Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
Meanwhile another bunch of scientists who disagree with you join the list. Still not hearing of any scientific institution or Government body arguing against AGW. 
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
Come on, surely somebody can name 1 reputable organisation with no self-interest donors?
Erm I think you'll find most of the above have self-interested donors. They wouldn't join otherwise 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
Come on, surely somebody can name 1 reputable organisation with no self-interest donors?
Jinx said:
Erm I think you'll find most of the above have self-interested donors. They wouldn't join otherwise
Start listing a few - start at the top - The Royal Society - who are the self-interested donors? 
Here's their list https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances...
It includes Rolls Royce, Jaguar Land Rover & Tata Sons (Part of the Tata Group), not companies you'd expect be in there really.
LoonyTunes said:
turbobloke said:
That has nothing to do with what's happening in the planet's climate system.
If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal
to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.
I know all about logical fallacies thanks.If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal
to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.I'm just displaying the ever growing weight of the consensus in favour of AGW. The consensus you appear to think doesn't exist.
Just look at any industry or business who don't toe the line.
You continue to be a sheep.
durbster said:
"Some" dispute every scientific theory, but until they come up with a better explanation with even stronger evidence, all they're doing is refusing to accept what is scientifically proven. I'm pretty sure all the various forcings have been explored and considered - what do you think is missing?
Proven? You mean most accepted current theory? Which is pretty much based on models and some crappy selective observational data.Concensus eh...
stew-STR160 said:
Just look at any industry or business who don't toe the line.
He's invited anyone to put forward a list of credible organisations that don't support AGW. So far, total silence.stew-STR160 said:
You continue to be a sheep.
Do sheep accept overwhelmingly accepted science too? 
stew-STR160 said:
LoonyTunes said:
turbobloke said:
That has nothing to do with what's happening in the planet's climate system.
If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.
I know all about logical fallacies thanks.If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal
to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.I'm just displaying the ever growing weight of the consensus in favour of AGW. The consensus you appear to think doesn't exist.
Just look at any industry or business who don't toe the line.
You continue to be a sheep.
And you continue to think you know more than Scientists and Scientific Institutions studying this.
Edited by LoonyTunes on Monday 24th September 14:52
It's still kind of LT to inform the thread about the opinion of organisational committees, pity there's nothing at all about the climate system.to work with.
Some new news and nearly new news.
1) Arctic Sea Ice Much More Stable Than Thought
Science Matters, 22 September 2018
2) 30 Years Ago Officials Predicted The Maldives Would Be Swallowed By The Sea. It Didn’t Happen
The Daily Caller, 21 September 2018
3) Climate Alarmists Accuse IPCC Of ‘Watering Down’ Disaster Predictions (Again)
Global Warming Policy Forum, 23 September 2018
Don't take anybody's word for the above, check it out
and that last one is a beaut, activists have less shame than the IPCC which must be realising by now how silly they look when emitting hyperbole.
Thank goodness the Maldives haven't joined New York underwater as per predictions from alarmists base on inadequate climate models. The list of completeley ridiculous failed predictions grows like Topsy.
Some new news and nearly new news.
1) Arctic Sea Ice Much More Stable Than Thought
Science Matters, 22 September 2018
2) 30 Years Ago Officials Predicted The Maldives Would Be Swallowed By The Sea. It Didn’t Happen
The Daily Caller, 21 September 2018
3) Climate Alarmists Accuse IPCC Of ‘Watering Down’ Disaster Predictions (Again)
Global Warming Policy Forum, 23 September 2018
Don't take anybody's word for the above, check it out
and that last one is a beaut, activists have less shame than the IPCC which must be realising by now how silly they look when emitting hyperbole.Thank goodness the Maldives haven't joined New York underwater as per predictions from alarmists base on inadequate climate models. The list of completeley ridiculous failed predictions grows like Topsy.
LoonyTunes said:
stew-STR160 said:
LoonyTunes said:
turbobloke said:
That has nothing to do with what's happening in the planet's climate system.
If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.
I know all about logical fallacies thanks.If it's still a mystery to you, then look up the logical fallacies argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum.
As an exercise that might have more appeal
to money watchers, try adding up the funding by source.I'm just displaying the ever growing weight of the consensus in favour of AGW. The consensus you appear to think doesn't exist.
Just look at any industry or business who don't toe the line.
You continue to be a sheep.
And you continue to think you know more than Scientists and Scientific Institutions studying this.
Edited by LoonyTunes on Monday 24th September 14:52
As for the second comment, please find and share with the group one single comment I have ever posted saying anything like that!
turbobloke said:
It's still kind of LT to inform the thread about the opinion of organisational committees
I think we'd hear about it - probably from the Heartland Institute - if the organisations were not representative of the views of the majority of their scientists/researchers etc.Jeez, all those thousands of scientists being misrepresented, why it's almost Turbobloke-ish in scale.
stew-STR160 said:
When they have a political standing and support a theory which has not been proven, and apparently support a concensus which goes against their own motto...
As for the second comment, please find and share with the group one single comment I have ever posted saying anything like that!
So, what's their political standing?As for the second comment, please find and share with the group one single comment I have ever posted saying anything like that!
stew-STR160 said:
When they have a political standing and support a theory which has not been proven, and apparently support a concensus which goes against their own motto...
As for the second comment, please find and share with the group one single comment I have ever posted saying anything like that!
Why do you think they support a consensus that goes against a motto and support a theory that you think hasn’t been proven? As for the second comment, please find and share with the group one single comment I have ever posted saying anything like that!
Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
El stovey said:
Why do you think they support a consensus that goes against a motto and support a theory that you think hasn’t been proven?
Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
If it was proven it wouldn't require a consensus. I am sure they also supported the consensus that electricity flowed from positive to negative (until we knew better) - supporting a consensus does not prove anything.Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Why do you think they support a consensus that goes against a motto and support a theory that you think hasn’t been proven?
Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
If it was proven it wouldn't require a consensus. I am sure they also supported the consensus that electricity flowed from positive to negative (until we knew better) - supporting a consensus does not prove anything.Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
Is that because all the scientists and scientific institutions that make up the consensus are lying or wrong or actually, as is more likely, because you’re wrong?
El stovey said:
Jinx said:
El stovey said:
Why do you think they support a consensus that goes against a motto and support a theory that you think hasn’t been proven?
Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
If it was proven it wouldn't require a consensus. I am sure they also supported the consensus that electricity flowed from positive to negative (until we knew better) - supporting a consensus does not prove anything.Are they wrong or lying?
What enables you to see this and for them not to? Or do you think they know AGW is wrong and they’re being dishonest?
Is that because all the scientists and scientific institutions that make up the consensus are lying or wrong or actually, as is more likely, because you’re wrong?
LoonyTunes said:
Jinx said:
Erm I think you'll find most of the above have self-interested donors. They wouldn't join otherwise
Start listing a few - start at the top - The Royal Society - who are the self-interested donors? Here's their list https://royalsociety.org/about-us/funding-finances...
It includes Rolls Royce, Jaguar Land Rover & Tata Sons (Part of the Tata Group), not companies you'd expect be in there really.
Next!
dickymint said:
'the CONsensus' was only made up because the science has not been proved!.................Doh i've allowed myself to be dragged into another attrition loop.
Actually the consensus is because it’s the accepted theory with widespread agreement and very little controversy. AGW remains the scientific consensus until it has been disproved. Your theory isn’t the consensus because people who know what they’re talking about don’t agree with you.
That’s why you resort to suggesting respected scientific institutions and scientists are wrong or lying or on the take.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff