Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

[LoonyTunes]

I'll go early this morning, wouldn't want to disappoint.


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

[anonymous-user]

dickymint said:

Diderot said:

Looney, did you manage to work the TATA thing out yet?

Or Rolls Royce or many of the other companies/donors he mentioned?

So you two make some claims about funding for the royal society and are asked to prove it. Dickmint was even going to investigate the money trail himself.

Instead of supplying the requested evidence for your claims, you both reply with childish answers about us finding out for ourselves, which means you’re both talking nonsense and can’t back up these claims.

Now you’re asking if those asking for your evidence have found it for you yet?

[robinessex]

China coal power building boom sparks climate warning

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-456...

Building work has restarted at hundreds of Chinese coal-fired power stations, according to an analysis of satellite imagery.
The research, carried out by green campaigners CoalSwarm, suggests that 259 gigawatts of new capacity are under development in China.
The authors say this is the same capacity to produce electricity as the entire US coal fleet.
The study says government attempts to cancel many plants have failed.
According to this study, there was a surge in new coal projects approved at provincial level in China between 2014 and 2016. This happened because of a decentralisation programme that shifted authority over coal plant construction approvals to local authorities.
The report says that at present China has 993 gigawatts of coal power capacity, but the approved new plants would increase this by 25%...................continues

Don't worry guys, the UK is doing it's bit still !!!!!

[LoonyTunes]

El stovey said:

Now you’re asking if those asking for your evidence have found it for you yet?

It is rum

[anonymous-user]

Rob’s on bbc watch again.

Can’t you ask Turbobloke for a better job rob you were on bbc watch the other day too? At least dickymint gets to follow money trails and do some investigations.

[LoonyTunes]

El stovey said:

Rob’s on bbc watch again.

Can’t you ask Turbobloke for a better job rob you were on bbc watch the other day too? At least dickymint gets to follow money trails and do some investigations.

Rob's taken his instructions on today's 'Chinese' agenda from Turbobloke over on the renewables thread

https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...

[robinessex]

Labour conference: Jeremy Corbyn vows to create 400,000 'green' jobs

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45646690

Jeremy Corbyn will promise to "kickstart a green jobs revolution" if Labour wins power, in his closing speech to his party's conference.
He will commit Labour to increasing the amount of electricity coming from low carbon or renewable sources from about 50% to 85%.
To achieve that, 400,000 skilled jobs will need to be created, he says.
The move will be part of a "radical plan we need to rebuild and transform Britain", the Labour leader will say.
Much of the money to pay for the policy will come from the public purse - such as the £12.8bn Labour says it will set aside for subsidies to insulate homes in Labour's first term.
The party says this policy alone will create 160,000 new jobs. There will also be subsidies for offshore and onshore wind and solar energy.
But the private sector will be encouraged to invest in onshore wind through changes to planning guidance - and landlords will be forced to invest in retrofitting older properties......................continues

Oh yea, of course. What could possibly go wrong. Hint JC, go look at Germany and Australia !!

[anonymous-user]

Looks like rob’s got a daily quota of bbc climate articles to link to but he can post them in different threads which is nice.

I thought BBC Watch was turbobloke’s wife’s job? Rob are you Mrs TB?

[robinessex]

El stovey said:

Looks like rob’s got a daily quota of bbc climate articles to link to but he can post them in different threads which is nice.

I thought BBC Watch was turbobloke’s wife’s job? Rob are you Mrs TB?

Thanks for the interesting comment. I suppose the story is inconsequential to this Forms topic in your eyes. Illustrative of the Beebs AGW & CC bias. I presume you get all your comments and knowledge from within your brain, without any external influences at all ?

Edited by robinessex on Wednesday 26th September 09:44

[anonymous-user]

robinessex said:

And illustrative of the Beebs AGW & CC bias.

Illustrative of the cult’s political package which is an irrational dislike of the BBC and the mainstream media in general and organisations and experts etc.

It shows that most rejection of AGW is based on the posters own politics rather than science.

This enables deniers in here to believe that most governments and the media and scientists and scientific institutions are either all wrong or all part of a deception and that the scientific consensus is somehow invalid.

[RJG46]

El stovey said:

robinessex said:

And illustrative of the Beebs AGW & CC bias.

Illustrative of the cult’s political package which is an irrational dislike of the BBC and the mainstream media in general and organisations and experts etc.

It shows that most rejection of AGW is based on the posters own politics rather than science.

This enables deniers in here to believe that most governments and the media and scientists and scientific institutions are either all wrong or all part of a deception and that the scientific consensus is somehow invalid.

As I said, I'm not a denier but is speculating about what might happen in the future good science. I did Physics A Level just so you know.

The Beluga Whale in The Thames normally lives in far colder waters. He must here due to Global Cooling.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

I'll go early this morning, wouldn't want to disappoint.


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

So we know the APS statment is contentious with it's members but do you have a link for each of the above's statements on Climate Change? Do they support the IPCC's position (including the 15 year pause and that there is no link to extreme weather) or do they support the more contentious "we're all going to die" meme?
Or are you just copying and pasting a list you have found without checking?

[LoonyTunes]

Jinx said:

So we know the APS statment is contentious with it's members but do you have a link for each of the above's statements on Climate Change? Do they support the IPCC's position (including the 15 year pause and that there is no link to extreme weather) or do they support the more contentious "we're all going to die" meme?

Or are you just copying and pasting a list you have found without checking?

Whether they support the 15 year pause is irrelevant - I made no claim about that. They ALL support the position that Man is significantly influential in Climate Change.

But, I'll humour you however it's the last time until I start getting some answers from you

Here's a quick statement that was signed by a whole load of Institutes/Academies in 2015 - some of which I've yet to add to my list - a simple google will confirm the following:

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases.

Governments will meet in Paris in November and December this year to negotiate a legally binding and universal agreement on tackling climate change.

Any international policy response to climate change must be rooted in the latest scientific evidence. This indicates that if we are to have a reasonable chance of limiting global warming in this century to 2°C relative to the pre-industrial period, we must transition to a zero-carbon world by early in the second half of the century.

To achieve this transition, governments should demonstrate leadership by recognising the risks climate change poses, embracing appropriate policy and technological responses, and seizing the opportunities of low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.”

Signed by:

The Academy of Medical Sciences (UK)
The Academy of Social Sciences (UK)
The British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences
The British Ecological Society
The Geological Society (UK)
The Challenger Society for Marine Sciences
The Institution of Civil Engineers (UK)
The Institution of Chemical Engineers
The Institution of Environmental Sciences
The Institute of Physics
The Learned Society of Wales
London Mathematical Society
Royal Astronomical Society
Royal Economic Society
Royal Geographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society
Royal Society of Biology
Royal Society of Chemistry
Royal Society of Edinburgh
Society for General Microbiology
Wellcome Trust
Zoological Society of London


Now, no more questions will be answered until YOU answer the following:

Do you have a few serious scientific institutes that disagrees with this position? One even?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

It's an easy enough question but one which it appears remains unanswered ever since I started the list.

ETA: You realise that's just one statement signed by 23 Societies/Institutes and ones based in the UK only? There are many more statements signed by many more such bodies around the globe

Edited by LoonyTunes on Wednesday 26th September 12:45

[dickymint]

El stovey said:

dickymint said:

Diderot said:

Looney, did you manage to work the TATA thing out yet?

Or Rolls Royce or many of the other companies/donors he mentioned?

So you two make some claims about funding for the royal society and are asked to prove it. Dickmint was even going to investigate the money trail himself.

Instead of supplying the requested evidence for your claims, you both reply with childish answers about us finding out for ourselves, which means you’re both talking nonsense and can’t back up these claims.

Now you’re asking if those asking for your evidence have found it for you yet?

Yep you’re right........carry on

[turbobloke]

LoonyTunes said:

They ALL support the position that Man is significantly influential in Climate Change.

A few questions if I may.
At least one vote on at least one committee does...so unless you have poll results from the membership / fellowship of each organisation? Thought not.
On what credible empirical evidence (data) do the organisations base their belief?
Or are you just happy to take a committee's word for it? Nullius in verba.

[LoonyTunes]

turbobloke said:

LoonyTunes said:

They ALL support the position that Man is significantly influential in Climate Change.

A few questions if I may.
At least one vote on at least one committee does...so unless you have poll results from the membership / fellowship of each organisation? Thought not.
On what credible empirical evidence (data) do the organisations base their belief?
Or are you just happy to take a committee's word for it? Nullius in verba.

No more questions as nobody answers mine.

[Jinx]

Well no point addressing LT anymore then. Anyway did anyone else see China is ramping up coal plant production whilst claiming it is "done with coal"?

Jo Nova

LT your quote "The scientific evidence is now overwhelming that the climate is warming and that human activity is largely responsible for this change through emissions of greenhouse gases" - doesn't say there is a problem......

Edited by Jinx on Wednesday 26th September 13:09

[jjlynn27]

This thread just keeps giving. It turns out that one of the vocal cultists is also anti-vaxxer. Imagine my surprise.

[LoonyTunes]

jjlynn27 said:

This thread just keeps giving. It turns out that one of the vocal cultists is also anti-vaxxer. Imagine my surprise.

Please share, I need a giggle




Jinx: You clearly have a comprehension problem..

"governments should demonstrate leadership by recognising the risks climate change poses"

If risk isn't a 'problem' we live in different universes.

[Jinx]

LoonyTunes said:

Please share, I need a giggle




Jinx: You clearly have a comprehension problem..

"governments should demonstrate leadership by recognising the risks climate change poses"

If risk isn't a 'problem' we live in different universes.

But that's a generic "climate change" - we know those happen and are going to happen anyway. What risks are specific to man made climate change?