Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
LoonyTunes said:
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:
Diderot said:
TATA. Hmmm.
If I can be arsed I’ll trace “the money” my guess would be tax deductibles and or Carbon Offsets 
It’s a wonder they haven’t managed to disprove the scientific consensus on climate change with such investigative skills.
LoonyTunes said:
El stovey said:
He’s even going to “trace the money trail”
It’s a wonder they haven’t managed to disprove the scientific consensus on climate change with such investigative skills.
Oh no, not Dickydrebin - we're all screwed It’s a wonder they haven’t managed to disprove the scientific consensus on climate change with such investigative skills.
LoonyTunes said:
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!
Diderot said:
TATA hmmm. Couple of clues in case you'd like to enlighten yourself (chance would be a fine thing): TERI, Railway Engineer, and who could forget carbon offsets.
Do you ever wonder why there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW? Do you honestly rationalise this by imagining it’s due to scientists producing and reviewing papers they disagree with (lying) for funding?
Are there any other fields of science where you think you’re right and all the scientific institutions and majority of scientists and the scientific consensus is wrong?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
TATA hmmm. Couple of clues in case you'd like to enlighten yourself (chance would be a fine thing): TERI, Railway Engineer, and who could forget carbon offsets.
Do you ever wonder why there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW? Do you honestly rationalise this by imagining it’s due to scientists producing and reviewing papers they disagree with (lying) for funding?
Are there any other fields of science where you think you’re right and all the scientific institutions and majority of scientists and the scientific consensus is wrong?
You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that. Diderot said:
Are you answering another question in error? Loony was wittering on about the Royal Society's donors being altruistic. He mentioned TATA. Clearly he is somewhat misinformed. No horse in the race he thinks? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that.
So people that agree with the scientific consensus are sheep? Presumably that makes conspiracy theorists like you visionary consensus changing thinkers? Why haven’t you changed the scientific consensus yet? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that. Do you ever wonder why there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW?
Do you honestly rationalise this by imagining it’s due to scientists producing and reviewing papers they disagree with (lying) for funding?
Are there any other fields of science where you think you’re right and all the scientific institutions and majority of scientists and the scientific consensus is wrong?
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Are you answering another question in error? Loony was wittering on about the Royal Society's donors being altruistic. He mentioned TATA. Clearly he is somewhat misinformed. No horse in the race he thinks? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that.
So people that agree with the scientific consensus are sheep? Presumably that makes conspiracy theorists like you visionary consensus changing thinkers? Why haven’t you changed the scientific consensus yet? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that. Do you ever wonder why there’s an overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW?
Do you honestly rationalise this by imagining it’s due to scientists producing and reviewing papers they disagree with (lying) for funding?
Are there any other fields of science where you think you’re right and all the scientific institutions and majority of scientists and the scientific consensus is wrong?
El stovey said:
Well yes but your theory isn’t the consensus and hasn’t changed the consensus.
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?
you must have missed this question earlier in the thread.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?
wc98 said:
El stovey said:
Because I don’t want to live in a federal Europe brought about by creeping integration.
Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
similar reason to myself. however,are you saying you believed what the chancellor said would happen immediately after a vote to leave and you ignored it ? you really expected an emergency budget and immediate recession ?Proof though that I don’t just automatically follow experts as you keep saying.
My politics have made me ignore the advice of experts as you and the rest of the cult have decided to do with climate change. Unlike you though I’m not saying the experts and the scientific consensus is wrong or that I know more than nasa or making up stuff about science to make a political point.
I think the financial experts are probably right about brexit with some short term economic damage on the horizon, it’s certainly damaging my area.
Diderot said:
He mentioned TATA. Clearly he is somewhat misinformed. No horse in the race he thinks? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that.
I don’t think you’ve made your case. You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that. Yes they have a research institute and made money from carbon offsets but they are also India’s largest car maker and India's leading automotive components conglomerate. Hardly natural bedfellows for Scientists working on AGW.
So they have a foot in both camps.
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
He mentioned TATA. Clearly he is somewhat misinformed. No horse in the race he thinks? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that.
I don’t think you’ve made your case. You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that. Yes they have a research institute and made money from carbon offsets but they are also India’s largest car maker and India's leading automotive components conglomerate. Hardly natural bedfellows for Scientists working on AGW.
So they have a foot in both camps.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
He mentioned TATA. Clearly he is somewhat misinformed. No horse in the race he thinks? You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that.
I don’t think you’ve made your case. You sheep are entertaining, I'll give you that. Yes they have a research institute and made money from carbon offsets but they are also India’s largest car maker and India's leading automotive components conglomerate. Hardly natural bedfellows for Scientists working on AGW.
So they have a foot in both camps.
LoonyTunes said:
That's the first Institute in my list, let's move on to the next, I've got literally hundreds to choose from
NASA.
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have. NASA.
Diderot said:
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have.
Can you state exactly why TATA are donating money to the royal society? You’ve insinuated some stuff but like the accusations of scientists bring on the take it’s all very vague.
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have.
Can you state exactly why TATA are donating money to the royal society? You’ve insinuated some stuff but like the accusations of scientists bring on the take it’s all very vague.
Diderot said:
El stovey said:
Diderot said:
Let's not, let's see you actually admit that you were wrong in suggesting that TATA had no horse in the race. You listed it, you wrongly suggested they were donors without any self-interest when clearly they have.
Can you state exactly why TATA are donating money to the royal society? You’ve insinuated some stuff but like the accusations of scientists bring on the take it’s all very vague.
classic. durbster said:
Diderot said:
Do your own research.
The stock answer when a troll is challenged to back up their nonsense. You're yet to contribute anything worth reading to the thread - why are you here?
Read his advocacy blogs to find the truth you scientific consensus believing sheep.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff