UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?
The IPCC isn't buying anything. Nor is NASA, the Met Office, the NOAA or any one of the large organisations who have come to the same conclusion.I love this idea that there is a mysterious fund paying virtually every scientist in the world to falsify data. Where does this fund come from? The Illuminati? Little green lizards from outer space? Elvis?
With a couple of exceptions, virtually no-one wants climate change to be true. Governments don't want it to be true because the cost of mitigating climate change is massive. Individuals don't want it because it means that we have to change the way we live. Manufacturing companies don't want restraints on their production. The oil industry certainly don't want it.
So who is paying for people to falsify data on climate change? And please don't insult our intelligence by saying that the tiny companies making wind turbines have somehow manage to rustle up enough money to take on the oil industry. Frankly, the Illuminati would be more believable.
That's the problem with crackpot conspiracy theories. The people who peddle them so desperately want them to be true that they don't stop to think how ludicrous their claims are.
Will wrote: "I love this idea that there is a mysterious fund paying virtually every scientist in the world to falsify data. Where does this fund come from? The Illuminati? Little green lizards from outer space? Elvis?"The best way to avoid the argument is to ridicule it. Where does $1 billion A DAY go, Will? Burn it, bury it? No, you give it to organisations that support your beliefs. Human nature always wins.
Those who choose where that money goes pay scientists on the basis that they will support them. They are not going to give money to scientists who disagree with them. You, as a sensible, rational human being, cannot disagree with that. Therefore, you get Climategate. Deliberate manipulation of data to encourage further funding.
Who, Geoff, who?Who is giving money to scientists to falsify data on climate change? Who has £1 billion a day to hand away? And why would they want to do this?
And why when Governments are desperately short of cash are they providing funds for climate change research and mitigation?
Come on, we need to know.
message 255:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Nov 22, 2015 08:16AM)
(new)
It fascinates me, Will, that you are the one who continues to refer to conspiracies. Are you whistling in the graveyard, or putting your hands up to the sides of your face and pretending you can't see it?And why when Governments are desperately short of cash are they providing funds for climate change research and mitigation?
Because there is money in it, Will and everyone is scared they're not getting their noses in the trough. The British Navy swapped from coal to oil because of fear of being at the hands of the unions. Thatcher did the same thing during the 80's to launch the "dash for gas". It is no surprise therefore that it was her government that created the Hadley Centre.
Once that happened, the IPCC was created by the United Nations. The same UN that was in severe financial difficulties as the USA wouldn't pay them the money they were owed because they considered them too corrupt. Along comes global warming and open comes the till.
Are you seriously denying that there is a spend of $1 billion a day on Climate Change? I quote: Landscape 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs. - Source http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp...
So, now you know its there, so denial is useless Will. Over to you, I keep knocking them down, where's your next straw man coming from?
You haven't knocked anything down. Not this time and not at any point in this debate. Not even close.You've dodged the question again. Who is paying to support climate change? "There's money in it", eh? Where? Where is the money coming from?
And then you give us the priceless quote: "Landscape 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day – far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs."
Read the quote again, especially the last bit. The £1 billion that is being spent globally is "far below even the most conservative estimates of investment needs."
In other words, we are not spending enough.
Then read the rest of the pro-climate change report that you linked to. Yup, it's a pro climate change report which argues that we need to be spending more on climate change. It is saying the polar opposite of what you are saying.
It's a repeat of the mistake that you made earlier when you got confused about the amount that is being spent as a result of climate change. This isn't a fund of money that climate change scientists can dip into. It is how much climate change is costing us.
The bottom line is that we wouldn't be spending this money if we didn't have to. It's a necessary cost and not a profit opportunity. Surely you can tell the difference?
Let me give you an example. Part of my job is about building roads. A few years ago, we had a set of design parameters for how much flooding a road should be able to cope with. The engineers would work out how much flooding was likely and then build enough drainage to cope.
With climate change we are seeing far more flooding and we expect more in the future. This means that we need to build bigger and better drains. As a result it costs us more to build that road.
In the trade it's called climate change mitigation. These extra costs (and lots more) are part of the £1 billion a day that is being spent on climate change. We don't want to have to build these bigger drains. If we could get away with the cheaper ones, then we would. No-one is making an additional profit. The climate change scientists don't get a bung from the construction firms.
Don't you get it yet? When you say "there's money in it" you couldn't be further from the truth. There are huge costs to climate change. Cost not profit.
message 257:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Nov 22, 2015 02:15PM)
(new)
Will wrote: "You haven't knocked anything down. Not this time and not at any point in this debate. Not even close.You've dodged the question again. Who is paying to support climate change? "There's money in i..."
So, the likes of W S Atkins and Heidelberg are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts? I think not. Where is your evidence that there is increased flooding because of human caused climate change, Will?
You questioned the cost of global warning, I provided figures. The reason I quoted from a document supporting climate change, is because you wouldn't believe the figures otherwise, you are that blinkered.
