The “anti-Greta”

[Gadgetmac]

Jasandjules said:

Randy Winkman said:

Greta's role is just to point to the evidence that's already out there. There's no need for her to come up with new stuff.

The evidence is provided by Dr Judith Curry, who disagrees with Greta....

The lone semi-credible scientist who unfortunately has now been found (and admitted) to be in receipt of income from vested interests if I recall correctly.

ETA: “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 27th February 18:51

[Jasandjules]

Gadgetmac said:

The lone semi-credible scientist who unfortunately has now been found (and admitted) to be in receipt of income from vested interests if I recall correctly.

You really want to look into Cui Bono with AGW?

[jshell]

Jasandjules said:

Gadgetmac said:

The lone semi-credible scientist who unfortunately has now been found (and admitted) to be in receipt of income from vested interests if I recall correctly.

You really want to look into Cui Bono with AGW?

You really want to get into a discussion with gadget...

[jshell]

steveatesh said:

And yet logically any successful business has to diversify as their market changes and I would bet BigOil as you call it is likewise looking to diversify.

For example:

“ The numbers are impossible to ignore. Consider that ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM), Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE:RDS.A) (NYSE:RDS.B), Chevron (NYSE:CVX), BP (NYSE:BP), and Total SA (NYSE:TOT) have generated a combined $44.6 billion in free cash flow in the last 12 months. That's a whole lot of solar panels. Or research and development. Or equity investments in promising start-ups.

Turns out, big oil is doing all of the above. Here's where and how these companies are investing billions of dollars in renewable energy technologies.”


https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/06/04/big-oil-...

Other sources such as the Independent are also available.

The are diversifying, and fast. It's clear from their websites and vision statements. Gas is the future fuel and together with fuel cells and renewables, that's the target.

[dai1983]

Think Lex Luther made her by stealing a strand of Grata Thunbergs hair and throwing a DNA matrix of it into a coal fired power station.

[Gadgetmac]

jshell said:

Jasandjules said:

Gadgetmac said:

The lone semi-credible scientist who unfortunately has now been found (and admitted) to be in receipt of income from vested interests if I recall correctly.

You really want to look into Cui Bono with AGW?

You really want to get into a discussion with gadget...

Only if he wants to lose

[Randy Winkman]

Gadgetmac said:

They may be investing in New tech but the money/returns are still in oil. Not to mention the vast majority of the assets.

Of course they are diversifying, they know they are staring down the barrel.

Exactly. Are we really supposed top believe that it's in the interests of the oil industry that we are all told not to use oil?

[jshell]

Randy Winkman said:

Exactly. Are we really supposed top believe that it's in the interests of the oil industry that we are all told not to use oil?

Ok, how do you stop using oil? No phone, no tablet, no TV, no tyres, no drugs, paint, polymers, jet fuel, lubricants, practically no clothes, no plastic, no fuel, no fertiliser...etc...etc...

Please explain how the human race removes its dependency on oil?

[bodhi]

JagLover said:

smn159 said:

Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.

I'm sorry but there are vast financial interests invested in things like renewable energy and electric cars and big money to make. Where there is money to be made there are vested interests by definition.

No I think you are mistaken. Oil companies are bad and the new tobacco companies, the $1.5 trillion industry which has sprung up on the back of climate change, only has our best interests at heart, and would never ever distort the science for their own ends.

Although calling climate research science is a bit of a stretch. Something about monkeys, crap computer models and copies of Excel with dodgy graph axes spring to mind.

[Gadgetmac]

bodhi said:

JagLover said:

smn159 said:

Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.

I'm sorry but there are vast financial interests invested in things like renewable energy and electric cars and big money to make. Where there is money to be made there are vested interests by definition.

No I think you are mistaken. Oil companies are bad and the new tobacco companies, the $1.5 trillion industry which has sprung up on the back of climate change, only has our best interests at heart, and would never ever distort the science for their own ends.

Although calling climate research science is a bit of a stretch. Something about monkeys, crap computer models and copies of Excel with dodgy graph axes spring to mind.

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

[smn159]

Gadgetmac said:

bodhi said:

JagLover said:

smn159 said:

Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.

I'm sorry but there are vast financial interests invested in things like renewable energy and electric cars and big money to make. Where there is money to be made there are vested interests by definition.

No I think you are mistaken. Oil companies are bad and the new tobacco companies, the $1.5 trillion industry which has sprung up on the back of climate change, only has our best interests at heart, and would never ever distort the science for their own ends.

Although calling climate research science is a bit of a stretch. Something about monkeys, crap computer models and copies of Excel with dodgy graph axes spring to mind.

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

Does having listened to Nigel Lawson on YouTube count?

[gazza285]

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

[bodhi]

Gadgetmac said:

bodhi said:

JagLover said:

smn159 said:

Some mistake surely?

The global scientific consensus clearly represents the vested interests, while the plucky Exxon funded Heartland Institute represents the voice of stupidity - sorry, common sense.

I'm sorry but there are vast financial interests invested in things like renewable energy and electric cars and big money to make. Where there is money to be made there are vested interests by definition.

No I think you are mistaken. Oil companies are bad and the new tobacco companies, the $1.5 trillion industry which has sprung up on the back of climate change, only has our best interests at heart, and would never ever distort the science for their own ends.

Although calling climate research science is a bit of a stretch. Something about monkeys, crap computer models and copies of Excel with dodgy graph axes spring to mind.

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

And its always good to hear one of PH's condescending aholes turn up, just because someone with a science degree doesn't find the research done particularly compelling.

I'd always suggest that if you are going to convince Western Civilisation to give up the civilisation part based on a scientific theory, that theory better be watertight. And I'm sorry, but MMGW, or whatever its called this week, just isn't.

If it was its proponents would be able clarify and explain their position, without the snark or appeals to authority, or hiding behind silly words because the data doesn't entirely back up their position.

[SeeFive]

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

[turbobloke]

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

[Electro1980]

turbobloke said:

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

Come back to me when all of the research is retracted and the your sides research is the majority. That’s how science research works. You can’t just ignore or dismiss it because you don’t like it. Withdrawal of papers is not proof that the consensus is wrong, it shows the process works.

[Electro1980]

Gadgetmac said:

Jasandjules said:

Randy Winkman said:

Greta's role is just to point to the evidence that's already out there. There's no need for her to come up with new stuff.

The evidence is provided by Dr Judith Curry, who disagrees with Greta....

The lone semi-credible scientist who unfortunately has now been found (and admitted) to be in receipt of income from vested interests if I recall correctly.

ETA: “I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

Edited by Gadgetmac on Thursday 27th February 18:51

Where funding comes from is not a major worry, at least not without more details. This is the argument used by climate deniers. This is far more worrying:

“In 2019 she stated that she would not “bother with” peer-reviewed journals, in favor of publishing her own papers so that she could editorialize and write what she wanted “without worrying about the norms and agendas of the ‘establishment.’”“

A scientist that does not want their work peer reviewed is no longer a scientist, just someone spouting their own opinion. Good science is founded on the idea of independent challenge and review.

[zygalski]

Electro1980 said:

turbobloke said:

SeeFive said:

gazza285 said:

Gadgetmac said:

Always good to hear one of PH's very own climate scientists summarising 10's of thousands of research papers from qualified scientists in the climate fields as not real science.

Please remind me, what field work have you done in the climate sciences and how many peer reviewed papers have you had published?

If you like I'll take a wild stab at it...

As many as Greta and Anti-Greta put together.

It doesn’t really matter.

Very few food critics are Michelin starred chefs, but they can see through a dodgy jus and snotty foam to understand that the ingredients underneath are half baked.

Spot on. When a major doom'n'gloom paper from a major climate research team is withdrawn from a major journal due to the discovery of a major error which came to light when an independent scientist pointed out that the authors didn't know (or knew, but didn't apply) the difference between random and systematic errors, the smell is redolent of a climate chef cooking flueless. See Resplandy et al 2019

Note that random and systematic error is within the scope of UK school physics (A-level). See e.g. 3.1.2 at the link (pdf).

https://filestore.aqa.org.uk/resources/physics/spe...

Climate alarmists would like to see comment restricted to an approved list of gurus, their approved list of course, however the above fiasco and the anti-Greta both poke a neat hole in that nonsense.

Come back to me when all of the research is retracted and the your sides research is the majority. That’s how science research works. You can’t just ignore or dismiss it because you don’t like it. Withdrawal of papers is not proof that the consensus is wrong, it shows the process works.

'Spam's not a fan of peer review. Unless all the peers come from the Heartland Institute...

[jshell]

jshell said:

Randy Winkman said:

Exactly. Are we really supposed top believe that it's in the interests of the oil industry that we are all told not to use oil?

Ok, how do you stop using oil? No phone, no tablet, no TV, no tyres, no drugs, paint, polymers, jet fuel, lubricants, practically no clothes, no plastic, no fuel, no fertiliser...etc...etc...

Please explain how the human race removes its dependency on oil?

No-one?

[zygalski]

jshell said:

No-one?

Well one thing you definitely don't do is invest in technology and alternate sources of energy.