Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[anonymous-user]

LoonyTunes said:

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.

The government are involved in this wealth redistribution scam but if any show the slightest change in policy regarding renewables it’s overwhelming evidence that TB is right.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

and other gov'ts' actions posted previously show the UK isn't alone.

Other ‘evidence’ posted by you.

Like the seat saving temporary Australian PM. Even though you ignore the pro AGW actions of all the other Australian PMs

[LoonyTunes]

PRTVR said:

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.

Can you demonstrate multiple examples of this constraint on freedom of speech in Scientific Institutions where AGW is concerned please?

I'll take a half dozen from the thousands of scientists working in the hundreds of Institutes...OK, lets settle on 4 then.

I think you'll find they all go running to Heartland because that's where the easy cash is. Heartland is the gateway to Big Oil and Gas money. Richard Lindzen for example charges oil and coal organizations $2,500 per day for his consulting services.

[LoonyTunes]

El stovey said:

turbobloke said:

and other gov'ts' actions posted previously show the UK isn't alone.

Other ‘evidence’ posted by you.

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Kawasicki said:

Oh, I see you’re also playing along. Swapping sides is fun isn’t it! Back to the game...

...

But science has spoken. We know sea level rise is accelerating and we know that extreme weather event ferocity is increasing. Both of these combined have put billions of people in increased risk, yet they flock ever more, like lemmings, to a certain death living the “Miami Vice” beach lifestyle. Governments should start compulsory purchases of property nearest the beach, and start moving people inland. Or build a really big ship. Something.

Science has spoken.

Why do people live in areas prone to earthquakes or bush-fires or tsunamis or active volcanoes?

If anyone outside this echo chamber really does wonder whether there's a case against the science of AGW, one thing you can do is simply look at the typical quality of argument presented by those who reject it.

This is a good example of where it's at.

Is there a clear trend that people are migrating to earthquake/bush fire/volcano areas? I haven't seen one.

Do you not think it is odd/incongruous that millions/billions are moving over time ever closer to the coastline, putting themselves in a situation that carries ever increasing risk? Is it not odd that governments are doing nothing about it?

[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)
Roy Spencer (Creationist/Heartland Institute sought Funding for him)
Roger Pielke Sr (Pielke quote “not a sceptical scientist” and agrees that "...human impacts do play a significant role within the climate system.”)

[Kawasicki]

LoonyTunes said:

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)
Roy Spencer (Creationist/Heartland Institute sought Funding for him)
Roger Pielke Sr (Pielke quote “not a sceptical scientist” and agrees that "...human impacts do play a significant role within the climate system.”)

What are they all denying?

[LoonyTunes]

Kawasicki said:

What are they all denying?

It's not a list of deniers as such - although some clearly are.

It's a list of sources quoted by deniers on this thread. The clue is underlined above the list

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Sources of Deniers Quotes (updated)

Ross McKitrick (No credentials) Canadian economist - probably entitled to inform about economic forecasts and CAGW.
Heartland Institute (Big Oil funded)Read yourself
Heartland Institute affiliates/associates/members (ditto)
Tallbloke (No credentials)Qualified engineer and graduate.
49 ex NASA administrators (Not a single paper published between them) Have you actually checked?
Patrick Moore (ditto McKitrick)PhD in Ecology (1974), B.Sc. in Forest Biology (1969)
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)Einstein had a book by 100 German Scientist saying how he was wrong
Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Received over $1 million in funding in the past decade for his research from Big Oil and Coal interests) Real story
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)
Roy Spencer (Creationist/Heartland Institute sought Funding for him)
Roger Pielke Sr (Pielke quote “not a sceptical scientist” and agrees that "...human impacts do play a significant role within the climate system.”)

So about your misinformation campaign LT - I hope your cashing in all those green blog cheques.

[LoonyTunes]

To name but one of your errors.

No credentials = No Climate Science credentials.

I have credentials as do you too maybe.

[dickymint]

LoonyTunes said:

To name but one of your errors.

No credentials = No Climate Science credentials.

Crack on with the others

Personal insult 3-2-1.................

Edited by dickymint on Monday 15th October 17:35

[LoonyTunes]

dickymint said:

LoonyTunes said:

To name but one of your errors.

No credentials = No Climate Science credentials.

Crack on with the others

Personal insult 3-2-1.................

No personal insult...well...not unless I'm insulted first.

I could shoot them all down in flames but once I've taken out the majority in 1 fell swoop the whole credibility of the post falls apart. Like a list of TurboBlokes quotes

I mean, quoting The Heartland Institute as your defence of Willie Wei-Hock Soon

As such, here endeth my interest in Jinx's post.

[LoonyTunes]

Well not quite.

The 49 ex-NASA signatories?

Here's a quick overview:

The Signatories

Obviously this letter first gained attention because the signatories are former NASA employees. They are being touted as “top astronauts, scientists, and engineers” and “NASA experts, with more than 1000 years of combined professional experience.” Okay, but in what fields does their expertise lie?

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of zero hours of climate research experience, and zero peer-reviewed climate science papers. You can review the signatories for yourself here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-...


So, here's another question you deniers probably won't answer, prove the emboldened text wrong.

[gadgetmac]

Using wattsupwiththat against the cult.

I like it.

[wc98]

With This Staff said:

BSc and PhD Physics may have relevance.

'Climate denier' (sic) is a label deployed by certain activists which is similar to 'Kick Me'

i actually look forward to the day someone uses the term to my face.have had a few debates with true believers in person but the term denier is never used. it appears that in a real discussion people tend to be more civil with each other, thankfully.

[wc98]

jet_noise said:

It certainly is (still live).
One of the things JCU is so upset about is his publicising that he was being censured. Without which publicity he would have been unable to raise funds to fight it. Extraordinarily there are enough people agreeing with his position that $160k was raised. In two days!
More by Jennifer Marohasy

This has so scared other JCU employees that many are not using collegiate emails anymore. Jo Nova notes from an interview with Ridd's colleague Prof. Brodie on the ABC (aussie version of the BBC). Even though Prof. Brodie was a target of Ridd's criticisms he too is voicing concerns over the way this is going.

even the guardian has raised concerns. only the hardcore morons that believe the oceans are becoming dangerously acidic, the arctic is a methane clathrate bomb waiting to go off and co2 is a pollutant see nothing wrong with what happened to peter ridd. the type of ahole that makes films like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co.

[anonymous-user]

wc98 said:

even the guardian has raised concerns. only the hardcore morons that believe the oceans are becoming dangerously acidic, the arctic is a methane clathrate bomb waiting to go off and co2 is a pollutant see nothing wrong with what happened to peter ridd. the type of ahole that makes films like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5CH-Xc0co.

Complaining about being called “a denier” which is actually aparently what you are doing but then happily calling others believers, assholes and morons seems a bit odd.



Like you said though, you’re probably more civil face to face.

[wc98]

Jinx said:

So about your misinformation campaign LT - I hope your cashing in all those green blog cheques.

i don't think the chuggers for greenpiss get to cash the cheques, only hand them in to the head hypocrite

[gadgetmac]

wc98 said:

Jinx said:

So about your misinformation campaign LT - I hope your cashing in all those green blog cheques.

i don't think the chuggers for greenpiss get to cash the cheques, only hand them in to the head hypocrite

When you’re reduced to these kind of comments he really has fked you over.

[anonymous-user]

gadgetmac said:

wc98 said:

Jinx said:

So about your misinformation campaign LT - I hope your cashing in all those green blog cheques.

i don't think the chuggers for greenpiss get to cash the cheques, only hand them in to the head hypocrite

When you’re reduced to these kind of comments he really has fked you over.

You wouldn’t call him a denier to his face!