Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Climate politics heads up! Climate realist tails up in the Netherlands.
Climate Sceptical Party Is The Big Winner In Dutch Elections
Dutch News, 21 March 2019
https://www.thegwpf.com/climate-sceptical-party-is-the-big-winner-in-dutch-elections/Climate Sceptical Party Is The Big Winner In Dutch Elections
Dutch News, 21 March 2019
GWPF
You forgot the link as usual.
Dr Susan J Crockford
"Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#B...
"Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#B...
Kawasicki said:
That is what the public reads. They read it in a credible newspaper. They believe what they read. Climate science doesn't contradict the content, and is therefore complicit.
i recently visited one of the met office official information sites. think it was info on sudden stratospheric warming events. lots of highlighting various met office press releases on various media, mainly the bbc. i will bear that in mind the next time people complain about conflating science and politics. the climategate emails also showed the two are interlinked.chrispmartha said:
Dr Susan J Crockford
"Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#B...
what for ? looking at the growing numbers it must have been an artificial insemination program for the doomed polar bear population. given those on the other side are paid much more by agenda driven organisations i take it you have issues with that as well ?"Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_J._Crockford#B...
Turbobloke trolling the thread again with the discredited Susan Crockford.
Some things never change.
This is the 4th time he's done it. I know denier stuff is thin on the ground but even so...
She's never posted a peer reviewed paper on polar bears on her life unless of course you accept the GWPF as peer review.
Dr Ian Stewart, a real polar bear expert, described her as having "zero authority on the subject." What with her representing the GWPF and taking cash from Heartland please feel free to spend your hard earned cash on the book, I'll give it a miss thanks.
Some things never change.
This is the 4th time he's done it. I know denier stuff is thin on the ground but even so...
She's never posted a peer reviewed paper on polar bears on her life unless of course you accept the GWPF as peer review.
Dr Ian Stewart, a real polar bear expert, described her as having "zero authority on the subject." What with her representing the GWPF and taking cash from Heartland please feel free to spend your hard earned cash on the book, I'll give it a miss thanks.
gadgetmac said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Beyond your functional illiteracy you still have no idea how research is conducted.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Beyond your functional illiteracy you still have no idea how research is conducted.
You have students...? You’re about as unemployable as a tutor as anyone I’ve ever met.
Walter Mitty would be proud of the scenarios you dream up for yourself.
Research eh? Well, got that scientific institute yet?
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Beyond your functional illiteracy you still have no idea how research is conducted.
You have students...? You’re about as unemployable as a tutor as anyone I’ve ever met.
Walter Mitty would be proud of the scenarios you dream up for yourself.
Research eh? Well, got that scientific institute yet?
I have a range of students: very infrequent undergrad sessions each term thankfully; MA and PhD more regularly. You still have absolutely no idea how research is conducted.
El stovey said:
deeps said:
I'm always amazed though, at how much trust many people still put in silly news stories dressed up as fact. I understand younger people will buy it, but even some older people do, simply because it's dressed up as news.
Says the guy who proudly admits he didn’t have a clue but got his facts from this thread, wattsupwiththat and TB.Incredible.
El stovey said:
You think others are easily led but you ignore science and are completely brainwashed by advocacy blogs and people in a car forum.
As I always say, funny how different people see things so differently. The last thing in the world I would do is ignore science, it's important to me. Your cheap slur, another lie, does you no favours because it's a transparent lie. Who would want to prove themselves a liar? Why do it? Please try to keep to facts.El stovey said:
Your sad story is a great example of what’s wrong with the internet. Vulnerable people can find “evidence” to back up any theory they want and then their life becomes an echo chamber, even though common sense would show all their sources are clearly completely unreliable and biased.
Now you're implying I'm sad and vulnerable, to which I'm neither. My post must have hit a nerve with you? All that and I didn't even mention carbon footprints. Massive Coalition Backs Trump's Climate Science Committee
Article said:
A massive coalition of environmental organizations, activists, and think-tank leaders signed a letter to President Donald Trump supporting the proposed Presidential Commission on Climate Security (PCCS), as well as the work of Trump climate and national security adviser Dr. William Happer of Princeton University. The campaign, which comes amid fierce establishment resistance to re-examining government “climate science,” also backs an independent scientific review of the increasingly dubious claims made in federal climate reports. Analysts say this battle will be crucial in establishing the credibility of government climate science — or the lack thereof. snip
The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America's most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations. snip
The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.”
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/it...The highly unscientific nature of the claims — many of which cannot be tested or falsified — also casts doubt on the alarmist findings contained in widely ridiculed federal climate reports. “An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method,” explained the coalition letter to Trump supporting the PCCS, which brought together many of America's most influential environmental and conservative-leaning public policy organizations. snip
The letter highlighted how bizarre this was. “We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission,” the signatories wrote. “We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.”
(3 minute read time)
Note : this article is also available on the world's most viewed site on global warming.
Jinx said:
durbster said:
The stance of the organisations you listed appears to be exactly the same as any other science organisation (it is happening and it needs to be addressed) so it's not at all clear what your list was supposed to represent. 
QED except your bit in bold (that is rarely listed as something that must happen). If you read carefully the consensus is that there is AGW not anything else - unless they have skin in the game of course..... Look back at the statement you quoted from the list and read it carefully.
OK, I read it again as instructed, and it still says the same thing.
Society of Exploration Geophysicists said:
The earth is continuously undergoing climate change, but the current rate of change is expected to have an increasing impact on humanity. Human produced CO2 emissions are a significant factor. Many SEG members play a role in both understanding climate change and in managing CO2 emissions, including observing glacier and ice sheet volume, studying glacier hydrology, evaluating permafrost degradation, and evaluating and monitoring reservoirs for CO2 sequestration.
Seems pretty clear to me.- They accept it is happening.
- They are actively involved in addressing it.
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Diderot said:
gadgetmac said:
Jinx said:
durbster said:
In other words, it's a list of yet more science organisations that accept AGW is real and not at all what you presented it as.
The question was to find a scientific organisation that supports my view on CAGW. The viewpoint that there is no "C". I have been consistent on both this and the science thread that there is no C in CAGW and that there is no consensus that there is a C. There is no evidence that a C is even possible outside of the fantasy RCP 8.5 nonsense and without the C there is no problem.This may not be how the question was meant but was how I took the question.
None are Scientific Research Institutions.
Half of them are "think tanks". The other half are trade association type entities. From what I can see none carry out their own research on Climate Change. Most agree that AGW is real. Half are Petroleum associated organisations.
As for 'C' can I have a link to one of them that says 'C' isn't going to happen?
Are you not embarrassed that you posted such a list?
Beyond your functional illiteracy you still have no idea how research is conducted.
You have students...? You’re about as unemployable as a tutor as anyone I’ve ever met.
Walter Mitty would be proud of the scenarios you dream up for yourself.
Research eh? Well, got that scientific institute yet?
I have a range of students: very infrequent undergrad sessions each term thankfully; MA and PhD more regularly. You still have absolutely no idea how research is conducted.
You're a fake.
deeps said:
Now you're implying I'm sad and vulnerable, to which I'm neither. My post must have hit a nerve with you? All that and I didn't even mention carbon footprints.
To be fair, you are rather sad and vulnerable and none too clever t'boot. Anyone who's sole tutoring in AGW came from here and TB is clearly very weak willed and compliant.And so as not to pollute the science thread like you, dicky and Robinessex do I have to say that you also have no idea what an appeal to authority actually is.
Didn't they teach that in IQ school?
deeps said:
Now you're implying I'm sad and vulnerable, to which I'm neither. My post must have hit a nerve with you? All that and I didn't even mention carbon footprints.
I’m not implying it, I’m stating it. You’ve clearly said you get your info from here and wattsupwiththat. None of your posts have hit a nerve with me, or anyone else. I only read your posts because it’s fascinating to have an insight into how people can be brainwashed like this.
People have tried to help you but you’ve got to recognise it and help yourself.
The Australian government were gulled into commenting that the Great Barrier Reef was headed for "collapse" just before it was shown to be recovering well from the 2015/16 El Nino event. Now coral scaremongering has been well and truly bleached.
Ross et al 2019: results show that coral calcification is biologically controlled and "corals shift their pH to adapt and/or acclimatise to their localised thermal regimes" note that biological control is internal control.
This follows and supports a 2017 paper.
McCulloch et al (2017) research shows that "pH upregulation occurs largely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification" thus revealing "the ability of the coral to 'control' what is arguably one of its most fundamental physiological processes, the growth of its skeleton within which it lives".
John 'The Snorkel' Presclot will be pleased.
Ross et al 2019: results show that coral calcification is biologically controlled and "corals shift their pH to adapt and/or acclimatise to their localised thermal regimes" note that biological control is internal control.
This follows and supports a 2017 paper.
McCulloch et al (2017) research shows that "pH upregulation occurs largely independent of changes in seawater carbonate chemistry, and hence ocean acidification" thus revealing "the ability of the coral to 'control' what is arguably one of its most fundamental physiological processes, the growth of its skeleton within which it lives".
John 'The Snorkel' Presclot will be pleased.
turbobloke said:
The Australian government were gulled into commenting that the Great Barrier Reef was headed for "collapse" just before it was shown to be recovering well from the 2015/16 El Nino event. Now coral scaremongering has been well and truly bleached.
Ross et al 2019: results show that coral calcification is biologically controlled and "corals shift their pH to adapt and/or acclimatise to their localised thermal regimes" note that biological control is internal control.
Oh look, turbobloke is misrepresenting science again. Ross et al 2019: results show that coral calcification is biologically controlled and "corals shift their pH to adapt and/or acclimatise to their localised thermal regimes" note that biological control is internal control.
Why do you do this? Are you paid to post here?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff