Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[anonymous-user]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

More spam, how about keeping to your commitment ?

It’s not spam, it’s a list of reputable scientific institutions that disagree with you.

I’m not sure why you keep asking what his scientific credentials are?

He doesn’t need any scientific qualifications because he’s not the one saying all those scientists and scientific institutions are wrong or “infiltrated with political agents” or simply lying for funding or involved in a global conspiracy to raise tax and redistribute wealth.

You’re basically suggesting you have evidence of what would be the biggest mistake or conspiracy in the history of science involving all the reputable scientific institutions and most governments. You all get upset when the word “conspiracy” is used but you are describing a conspiracy and you’re conspiracy theorists.

Great, so what you need is evidence but instead of changing the scientific consensus with scientific proof, all you guys are doing is linking to fringe scientists and bloggers and even quoting each other as evidence.

You then get upset at anyone arriving from outside your echo chamber who points this ridiculous position you handful take, calling these outsiders “trolls” and in your case endlessly asking for their scientific credentials.

He doesn’t need any scientific credentials. He’s not the one saying all those scientific institutions are wrong. That’s what you are doing.

[LoonyTunes]

Cheers.

The minute he said that the IPCC disagreed with my stance on AGW I was out.

I have a very short list of people who I ignore - but he's on it.

[anonymous-user]

QuantumTokoloshi said:

it was provide to you, but deemed not credible in your esteemed opinion. Let see those qualifications which enables you to make that determination ?

Did you think it was a credible list?

Some of them even agreed with AGW.

That’s why it hasn’t been posted again since?

[With This Staff]

LoonyTunes said:

With This Staff said:

Neither Greenpeace nor FOE should be permitted to express an opinion on (C)AGW given the lack of appropriately qualified staff.

I'm not sure anybody is quoting Greenpeace or Friends Of The Earth on here.

With This Staff said:

Stern wrote an extensive and influential report which should be discredited too, using the same logic.

Or quoting Nicholas Stern as a qualified source.

With This Staff said:

As for Gore!

Or Gore for that matter - he's the politician.

However if we were agree to not quote unqualified/discredited sources the deniers would be down to Judith Curry from what I've seen on here

Not sure that Curry would meet the LT 'Climate Scientist' criteria either. Mann may be a problem too - PhD in what? Not Climate Science!

It should be about what is said, not who is saying it 'though.

[LoonyTunes]

With This Staff said:

It should be about what is said, not who is saying it 'though.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you but this is the Politics thread so it's more about who is saying it on this thread.

The data/science has it's own thread.

[LoonyTunes]

turbobloke said:

Some more snips from another commentary on the IPCC's latest information pollution,

Inevitably, last Monday, the BBC went into overdrive...But most newspapers gave it only fairly perfunctory coverage, tucked away on an inside page.

Christopher Booker - No Climate Science qualifications at all - just History.

What we must do to replace those fossil fuels...is spend a mind-boggling $2.4 trillion (£1.8trillion) every year until 2035 on new "energy infrastructure"...(which) currently supply only three per cent of the world's total energy needs.

Christopher Booker - No Climate Science qualifications at all - just History.

Already the world has warmed by one degree...which began when we emerged 200 years ago from the Little Ice Age. Until now, the IPCC has recognised that much of this was due to natural causes. But now, without proper explanation, this is all blamed on human activity.

[note: 0.6 deg C of the ~0.8 deg C claimed near-surface warming since 1910 is adjustments to the data according to NOAA]

Untraceable quote - Care to put a name to it?

So how does the IPCC justify its new mega-panic? This was summarised by one of the report's organisers as "more extreme weather...But even the IPCC itself, in its last major report in 2013, found that there had been no discernible increase in extreme weather events.

[Note: same finding as e,g, Goklany and Pielke]

Untraceable quote agfain - Care to put a name to it?

However much those behind this report may delude themselves and try to delude the rest of us, the fact is that the rest of the world is no longer being taken in by their make-believe.

Christopher Booker - No Climate Science qualifications at all - just History.

It's always about the sources

[LoonyTunes]

Sources of Deniers Quotes (updated)

Ross McKitrick (No credentials)
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them)
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)
Ottmar Edenhoffer (Misrepresented)
WattsUpWithThat (WUWT receives funding from Heartland Inst)
Richard Lindzen (Dismissed by at least 22 of his Climate Science colleagues at MIT in an open letter to the President/Heartland Inst pin-up)
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests)
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke (Quotes: “Climate Specialist I'm not...[I am] not a specialist in technical details of climate physics.”)
Marc Morano (No Climate Science qualifications and received funds from ExxonMobil, Chevron and others)
Christopher Booker (Journalist - No Climate Science qualifications at all)

[PRTVR]

LoonyTunes said:

Meanwhile in the real world another Scientific Institute which doesn't agree with the deniers gets added

1. The Royal Society
2. NASA
3. The National Center for Atmospheric Research
4. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
5. International Research Institute for Climate and Society
6. University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
7. Academies des Sciences, France
8. American Geophysical Union
9. American Association for the Advancement of Science
10. The British Antarctic Survey
11. American Chemical Society
12. American Meteorological Society
13. U.S. Global Change Research Program
14. American Physical Society
15. American Association Of State Climatologists
16. Geological Society of America
17. US National Academy of Sciences
18. American Astronomical Society
19. Australian Academy of Science
20. International Arctic Sciences Committee
21. The Royal Society of Canada
22. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
23. German Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina
24. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
25. The American Quaternary Association
26. The Geological Society (UK)
27. The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters
28. The National Science Academy Of China
29. Indian National Science Academy
30. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
31. Russian Academy of Sciences
32. Academy of Sciences Malaysia
33. The Federation Of American Scientists
34. The Royal Astronomical Society
35. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
36. Australian Marine Sciences Association
37. The National Academy of Brazil
38. Tanzania Academy of Sciences
39. Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
40. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics


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

That's an awfully lot of religious institutions you have there
https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM
Ivar Giaever comments on the religion of climate change
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

[robinessex]

Trump: Climate change scientists have 'political agenda'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4585932...

US President Donald Trump has accused climate change scientists of having a "political agenda" as he cast doubt on whether humans were responsible for the earth's rising temperatures.
But Mr Trump also said he no longer believed climate change was a hoax..............continues

bks is the word to repace hoax

[With This Staff]

Naughty cow...

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

By all means adopt the diet preferred, but really?

Bonkers.

[Jinx]

With This Staff said:

Naughty cow...

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

By all means adopt the diet preferred, but really?

Bonkers.

There is no evidence at all that methane is building up in the atmosphere to any level that can impact climate (unlike CO2 it is not well mixed and breaks down very quickly and easily) . None. At all. There's barely enough evidence for CO2 to have a theoretical effect from primary sources never mind agriculture. Herbivores are docile creatures in the main - is this the goal of agenda 21 to turn us into docile creatures?

[LoonyTunes]

PRTVR said:

That's an awfully lot of religious institutions you have there
https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM
Ivar Giaever comments on the religion of climate change
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

Overwhelmingly.

Is that Ivar Giaever the Nobel Prize winner for Physics for his work in Electron Tunneling in Superconductors?

The one who's not published any work in the area of climate science - ever.

Guess which list he's going on

The same Ivar Giaever who is cited as a Climate Expert by the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute who have received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, and lists Phillip Morris as one of its “national allies.” They have also received undisclosed amounts of funding from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Koch Family Foundations.

Further info:

Giaever served on the climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine.
The panel discussed solutions to climate change by using technologies such as nuclear energy, solar power, and photovoltaic cells.

Gaiver was described as “the panel’s self-proclaimed 'skeptic' in regard to the importance of global warming...”

Interesting source when discussing AGW.

[turbobloke]

This headline (check it out) shows what the UK Gov't thinks of the latest IPCC information pollution.

Actions speak louder than words.

"UK Govt Axes Electric Cars Subsidies"

Paris + IPCC Climageddon pro-Unreliables Fantasy => Bin

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

This headline (check it out) shows what the UK Gov't thinks of the latest IPCC information pollution.

Actions speak louder than words.

"UK Govt Axes Electric Cars Subsidies"

Paris + IPCC Climageddon pro-Unreliables Fantasy => Bin

That just shows the government can’t afford to give subsidies.

[dickymint]

Jinx said:

With This Staff said:

Naughty cow...

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

By all means adopt the diet preferred, but really?

Bonkers.

There is no evidence at all that methane is building up in the atmosphere to any level that can impact climate (unlike CO2 it is not well mixed and breaks down very quickly and easily) . None. At all. There's barely enough evidence for CO2 to have a theoretical effect from primary sources never mind agriculture. Herbivores are docile creatures in the main - is this the goal of agenda 21 to turn us into docile creatures?

Sure is comes under "sustainable development".

Just a quick Google and not checked the source...............

https://www.wnd.com/2016/04/guard-your-steak-u-n-b...

[turbobloke]

Hansen's huffed at the UK re-starting fracking.



The physicist is a 'top' climate scientist allegedly. An expert authority to appeal to, by the looks of it.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/1...

Clearly it's not ignoring science, just ignoring alarmist fantasy, and other gov'ts' actions posted previously show the UK isn't alone.

[With This Staff]

It's just adopting the precautionary principle really.

In case the 100% renewable target is a bit puff the magic dragon.

[LoonyTunes]

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

This headline (check it out) shows what the UK Gov't thinks of the latest IPCC information pollution.

Actions speak louder than words.

"UK Govt Axes Electric Cars Subsidies"

Paris + IPCC Climageddon pro-Unreliables Fantasy => Bin

That just shows the government can’t afford to give subsidies.

But...but...I thought the Government wanted to get more Green taxes...and so promotes AGW and renewables?!?!

Logic fail by the cult on this as well then.

[zygalski]

It's the old Climategate quadruple bluff

[PRTVR]

LoonyTunes said:

PRTVR said:

That's an awfully lot of religious institutions you have there
https://youtu.be/SXxHfb66ZgM
Ivar Giaever comments on the religion of climate change
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?

Overwhelmingly.

Is that Ivar Giaever the Nobel Prize winner for Physics for his work in Electron Tunneling in Superconductors?

The one who's not published any work in the area of climate science - ever.

Guess which list he's going on

The same Ivar Giaever who is cited as a Climate Expert by the Heartland Institute and Cato Institute who have received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, and lists Phillip Morris as one of its “national allies.” They have also received undisclosed amounts of funding from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Koch Family Foundations.

Further info:

Giaever served on the climate change discussion panel at the 51st convention of Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine.
The panel discussed solutions to climate change by using technologies such as nuclear energy, solar power, and photovoltaic cells.

Gaiver was described as “the panel’s self-proclaimed 'skeptic' in regard to the importance of global warming...”

Interesting source when discussing AGW.

Thanks for making my point for me ,only high priests of GW can and should be listened to,
Sounds like a religion to me.
Your point on the Heartland institute is a null hypothesis, the reason they join is that they are not allowed to speak freely in the religious environment of most institutions, discussion in science is not allowed when climate change is involved.