PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Articles such as this can be used by Climate Change deniers
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
So now you are trying to infer that I am unreasonable and belligerent while you are the fount of all that is good!!


The word you need is “imply”.


Quote:
I have referred you to scientific websites which support one argument, the consensus argument, of scientists who are involved in serious research on the subject while you have referred me to Youtube videos by a TV presenter and a former electrical engineer who is now paid by owners of a major part of the coal industry in the US to advance their interests. And you expect me to take you seriously and treat you with respect on this issue?


You refer me to a site run by people who support the “concensus” since that’s where the research grants go to. Research money is not given to those who don’t support the concensus. Those who question the concensus are accused of only being the mouthpiece of commercial interests.

Quote:
If you can find me a website run by climate scientists who are currently working in the field that gives a balanced view of the subject then I will gladly go to it. What I do not consider to be worth looking at are anything run by the Heartland Institute or any of their coal industry funded off shoots.


Somewhat difficult since you appear to have defined anyone who presents an opposing view as not being a climate scientist. I recall several years ago bringing up the subject of the bad side of glyphosate on this and other forums. I was given quite a hard time of it then, people don’t think that way now.

Quote:
The BBC has stopped trying to give a "balanced" view on Climate Change because they couldn't find any scientists who were qualified in climate science to give an opposing view. Yes, there are plenty of unqualified crackpots like Nigel Lawson who will sound off about the subject but they do so with no academic or practical knowledge so what they say is just an unresearched personal opinion which is biased by their desire to keep the capitalist money making system going full pelt no matter what the outcome.


The BBC is part of the MSM, and they toe the establishment line. For example they promote the current NHS and Public Health England dogma on how to be healthy, while people are getting sicker. The BBC unfortunately is no longer reliable.

Quote:
You seem to just enjoy being a contrarian because it gives you a buzz. I'm not sure who is worse you or Lawson et al. Lawson is probably worse because he is in a position of influence.


You are entitled to your view, but this is a case of attacking the person, again.

Quote:
You still haven't given any scientific evidence to support your case.


My job would be to question my “case”, just as I would question other cases. There is something unsatisfactory in the whole discussion about climate “science” since much of it seems to be questionable at best, and based on very recent figures to make the current claims when you only to have to go back to when the Romns took over Britain and they were growing vineyards in England. Something which has again become possible recently. So how warm was it in Roman times?
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2018 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

adam2 wrote:
I can see the effects of climate change with my own eyes, without relying on data or research by other people.

When I was a child, snow lying on the ground for some days was the norm each winter in Greater London. It is now rare.

When I was a child, remote villages in the north of the UK were routinely snowed in, again this is rare now.

Observation of tourist photographs from before the war and comparison to similar views today shows much reduced snow cover on most mountains, and the general retreat of most glaciers.

Aerial photographs show much reduced ice cover in the arctic.


Agreed, as I see the same changes, but our lifetimes are tiny in geological terms, and aerial photos give only a short record too.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7873

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
adam2 wrote:
I can see the effects of climate change with my own eyes, without relying on data or research by other people.

When I was a child, snow lying on the ground for some days was the norm each winter in Greater London. It is now rare.

When I was a child, remote villages in the north of the UK were routinely snowed in, again this is rare now.

Observation of tourist photographs from before the war and comparison to similar views today shows much reduced snow cover on most mountains, and the general retreat of most glaciers.

Aerial photographs show much reduced ice cover in the arctic.


Agreed, as I see the same changes, but our lifetimes are tiny in geological terms, and aerial photos give only a short record too.


Fortunately we have many lines of evidence going back hundreds of millions of years: https://www2.usgs.gov/climate_landuse/clu_rd/paleoclimate/proxies.asp
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
adam2
Site Admin


Joined: 02 Jul 2007
Posts: 6895
Location: North Somerset

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2018 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please keep on the topic of climate change and the denial, or not thereof.
Personal insults and replies thereto and quotes thereof have been deleted, and further similar posts will also be deleted.
This is also not the place to discuss why a long standing member left, that was their decision alone.

_________________
"Installers and owners of emergency diesels must assume that they will have to run for a week or more"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2018 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
........You refer me to a site run by people who support the “concensus” since that’s where the research grants go to. Research money is not given to those who don’t support the concensus. Those who question the concensus are accused of only being the mouthpiece of commercial interests.


There are millions of dollars being "invested" by fossil fuels interests such as the Koch brothers in people who run the Heartland Institute and other anti science and environment propaganda outlets and in government lobbying against climate change. If those very astute businessmen thought that there was any mileage to be made in researching climate change they would have put that money into it. They don't bother with research because they know that it would be unproductive. They go for the propaganda and lobbying of idiots like Trump and Lawson who share your views: or do you share their views?

Quote:
Somewhat difficult since you appear to have defined anyone who presents an opposing view as not being a climate scientist. I recall several years ago bringing up the subject of the bad side of glyphosate on this and other forums. I was given quite a hard time of it then, people don’t think that way now.


That is not true. You have only quoted people who are not climate scientists. You have not quoted me anything from the pen of a climate scientist that I could disagree with or, more to the point, that another climate scientist might disagree with.

I also recall several years ago bringing up the subject of scientists such as Seralini working in the field of research into pesticides and their cancer causing effects who disagreed with the consensus on glyphosate. That was scientific debate which was again being skewed by business interests. Since then the consensus has swung to the side against the business interest but it has been swung by the science not by business paid propagandists and government lobbyists.


Quote:
There is something unsatisfactory in the whole discussion about climate “science” since much of it seems to be questionable at best, and based on very recent figures to make the current claims when you only to have to go back to when the Romns took over Britain and they were growing vineyards in England. Something which has again become possible recently. So how warm was it in Roman times?


Again, you obviously haven't looked at either the Skeptical Science website or the Real Climate one as you would find an answer there to your assertion. And the only people who find the science questionalbe seem to be conspiracy theorists, businesses with a reason to fear loosing profits because of the science and the journalists, economists and TV presenters paid by those businesses.
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Thu Dec 27, 2018 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Skewed by business interests? Well the climate alarmists should be used to that with their income reliant on spreading enough concern so they continue to receive funding from governments to continue the alarm generation.

This is fron Edenhofer, no less than a UN climate official, so we can assume he knows something, can’t we?

Quote:
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.

For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer just misspoke and doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated."

Mad as they are, Edenhofer's comments are nevertheless consistent with other alarmists who have spilled the movement's dirty secret. Last year, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, made a similar statement.



Read more from a wicked denier’s site

But how true is the global warming, oops, sorry, climate change alarmist, er I mean scientists of course, predictions of uncontrollable temperature rise in the immediate future? There is the little matter of the Mann made climate hockey stick curve which appeared to have difficulty with the existence of a medieval warm period, and its predecessor in Roman Britain, when grapes were grown for wine in Northumberland, or whatever it was called at the time.

As for skepticalscience, it is a site that seems to be the mouthpiece of the (supposedly) 97% of climate so called scientists who agree the current temperature rise predictions are the only permitted fortune telling, oh, I think I meant future prediction.

So exactly where did this 97% figure come from? because there seems to be a teency weency bit of disagreement about that figure. If you say that is a consensus, then you have no case, as saying concensus is an easy out.

Happy new year, Laughing Laughing Laughing
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Dec 28, 2018 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edenhoffer is not saying that the science of climate change is wrong and he is not saying that there is a deliberate policy of redistributing wealth. In his position as an economist and a Professor of the Economics of Climate Change he is saying that the changing value of oil and other fossil fuels will, de facto, change the distribution of wealth. See this article. The changing of sea levels and the distribution of food will affect countries in different ways which will alter the distfribution of wealth. So your use of this argument against climate change falls a bit flat, Woodburner.

If you read what greedy, Kleptomaniac, billionaires want you to read, Woodburner, you will only see the world from their point of view. You are taking the side of big business here which includes the manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and vaccines. Big oil, big pharma, big coal and Koch, they're all in it together and you fall for their lies!!
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I suspect Valentina Zharkova knows a tad more than me, and probably more than you, and it doesn't agree with the likes of the greedy fund grabbing Michael Mann et al, (global warmists), and of course since you read their output you will see the world from their point of view. Don’t think for one moment that the greed is only on the side of the ones with industry vested interests. The problem is the “climate science” is not much science and is demonstrated by the unwillingness to discuss alternatives, but instead clinging to their “consensus” dogma.

The approach seems to be “Believe what you are told. Think when supervised.”
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is no climate change censoring then,

that’s a relief it means they must be confident in the consensus, er I mean science.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Woodburner, The Koch brothers makes billions of dollars from selling coal and other fossil fuels while the average climate scientist might make a six figure salary in the US if he's lucky and a five figure one in the UK. The Koch brothers spend more on lobbying in a year than the average university department gets and they are just one of the fossil fuel interests funding lies and obfuscation. Why aren't the Koch brothers and others funding university departments to do the research that would show that climate change is not man made? Because they would be wasting their money and they wouldn't want to do that!

If these billionaires and multi nationals are right on climate change who's to say that they aren't right on vaccines and pharmaceuticals?
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
There is no climate change censoring then,

that’s a relief it means they must be confident in the consensus, er I mean science.


Why would you waste time putting an anti climate change TV presenter or a politician up against a climate scientist to debate the science? You would be putting someone who knows sod all about the subject against someone who spends all their time working on the subject. Isn't that a bit stupid?

The last time the BBC put someone up against a climate scientist the only person that they could find was Nigel Lawson, a Tory ex Chancellor of the Exchequer! What a waste of time and energy that was.

If the TV channels could find anyone with a qualification in climate science to speak against it they would. Doesn't that suggest anything in your contrarian, conspiracy riddled brain?

Just go read the sensible, logical rebuttals to any points that you might have on the websites that I have suggested above. I do note that you have stopped trying to argue the science and are now citing "censorship" and "the consensus" as your only point of argument as if they hold any weight in an argument over science!
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodburner wrote:
I suspect Valentina Zharkova knows a tad more than me, and probably more than you, ....


If you take a look at the Northumbria University website where she works you will see that she is a highly qualified mathematician who works in the field of astrophysics. She does not work in the field of climate change or meteorology.

You have quoted the name of a scientist but not said what she might have said about climate science so I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Quote:
The problem is the “climate science” is not much science


What qualifies you to make such a claim? On what basis do you make that claim? Can you give me a reference to a paper from anyone who is qualified to make such a claim? I very much doubt it as you seem to believe what unqualified television presenters, journalists and, of course, Tory ex Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, tell you about the science.
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You don’t really expect to get away with the suggestion of skepticalscience as a reasonable website do you? I note the continued insults by the way. You need to understand that that does not support your case.

To get back to skepticalscience, John Cook was the one who claimed 97% of climate scientists agreed global warming (or what ever euphemism you would like to substitute) was man made and caused by CO2. This was done by misrepresenting the contents of the reports he used, and some of those scientists are a bit miffed about being misrepresented.

The forecasts of temperature increase made by the IPPPCC has been confirmed by measurements. Please explain.

Here’s something to be going on with.

There’s Chris Landsea who used to be an IPCC president, but gave up because he couldn’t continue to support a process which he perceived as having pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. There are others, but rather than my giving you a list who you will probably claim are not climate scientists because they don’t hold the same views as you, look at the comments by Krasimir Ivanov. Look under the first post by “mks” which has 20 replies. You will find them here.

PS And do stop this childish insult theme. Rolling Eyes
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 10672
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Skeptical Science website is a site where you can get information from the scientists who are doing the research on climate change. The site, which you quote is again full of stuff from journalists such as the ultra right wing James Delingpole, obviously a font of detailed scientific knowledge.