Who will have the last word, the chicken or the egg? ;-)
You are going round in circles. Ever decreasing and increasingly lonely circles as the number of sceptics dwindles.Where is the evidence for man-made climate change? We've been talking about it throughout this thread. Start with the IPCC reports. Then the Met Office. Then NASA. Than NOAA. And keep on going with study after study.
You're getting muddled about the difference between cost and profit. Again. For your ridiculous conspiracy theory to work there would have to be some organisation or group of organisations who "know" that climate change isn't real and have a financial interest in persuading scientists to falsify data.
So your latest theory is that the construction industry is the mysterious cause of this conspiracy, eh? They have somehow managed to fool all the Governments, all the meteorological organisations and all the other companies whose costs have increased as a result of climate change?
I didn't question the cost of climate change. No-one is questioning that. What I am questioning - and you are still dodging - is this silly notion that there is "money in climate change" and that this has caused scientists to falsify data.
Cost is not profit. That is basic economics.
So, come on, answer the question. If there is "money in climate change", if someone is paying climate change scientists to falsify data, then just who is doing this?
And please don't quote blindly from a study you don't understand or haven't read properly. Answer the question - who has a profit motive to falsify climate change data at such a global scale?
Ah, good to see you are back to the insults again, Will. As you would say, losing the argument then.There are lots of scientists getting funding because they tenuously link their research to climate change. There are also reports being modified to exaggerate results and manipulation of data sets to point the finger at human induced climate change.
Scientists have been proven to falsify data.
Thank you for the economics lecture. Let me, in return, explain a fact to you - because something is a cost to you, doesn't mean it isn't a profit to someone else.
You're still dodging the question. Who is giving funding to scientists to falsify data? That would take a conspiracy theory on a truly global scale, with not one scientist breaking ranks to say that they have been bribed or influenced.
When a Government incurs a new cost, say the need to over-engineer infrastructure or switch to more expensive power generation, who profits?
Yes, some scientists have been known to falsify data. It happens, particularly with the armchair experts who don't have to submit their work to peer review. But just how do you get every credible scientist in the world to falsify data when it isn't in their interest to do so?
I'll ask it again. Your conspiracy theory needs someone to be making a profit from climate change. Apart from very minor players like the manufacturers of wind turbines, who profits from climate change?
We do know that several big industries and organisations don't profit from climate change. The oil industry hates it. Coal and gas companies want to protect their businesses. Governments hate the extra costs it imposes. If they could find a way to discredit climate change they would.
So to make your conspiracy theory work, who profits from climate change?
The profiteers from climate change are the scientists themselves. They apply for sponsorship by bending their research towards climate change. Whereas before they would struggle to get funding for research, they are able to get money by changing the target, or adding a secondary target.Will, you are always looking for the Big Conspiracy, when it's the little ones that catch you out. These are the ones that slip below the radar and would not, individually, be considered a conspiracy. It's lots and lots of little bits of funding, in the scheme of things, that add up to an awful lot.
Keep in mind how easy it is to maintain control. Keep funding the small research projects, warn them that the results have to be supportive of the consensus and that if not, further funding may be difficult to obtain. Bingo.
Goeff, for Chrissakes man, answer the damn question.Where is this funding for climate change coming from?
If a scientist wants to research the mechanism behind the dunking of Hob Nobs into hot tea, but can only get the funding if he somehow links it to climate change, where has this funding that wasn't previously available come from?
The IPCC.
Whilst they do not control a lot of the funding themselves, they are the main driving force behind who gets what.
And just who is it that is funding the IPCC to the extent that they've got deeper pockets than anything that the oil companies could come up with?
So you genuinely think that the Climate Change Lobby has deeper pockets than the Anti Climate Change Lobby?
Michael Cargill wrote: "So you genuinely think that the Climate Change Lobby has deeper pockets than the Anti Climate Change Lobby?"Actually ignoring the rest of the debate about the rights and wrongs of it all, I do, because it's now dipping into state funding
To be honest Jim, it's been state funded since before the turn of the century. It was government money that set up the Hadley Centre at UEA.
Well there was a time when the Climate Change Lobby had little more to its name than a packet of crisps and a hut made out of corrugated iron, whilst the Anti Climate Change Lobby was swanning around in pools of diamonds and handing out blow jobs to anyone who looked like they might want one.So given that neither the politicians would want to be interested in it (because if climate change exists, it would mean they'd have to do something about it) and the money men wouldn't be interested either, how did it ever get to the point where all the dollar chasing scientists are siding with the Climate Change Lobby...?
Read the article, Michael. And if you have the time, the links.
Michael Cargill wrote: "how did it ever get to the point where all the dollar chasing scientists are siding with the Climate Change Lobby...? ..."It's driven by Michael J. Fox, the evil anti-Elvis. He and his secret minions have been working clandestinely for decades to convince the world that climate change threatens us. Why? Their hope is to destroy modern civilization by ending electricity generation. Because Michael J. Fox has been trying to stop people from airing reruns of Doc Hollywood. He's still embarrassed by it.
Geoff, I'm asking you the question, not someone with a book to sell.Throughout this thread you've repeatedly stated that the anti-climate change scientists have been doing nothing more than chasing the money.
