The Climate Change agenda

Anything else you want to talk about.
Post Reply
User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:17 pm

OpanaPointer wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:11 pm
Anti-AGW is a conspiracy theory. The big bad LIBRULS are trying to take people's 102" TV. Non-critical thinkers often accept conspiracy theories, at least until they realize the BS that they're built on.
So here we are discussing science using critical thinking and you come along and present a........... conspiracy theory.
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by OpanaPointer » Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:26 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:17 pm
OpanaPointer wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:11 pm
Anti-AGW is a conspiracy theory. The big bad LIBRULS are trying to take people's 102" TV. Non-critical thinkers often accept conspiracy theories, at least until they realize the BS that they're built on.
So here we are discussing science using critical thinking and you come along and present a........... conspiracy theory.
No, I identified the Anti-AGW thinking as a conspiracy theory.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:20 am

OpanaPointer wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:11 pm
Anti-AGW is a conspiracy theory. The big bad LIBRULS are trying to take people's 102" TV. Non-critical thinkers often accept conspiracy theories, at least until they realize the BS that they're built on.
Isn't this post based on a cliche simply BS to use another another cliché you have introduced?

You haven't produced any real thought or scientific analysis in your posts and the atitudes you espouse are fairly typical of the lobbyists and media outlets such as the BBC who present exaggerated versions of worst case scenarios.

Can I thank Dave and Mostlyharmless for introducing some scientific detail to this thread instead of using name calling and clichés.

I think the essential here is that while there is some evidence of warming - most notably in the coldest places such as the polar regions and mountain tops - most scientists are unsure over exactly how much warming there is or will be. The case for anthropogenic warming by its original proposers is based on a ''balance of probabilities' which should not be acceptable as proof. It is conjecture.
It is because it is so difficult to prove (in the absence of any 'smoking gun') that the promoters of AGW have to resort to biased testing and computer models together with political campaigning methods to promote their interests and jobs. Coupled with this is the denigration of those scientists such as David Bellamy and Johnny Ball who publicly disagree with the AGW lobby.

I would love the opportunity to have the likes of David Attenborough and Professor Brian Cox in a private meeting and ask them to prove to me AGW exists, beyond claiming 'balance of probability' which they so blandly accept. And to ask them whether they approve of the way David Bellamy and Johnny Ball were treated.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:23 am

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:58 am

What I do not understand is: what lobbyists and for what purposes and what vested interests?
As I presume that you are not from the United Kingdom can I explain that the initiators and promotors of AGW in the UK are a minority of the scientific profession resident in various UK universities who receive funding through the European Union and its various agencies, funding provided by the British taxpayer through the UK contribution to the EU budget. Given that the funds available for university research are limited and there is intense competition for funding the issue of AGW would inevitably give rise to claims for funding through the need for further research. In other words it is a means of promoting their sectional interests and research, essentially to keep their university departments busy and to justify the public expense in keeping them. Practically all of these scientists publicly backed ''Remain'' in the 2015 EU referendum, which shows where their financial interests lie.
The use of the 'mainstream media' by these academics is allied to the interests of these media outlets - newspapers, radio, magazines but above all television themselves - to promote a problem or issue that fills the newspace available, it all makes money. The same is true of politicians who use the issue for votes and proposing new taxes. Then there is the matter of 'carbon technologies' which covers yet more interest groups who want to use public funding and private finance to develop them.

All this is fairly standard for a political system where lobbying of governments and politicians is the norm and a very up front activity in all western countries and particulary so where large conglomerate businesses are involved. After all it reflects billions of pounds (or dollars) of business.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by OpanaPointer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:30 pm

RF wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:20 am
OpanaPointer wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 6:11 pm
Anti-AGW is a conspiracy theory. The big bad LIBRULS are trying to take people's 102" TV. Non-critical thinkers often accept conspiracy theories, at least until they realize the BS that they're built on.
You haven't produced any real thought or scientific analysis in your posts and the atitudes you espouse are fairly typical of the lobbyists and media outlets such as the BBC who present exaggerated versions of worst case scenarios.
And that's the core of the conspiracy theory.

User avatar
Herr Nilsson
Senior Member
Posts: 1398
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:19 am
Location: Germany

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Herr Nilsson » Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:59 pm

RF wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 9:23 am
Herr Nilsson wrote:
Wed Feb 20, 2019 9:58 am

What I do not understand is: what lobbyists and for what purposes and what vested interests?
As I presume that you are not from the United Kingdom can I explain that the initiators and promotors of AGW in the UK are a minority of the scientific profession resident in various UK universities who receive funding through the European Union and its various agencies, funding provided by the British taxpayer through the UK contribution to the EU budget. Given that the funds available for university research are limited and there is intense competition for funding the issue of AGW would inevitably give rise to claims for funding through the need for further research. In other words it is a means of promoting their sectional interests and research, essentially to keep their university departments busy and to justify the public expense in keeping them. Practically all of these scientists publicly backed ''Remain'' in the 2015 EU referendum, which shows where their financial interests lie.
The use of the 'mainstream media' by these academics is allied to the interests of these media outlets - newspapers, radio, magazines but above all television themselves - to promote a problem or issue that fills the newspace available, it all makes money. The same is true of politicians who use the issue for votes and proposing new taxes. Then there is the matter of 'carbon technologies' which covers yet more interest groups who want to use public funding and private finance to develop them.

All this is fairly standard for a political system where lobbying of governments and politicians is the norm and a very up front activity in all western countries and particulary so where large conglomerate businesses are involved. After all it reflects billions of pounds (or dollars) of business.
Hello RF,

thank you for your explanation. You're right, I'm not from the UK, but from Germany.
In regard of the (British?) scientists: do I understand you correctly that these scientist just do their research for ....money? And do I understand you correctly that they are researching deliberately in the wrong direction and wasting their time because of the money?
In regard of the media: don't you think that they could fill the news with or without AGW?
You're saying that lobbying of politicians and governments is the norm. If this is right, wasn't it right for the 1980's as well, when there was almost no low-carbon technologies, but just an almighty lobby of the oil and coal industry? I wonder how it was possible to overpower that superior lobby with a fabrication? And what about the scientists in the 1970's and 80's? Wouldn't it be more convenient to take money from the already existing lobby instead of jeopardising their reputation by creating a fabrication and then just to compete for funding? ....I'm still confused. :?
Regards

Marc

"Thank God we blow up and sink more easily." (unknown officer from HMS Norfolk)

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by OpanaPointer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:05 pm

Scientists are the most likely to out bad science. Duffers, not so much.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:37 pm

OpanaPointer wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:30 pm
[
And that's the core of the conspiracy theory.
No it isn't its just that you have nothing to back up your clichés. I should have a pound every time you use that cliché but then I would be being selfish.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:38 pm

OpanaPointer wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:05 pm
Scientists are the most likely to out bad science. Duffers, not so much.
They do - when they get the exposure. I have already mentioned Dr David Bellamy and Johnny Ball.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:02 pm

Herr Nilsson wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 1:59 pm
....I'm still confused. :?
Lobbying and promotion as you say is nothing new and I think you are looking at it rather simplistically. Scientists like everyone else have to earn a living and we all live in a competitive world. Its not so much that people deliberately set out to defraud, not at least initially, but they can exaggerate or overstate whatever they are saying or promoting. In other words a bias can develop which unbalances arguments and it is rather like the excesses of commercial advertising, which has to be regulated.
Virtually any argument or issue can be distorted this way and people can and do change their minds. Where it becomes dangerous is when forms of censorship and seeking to control the discussion is interplaced, often unobtrusively.
With the BBC, to take an example, it will give coverage to virtually any story or instance that promotes the idea of AGW. When the IPCC or any other body produces findings it is reported from the angle of taking the worst possible outcome or scenario and exaggerating it. People and scientists putting up a contrary argument or position get no exposure, only the most extreme interpretation is reported, often as opinion dressed up as fact. The problem here is that alternative views are not heard. That is effectively censorship, and it is censorship whether the removing of alternative views is deliberate or simply an unconscious bias. In other words a broadcaster can censor views without realising he/she is doing it - take the case of two interviews, one for an issue one against, both people are interviewed but then its discovered by the editor that there is only time to broadcast one of the interviews - so the alternative viewpoint isn't broadcast. Now that can be bad timing - or a deliberate decision that one interview isn't worth broadcasting because we don't like the argument....

Bias can be a grey area - but its effects can be devastating, the stuff of propaganda, used to manipulate or control public opinion.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by OpanaPointer » Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:54 pm

RF wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 6:37 pm
OpanaPointer wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 12:30 pm
[
And that's the core of the conspiracy theory.
No it isn't its just that you have nothing to back up your clichés. I should have a pound every time you use that cliché but then I would be being selfish.
Solly, Charlie, you are a good fit.

User avatar
RF
Senior Member
Posts: 7588
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:15 pm
Location: Wolverhampton, ENGLAND

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by RF » Fri Feb 22, 2019 8:57 am

Which proves the point - you have nothing constructive to contribute.
''Give me a Ping and one Ping only'' - Sean Connery.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by OpanaPointer » Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:07 pm

So all them there scientists are conspiring to fake all that data. Yep.

User avatar
Dave Saxton
Supporter
Posts: 3054
Joined: Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Rocky Mountains USA

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by Dave Saxton » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:04 pm

OpanaPointer wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:07 pm
So all them there scientists are conspiring to fake all that data. Yep.
So you have never heard of Climate Gate? Your not familiar with the term Karlization? You have not heard of Dr Bates? You are not aware of Steve McIntyre's complete and undeniable discrediting of the Hockey Stick graph and the exposure of the data manipulation behind it? You have not heard the term manufactured consensus, which is admitted to?
Entering a night sea battle is an awesome business.The enveloping darkness, hiding the enemy's.. seems a living thing, malignant and oppressive.Swishing water at the bow and stern mark an inexorable advance toward an unknown destiny.

OpanaPointer
Member
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: The Climate Change agenda

Post by OpanaPointer » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:44 pm

Dave Saxton wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:04 pm
OpanaPointer wrote:
Fri Feb 22, 2019 12:07 pm
So all them there scientists are conspiring to fake all that data. Yep.
So you have never heard of Climate Gate? Your not familiar with the term Karlization? You have not heard of Dr Bates? You are not aware of Steve McIntyre's complete and undeniable discrediting of the Hockey Stick graph and the exposure of the data manipulation behind it? You have not heard the term manufactured consensus, which is admitted to?
Yep, one big conspiracy.

Post Reply