Here's an article on whether the 97% claim is right or wrong.

Nir Shaviv claims that only 50% of the warming is due to the sun. The rest, he says, is due to man made carbon dioxide so he is half of one person in the 3%!

Quote:
who you will probably claim are not climate scientists because they don’t hold the same views as you


I get exasperated with the twaddle that you peddle and call you names occasionally but I don't misrepresent what you say as you do of me and did above. I have never claimed that someone who you have quoted is not a climate scientist because they don't hold the same views as me. I have pointed out that the people who you quote are not climate scientists but are journalists or TV presenters. If you can point out where I am wrong in this I will be happy to apologise.

Krasimir Ivanov:- He specialised in surgery and oncology, gaining scientific degrees of Doctor (PhD), Doctor of Medical Sciences (DSc), along with an MS degree in economic management.
Google turned up other Krasimir Ivanovs - a football player and a table tennis player among them. I was unable to find anyone with any qualifications relevant to climate science.

I'm not sure what you are getting at by sending me to this video by Happer but here is a comment about him and his credentials which cast grave doubts upon what he might be saying:-


Quote:
Real News Collection
Real News Collection
1 year ago
Dr. William Happer is full of many scientific credentials and his expertise is in atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy. His experience in the science of climate lies in his political appointment to director of the Department of Energy's Office of Science during the George H.W. Bush administration. Please note that this is a political position and does not equate to scientific training. In December of 2015, Happer was the target of a STING operation by agents posing as consultants for a Middle Eastern oil and gas company, in which Happer suggested that payments be laundered by Donors Trust, a legal charitable money laundering entity, so that the money paid would not be traced to the fossil fuel industry. He has published a paper entitled "The Truth About Greenhouse Gasses: The Dubious Science of Climate Crusaders," but this is not a scientific, peer reviewed paper, but one published in the religious journal, First Things. He has no training in climatology, has not studied polar ice cores, and has no noteable, published scientific papers in scientific, peer reviewed publications on the subject of climate change, and has exhibited a willingness to take secret payments from the fossil fuel industry. Happer is a self proclaimed expert in the field of climatology, testifying before governmental hearings, and misleading those who don't understand that real science is not just a few people who hold steadfast to a belief. Science is not anything like religion, as religion is based on faith and a belief system, but science is based on hard evidence with no room for "alternative facts." Know where you are getting your information from. Dr. William Happer's uninformed opinion is not a valid source of facts, and no matter what his credentials are, his facts are "alternative" to reality.


As for Chris Landsea, he resigned over the degree to which hurricane intensity increases with climate and sea warming. This does not mean that he is sceptical of global warming as shown from this quote from him

“… we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades on the order of a degree Fahrenheit, and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming. The question is whether we're seeing any real increases in the hurricane activity”"

If you don't like the real science that you see at SkepticalScience try http://www.realclimate.org/ instead. That will also give you the real science from climate scientists rather than TV presenters and journalists. Be educated by those who know rather than propangandised by those who don't really know but would like you to think that they do!!
_________________
As Steve Keen puts it: “Capital without energy is a statue; labour without energy is a corpse.” Economics ignores this which is why economics is broken.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodburner



Joined: 06 Apr 2009
Posts: 3793

PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AGW supporters often seem to support sites like skepticalscience and claim their authority from it, but that site is run by John Cook from Queensland university, and he is one of the people who apparently independantly came up with this 97% consensus. Now he did this by misrepresenting the contents of several thousand papers which did not, as he claimed, support the view that global temperature increase is caused by man, and that it is CO2 that is the significaant factor. So rather than accuse me of talking twaddle, accept that there is not a 97% consensus, and this is the placard that people with unsound cases have to hide behind lest someone finds them out.

You could look at ADAPT 2030 https://youtu.be/hz0qAugOV1U, then you can ridicule that with some unscientific claims.
_________________
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Climate Change All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group