Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
gadgetmac said:
Damn, nobody has thought of any of that...everyone taken in by simple lies...
...scientific institutes, scientists, the media...
...everyone...
...except for you.
in this case i am right. can you tell me how many square metres of ocean each argo bouy covers ? how many were introduced into service and over what timescale ? how they work ? and the margin of error (the real one) on the data they produce as opposed to what zeke tells you ? start typing immediately, no googling. i do know as i have already read the info ,whereas all you do is parrot uncritically press releases about things you have never bothered to take a look at yourself....scientific institutes, scientists, the media...
...everyone...
...except for you.
this isn't skeptical science. no mods here editing replies from people that disagree with you at your whim
gadgetmac said:
Fortunately nobody of any note, influence or position of power is listening to denier-cultist protestations.
You think they’d wonder why nobody is listening. They can’t all believe the ‘ lying scientists on the take for funding and governments in on it for wealth redistribution and taxes’ nonsense? I suppose if all they read is whatsupwiththat and the GWPF then they might think they’ve actually got more support?
They must be constantly ranting at the tv or at science literature or any science museums etc or anywhere outside their blogs when the AGW ‘lies’ are being blasted at them wherever they go.
There’s virtually no support for the denier side of the debate anywhere. They must wonder why. Even just a bit.
wc98 said:
gadgetmac said:
Damn, nobody has thought of any of that...everyone taken in by simple lies...
...scientific institutes, scientists, the media...
...everyone...
...except for you.
in this case i am right. can you tell me how many square metres of ocean each argo bouy covers ? how many were introduced into service and over what timescale ? how they work ? and the margin of error (the real one) on the data they produce as opposed to what zeke tells you ? start typing immediately, no googling. i do know as i have already read the info ,whereas all you do is parrot uncritically press releases about things you have never bothered to take a look at yourself....scientific institutes, scientists, the media...
...everyone...
...except for you.
this isn't skeptical science. no mods here editing replies from people that disagree with you at your whim
You know what that implies right?
Anyway, why don’t you take all of your research data from all of your own investigations on this matter and present them to ‘Zeke’ here:
https://erg.berkeley.edu/contact/
Please copy your e-mail to them into this thread. A simple cut ‘n paste of your 2 posts to date should suffice to make him see the basic errors he’s made and send his head into a tail spin.
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
Blinkered sheep.
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
Blinkered sheep.
WUWT
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
gadgetmac said:
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
Blinkered sheep.
WUWT
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
As opposed to you are lying.
dickymint said:
El stovey said:
wc98 said:
zeke is lying. where did they get the data pre argo bouys ? even the argo bouys do not provide either the accuracy or precision they claim. anyone that thinks we know ocean heat content down to 2000m to single digit zettajoule figures is an idiot,and anyone claiming they do is a liar, ergo zeke hausfather is a liar. far too intelligent a man to believe what he is saying either , so liar it is.
VsZeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley.
https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/05/science-final...
2016-2018 Fishy goings on with plastic paper.
Paper published in Science gets headlines around the world, fabrication and porkies spotted, denials, uni says nothing to see here and recommends no action (!) national body takes action, guilty of corrupt practice, paper rescinded (eventually).
One of the side dish findings said:
Despite repeated inquiries by the Expert Group about gaining access to this material, original data has not been provided. It is an absolute requirement that original data used in research is saved and kept available.
Ho Ho Ho Anyone with 5 mins who c(an)ba should check this lot out.
'Michael Mann refuses to surrender data to court'
'Phil Jones said this (data not well organised) contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics'
'Climategate emails reveal systematic attempts to block FoI requests'
'Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues'
'Briffa resolutely stonewalling efforts to have him archive the data'
In the latter instance limited data was released after a long delay. Marvellous!
gadgetmac said:
Last year (2018) the UK's total CO2 emissions were 38% below 1990 levels.
Fortunately nobody of any note, influence or position of power is listening to denier-cultist protestations.
Steel works shut, import steel from China, aluminium plant shut import from China, how much of the reduction is actually movement of production?Fortunately nobody of any note, influence or position of power is listening to denier-cultist protestations.
My favourite is bio fuels, the only way it's CO2 neutral is if the wood is waste wood and is used at the mill, anything else you may as well use the energy used in production and transport.
Then we come to the global difference it's made ? The answer is nothing, have a look at the new coal fired power stations have been built since 1990...... It's all a pointless expensive gesture as CO2 level continue to rise, but you keep believing in unicorns.
Jasandjules said:
durbster said:
This is your field, apparently, so what do you make of that?
Interestingly it would indicate (absent other factors) that conservatives are more intelligent and scientific, following the dictum nullius in verba.Which is counter intuitive of course given many scientific institutions such as Universities where scientists may be found in large numbers are inherently left wing.
Good Sunday read by Stephen Moore...
Article said:
The first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This explains, oh, about 80% of what goes on in Washington.
Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.
I said, "In America and around the globe governments have created a multibillion-dollar climate change industrial complex." And then I added: "A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry." According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009."
Tidal Wave Of Money - This doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn't anyone in the media ever mention this?
But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I've said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the "settled science" of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the climate change industrial complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago, Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama's first term.
That didn't include the tax subsidies that provide a 30% tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive "green" energy.
$5 Trillion Needed? Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study that found that "global investment in climate change" reached $359 billion that year. Then, to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending "falls far short of what's needed" — a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don't appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you're probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn't happening.
But if you've built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant.
The Untold Scandal - Now here's the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry's own admission, there has been almost no progress worldwide in combating climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse, and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.
Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such minuscule returns on investment? After three decades of "research" the only "solution" is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.
Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that's the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.
President Donald Trump should tell these so-called scientists that "you're fired." And we taxpayers should demand our money back.
Shortly after the latest "Chicken Little" climate change report was published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid handsomely to do so.
I said, "In America and around the globe governments have created a multibillion-dollar climate change industrial complex." And then I added: "A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry." According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009."
Tidal Wave Of Money - This doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming. But the tidal wave of funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn't anyone in the media ever mention this?
But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from anything I've said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical missile hit way too close to home?
How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think tanks by suggesting that their findings are perverted by hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation is that any academic whose research dares question the "settled science" of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.
Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.
How big is the climate change industrial complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago, Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama's first term.
That didn't include the tax subsidies that provide a 30% tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive "green" energy.
$5 Trillion Needed? Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study that found that "global investment in climate change" reached $359 billion that year. Then, to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending "falls far short of what's needed" — a number estimated at $5 trillion.
For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimer's.
The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.
This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don't appreciate. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you're probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn't happening.
But if you've built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant.
The Untold Scandal - Now here's the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry's own admission, there has been almost no progress worldwide in combating climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse, and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.
Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such minuscule returns on investment? After three decades of "research" the only "solution" is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.
Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human beings into poverty? If that's the remedy, I will take my chances on a warming planet.
President Donald Trump should tell these so-called scientists that "you're fired." And we taxpayers should demand our money back.
turbobloke said:
Ho Ho Ho
Anyone with 5 mins who c(an)ba should check this lot out.
'Michael Mann refuses to surrender data to court'
'Phil Jones said this (data not well organised) contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics'
'Climategate emails reveal systematic attempts to block FoI requests'
'Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues'
'Briffa resolutely stonewalling efforts to have him archive the data'
In the latter instance limited data was released after a long delay. Marvellous!
waste of time, if it isn't an appeal to authority, a link from skeptical science or outright watermelon advocacy it must be fake news. climate science is whiter than white, no agenda whatsoever at all according to some on here. meanwhile back at the ranch co2 is sunning itself with a cocktail in hand, on holiday again Anyone with 5 mins who c(an)ba should check this lot out.
'Michael Mann refuses to surrender data to court'
'Phil Jones said this (data not well organised) contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics'
'Climategate emails reveal systematic attempts to block FoI requests'
'Climate scientists withheld Yamal data despite warnings from senior colleagues'
'Briffa resolutely stonewalling efforts to have him archive the data'
In the latter instance limited data was released after a long delay. Marvellous!
gadgetmac said:
“In this case I am right.”
You know what that implies right?
Anyway, why don’t you take all of your research data from all of your own investigations on this matter and present them to ‘Zeke’ here:
https://erg.berkeley.edu/contact/
Please copy your e-mail to them into this thread. A simple cut ‘n paste of your 2 posts to date should suffice to make him see the basic errors he’s made and send his head into a tail spin.
i have had a conversation with zeke elsewhere(not on this particular topic), so better still why don't you send an email to zeke and let him know someone on here is calling him a liar. he is known for being happy to post on blogs not exactly favourable to his point of view and be happy to answer questions. i am very comfortable with my statement and i am sure he is with his.You know what that implies right?
Anyway, why don’t you take all of your research data from all of your own investigations on this matter and present them to ‘Zeke’ here:
https://erg.berkeley.edu/contact/
Please copy your e-mail to them into this thread. A simple cut ‘n paste of your 2 posts to date should suffice to make him see the basic errors he’s made and send his head into a tail spin.
ask him to pop in here and there is a fair chance he will. i am sure it would be an informative discussion for both sides of the debate.
‘Another expert climate professor retires and becomes outspoken skeptic’...
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/another-expert-cl...
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/another-expert-cl...
steveT350C said:
‘Another expert climate professor retires and becomes outspoken skeptic’...
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/another-expert-cl...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/2/the-overblown-and-misleading-issue-of-global-warmi/http://joannenova.com.au/2019/01/another-expert-cl...
This is what he actually says:
"...My research over the years is focused on climate variability and climate dynamics. It is my educated opinion that many forces have shaped global temperature variation. Human activity, the oceans, extraterrestrial forces (solar activity and cosmic rays) and other factors are all in the mix. It may very well be that human activity is the primary reason, but having no strong evidence of the actual percent effect of these three major players, I will attribute 1/3 to each one of them."
I have a feeling that this is not quite the AGW skeptic you were hoping for.
In part I feel sorry for some of the scientists, if you have a wife and kids, working in an environment where if you don't tow the line you will be out of a job, it must be hard not to do what is necessary to keep your job, the crime is with the institution's that allow the situation to exist.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff