'toeing the line' of the institution. My experience has been that individuals are free to express themselves as they see fit, indeed many people have different or opposing views which makes for lively debate (I'd recommend the Monday Night lectures at the RGS by the way); individuals are not silenced or smothered.

What evidence do you have of your claim?

Genuinely, thank you for your response.

Regarding the 'toe the line'. This is based on stories I have read on the web, reports I've read here, and other places. I don't remember the details of who the persons involved are I'm afraid. I'm sure some others on here have that information perhaps bookmarked somewhere.

Regarding the part about individuals free to express themselves, great, super, that's how it should be, even if some of the theories are complelely bananas! That's science, I'm sure you'll agree?
The issue though is the attempt by many (Climategate scandel, media, political organisations etc) to stifle any debate about AGW. "The science is settled" they said...

Thanks again for the reply.

[LoonyTunes]

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

stew-STR160 said:

Working for one of your listed institutions? Where it has been shown that anyone who doesn't toe the line is in serious risk of losing their job and being shunned.

Clearly your post puts you in the Conspiracy camp.

Anyway, can you show me examples of this happening from each of the institutions please. Actually, even though you said the listed institutions (39) I'll take a quarter...say 10.

Not just one disgruntled reject moaning about 1 institute but multiple occasions of this across the spectrum. Shouldn't be hard with so many Bodies to choose from.

Or lets pick one at random...say...Geological Society of America

Genuinely interested to see you back this assertion up.

So, you can't answer my relatively simple question?

Instead, your usual tactics of accusing anyone who doesn't agree with 'concensus' science as conspiracy nut.

And no, I will not go into another loop of your usual BS "You didn't answer my question, so I'm not going to answer yours". Grow up.


Your selection of the GSA, well, a society made up of about 24,000 people across the world. Are you trying to suggest that every single one of those associates absolutely agrees with AGW?
It's not an organisation that has 24,000 employees, it has members. People who pay to be a part of it.
The society position on AGW is political. It shouldn't be on your list. Along with many of the others.

So once again - an accusation followed by zero evidence.

Pathetic.

[dickymint]

gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

I asked Gadget the same question when he derided Tallbloke and no answer.

Some of us have to put food on the table rather than spend our days dreaming up plots for the X files so don't usually expect answers until late evening and some weekends.

Here's Tallblokes credentials

Roger Tattersall

Credentials

History and Philisophy of Science — University of Leeds (1984-1988)
HNC Mechanical and Production Engineering — Leeds Metropolitan University (1981-1985).
“8 GCSE 'O' Levels” — Allerton Grange (1973-1979).
Roger Tattersall has described himself as “a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-tattersall

Which of those qualifications are Climate Science (Climateology) related? Do your own homework to see what fields might be covered by Climatology.

As usual blah blah blah no answer followed by a question. Well done.

No need to do "homework" on Tallbloke as He's been a good friend of mine (in real life) since I joined PH. He is also a very honest, trustworthy and charitable person.

[LoonyTunes]

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

I asked Gadget the same question when he derided Tallbloke and no answer.

Some of us have to put food on the table rather than spend our days dreaming up plots for the X files so don't usually expect answers until late evening and some weekends.

Here's Tallblokes credentials

Roger Tattersall

Credentials

History and Philisophy of Science — University of Leeds (1984-1988)
HNC Mechanical and Production Engineering — Leeds Metropolitan University (1981-1985).
“8 GCSE 'O' Levels” — Allerton Grange (1973-1979).
Roger Tattersall has described himself as “a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-tattersall

Which of those qualifications are Climate Science (Climateology) related? Do your own homework to see what fields might be covered by Climatology.

As usual blah blah blah no answer followed by a question. Well done.

No need to do "homework" on Tallbloke as He's been a good friend of mine (in real life) since I joined PH. He is also a very honest, trustworthy and charitable person.

Looks to me like he did answer you, you're just not very good on the understanding bit. No surprise that an unqualified 'Climate Expert' is a friend of another unqualified 'Climate Expert'.

[Vizsla]

El stovey said:

It’s amazing how much importance you place on the word of people like tallbloke and turbobloke (don’t pretend you’ve done any research) and other fringe scientists etc but completely disbelieve the scientific community and all the reputable scientific institutions.

It’s complete confirmation bias or brainwashing or something. Have you ever been endoctrated before? Are there other conspiracies you believe in or scientific consensus you disbelieve?

Sounds painful Do they do it under local anaesthetic? Do you speak with a squeaky voice afterwards?

[Atomic12C]

LoonyTunes said:

Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

It's awfully quite on this point.

Any organisation expected to work with (or receive funding from) governmental groups (national or local levels) is not going to sign up to a position that is opposite their client official position is it?
Politics is politics.

So your constant posting of lists is only supporting of a political consensus - for ever worth that is.

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

dickymint said:

gadgetmac said:

dickymint said:

I asked Gadget the same question when he derided Tallbloke and no answer.

Some of us have to put food on the table rather than spend our days dreaming up plots for the X files so don't usually expect answers until late evening and some weekends.

Here's Tallblokes credentials

Roger Tattersall

Credentials

History and Philisophy of Science — University of Leeds (1984-1988)
HNC Mechanical and Production Engineering — Leeds Metropolitan University (1981-1985).
“8 GCSE 'O' Levels” — Allerton Grange (1973-1979).
Roger Tattersall has described himself as “a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/roger-tattersall

Which of those qualifications are Climate Science (Climateology) related? Do your own homework to see what fields might be covered by Climatology.

As usual blah blah blah no answer followed by a question. Well done.

No need to do "homework" on Tallbloke as He's been a good friend of mine (in real life) since I joined PH. He is also a very honest, trustworthy and charitable person.

Looks to me like he did answer you, you're just not very good on the understanding bit. No surprise that an unqualified 'Climate Expert' is a friend of another unqualified 'Climate Expert'.

He did not answer my question you know it and he knows it. Your post as per usual is just to have yet another personal cheap shot.

[LoonyTunes]

Atomic12C said:

LoonyTunes said:

Anybody got a credible scientific institution who doesn't believe in AGW?

It's awfully quite on this point.

Any organisation expected to work with (or receive funding from) governmental groups (national or local levels) is not going to sign up to a position that is opposite their client official position is it?
Politics is politics.

So your constant posting of lists is only supporting of a political consensus - for ever worth that is.

Wrong. Thousands of Scientists in hundreds of bodies worldwide don't make things up simultaneously in order to appease their Clientele. That would be a global conspiracy (again).

Tell me of another branch of Science that is doing this.

My list is supporting the Scientific Consensus. A consensus upon which are elected Govt's are acting. If the consensus changes (perhaps they read the deniers blogs) then Govt policy will change. Like with Smoking.

[Atomic12C]

LoonyTunes said:

Wrong. Thousands of Scientists in hundreds of bodies worldwide don't make things up simultaneously in order to appease their Clientele. That would be a global conspiracy (again).

Tell me of another branch of Science that is doing this.

My list is supporting the Scientific Consensus. A consensus upon which are elected Govt's are acting. If the consensus changes (perhaps they read the deniers blogs) then Govt policy will change. Like with Smoking.

Your list is organisational rather than scientist - a big difference.

Global conspiracy - yes it would be wouldn't it. The result of when politics overrides science.

[LoonyTunes]

dickymint said:

He did not answer my question you know it and he knows it. Your post as per usual is just to have yet another personal cheap shot.

As a refresher here was your question

dickymint said:

PS. What exactly is a "climate science qualification" and how do you get one?

What you can't google What are the Climate Sciences or similar?

Do that then compare with your mate Tallblokes qualifications - post up the venn diagram

And this time try answering the question for a change.

[LoonyTunes]

Atomic12C said:

Your list is organisational rather than scientist - a big difference.

Well duh.

That's all it was ever meant to be, a list of Scientific Institutions or Bodies and Government Depts/organisations (which I haven't started including yet).

I made that clear from the outset. I'm looking for examples of such bodies who don't believe in AGW.

Within the list will be Tens of Thousands of Scientists. Some Scientists will undoubtedly disagree. Some.

[Atomic12C]

LoonyTunes said:

Well duh.

That's all it was ever meant to be,

As long as the thread readers are aware your consensus list is purely organisational, that is my point.

LoonyTunes said:

I'm looking for examples of such bodies who don't believe in AGW.

Good luck with that.
With the big political oversight on this, any such organisation is not likely to be funded by government - so they'll likely be few and far between, funded by other vested interests. And vested interest is at the heart of all funding isn't it? Whether its pro or anti MMGW theory.

[Diderot]

LoonyTunes said:

Atomic12C said:

Your list is organisational rather than scientist - a big difference.

Well duh.

That's all it was ever meant to be, a list of Scientific Institutions or Bodies and Government Depts/organisations (which I haven't started including yet).

I made that clear from the outset. I'm looking for examples of such bodies who don't believe in AGW.

Within the list will be Tens of Thousands of Scientists. Some Scientists will undoubtedly disagree. Some.

Scientific bodies don't 'believe' in x or y or anything else. Science is not about belief (that's the province of religion and politics). Science is about data and the data shows conclusively that the models and the assumptions behind them are wrong.

For your next list, why don't you compile a comprehensive one showing the 60+ attempts to explain the pause/hiatus/lack of warming. A pause which you still deny occurred.

And while we're on your lack of response to questions and your continual swerving away from answering anything, you still can't answer the question about the Royal Society and its donors. Nor indeed whether you understand what peer review is and how research works.

I project you will swerve away once again, but then that is the MO of a troll.

[LoonyTunes]

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

[stew-STR160]

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

No, you don't answer questions at all it seems. Just post more pandering lists and appeals to authority.

I have to hand it to you, you're an expert level troll.

[Diderot]

stew-STR160 said:

LoonyTunes said:

Diderot said:

...the usual claptrap...

Again, I don't answer questions from people who don't answer mine - especially escaped loons

No, you don't answer questions at all it seems. Just post more pandering lists and appeals to authority.

I have to hand it to you, you're an expert level troll.

Let's not exaggerate Stew. Expert implies certain intellectual capacity, and clearly the troll is challenged in that domain.

[robinessex]

And still the Beeb pushes it's totally biased AGE & CC bks

Six climate questions for 'Green GB'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-458...

Scientists say we must keep global temperature rise under 1.5C - so what does that mean for the UK?
Next week, ministers are likely to ask their advisers how Britain can reduce carbon emissions in line with that target.
They’ve declared what they're calling Green GB Week – a celebration of the UK’s achievement as a world leader in tackling climate change whilst increasing the economy.
But will they make the huge carbon cuts still needed on these six key issues? ..........continues

Er, "a celebration of the UK’s achievement as a world leader in tackling climate change whilst increasing the economy."

Oh wow, I wonder how I missed that !!!!