Yet you're not willing to discuss how the Climate Change Lobby somehow transformed from being a bunch of stoned hippies to a behemoth with limitless resources.
By your own logic this was an impossibility, unless you're following this business plan.
1. Step one
2. Step two
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!!
Yes, but you are making the comparison between how a corporation thinks and how a dictatorship works.A corporation produces things and sells them at a profit. That money is reinvested in more goods that are then resold and the cycle continues.
With climate change you create evangelists. These evangelists climb up the political trees, initially for ideological reasons. Not necessarily climate change but using the influence it gives to redistribute wealth. Add in a stupid film from a former vice president and way you go. You get to a critical mass and the system starts feeding itself.
The IPCC isn't a scientific body, it is a political body. It's basically a feudal system where the money is distributed to those who are worthy, those who support the king, gets special dispensations. Scientists who produce work that supports climate change get rewarded, those that don't get nothing. It's almost religious.
Sorry Geoff, but you haven't actually answered the question; all you've said is "They just did".Corporations will entwine themselves with political bodies, offer huge donations to any political tree climbers who will help them out, bribe the others to stand down, and are perfectly capable of punting out the odd film as well.
Yet somehow these penniless liars managed to subvert anything and everything that these noble corporations could come up with.
Those blasted Fifth Columnists, eh?
message 279:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Nov 23, 2015 02:17PM)
(new)
No, not really. Corporations are psychopaths. A study was done some years ago where they were measured for mental attributes, that was the result. Watch the film, The Corporation, it's available on Youtube. Very interesting.As for the IPCC and the climate change lobby, they operate more like old time catholicism, really, if anything. A new religion for a new age?
It's ironic that the tree huggers want to depopulate the Earth because we are unworthy, in light of the fact that the prediction is that the world population is expected to peak in the middle of this century.
You're assuming that I fully understand what is happening. I don't. Therefore I don't have the answers for you, Michael, you'll have to go seek them for yourself, if that's what you want to do.
As I've already said, a conspiracy implies a logical path to insurrection and control. That's not what's happening here. Some people started this course of events and its feeding itself.
Oh dear, Geoff. So let me see if I have got this straight. You have concocted a conspiracy theory where every single climate change scientist in the world is falsifying data deliberately in order to get money from sponsorship.So here comes that question you keep dodging. Who is giving them this sponsorship?
The IPCC? Nasty Governments? Well, let's think about that for a second. The IPCC is funded by the world's governments so we can group them together. Governments don't actually want climate change to be true because it increases the cost of running the state for no benefit to the state. This means that the governments need to raise taxes which in turn makes them less popular with the electorate.
Maybe you want to blame big business? Except that doesn't work either. Big corporations make profit when consumers buy stuff that they have been able to make cheaply. But one of the core messages of climate change is that we need to buy less stuff. And we need to make manufacturing more sustainable, which makes it more expensive.
The oil industry? Surely not. NASA? The Met Office?
Come on, answer the question. Who has an interest in falsifying data about climate change?
Then let's think about the practicalities of this conspiracy theory. We would need to persuade every single scientist in every country to say the same thing. Even the scientists paid for by the oil industries. Each of those scientists would be risking their career and reputation. And the whole conspiracy would rely on not a single scientist breaking ranks.
And every Government in the world would have to agree to this. Even the ones who don't like each other very much.
Surely you have to see how ludicrous that sounds?
More Booker gibberish. He is sounding more and more desperate and out of touch as each of his armchair expert theories are blown away.Time to change the record, Geoff. This debate is over.
message 283:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Nov 29, 2015 05:03AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "Time to change the record, Geoff. This debate is over."For you, but not for me, Will. It also points out that Prince Charles is less informed and shows the level of group think that is endemic among the Climate Change evangelists.
This week in Bloomberg business news they said that due having fewer hurricanes the offshore producers could see a reduction in oil prices. Half an hour later the climate change news was that due to increased hurricanes ...... I did not listen to the rest but I know that for every comment made there is another opposite view.
Geoff - One person's opinion does not invalidate the overwhelming weight of evidence. Scientists work on the basis of research and evidence. Armchair pundits take pot-shots at random targets hoping that something will hit.The debate is over for every nation, every credible scientist, every major scientific and meteorological organisation. Heck, the debate is even over for the oil industry who invents millions into trying to wriggle out of climate change. Unsuccessfully.
Lynne - climate change is leading to more unpredictable weather: extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry. That means both unusually quiet weather and unusually turbulent weather.
If you read the article again ...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/article...
... you will see that it talks about an unusually quiet hurricane season in the Atlantic at the same time as the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Western hemisphere happened in the Pacific.
That's climate change.
Or energy redistribution.
You're joking, right?So exactly what form of "energy distribution" gives us the strongest hurricane ever recorded at the same time as the hottest year ever recorded? Come on, we're dying to know.
And you still haven't told us who stands to profit from climate change or how they've managed to persuade every climate change scientist to falsify data.
We're waiting....
Will wrote: "You're joking, right?So exactly what form of "energy distribution" gives us the strongest hurricane ever recorded at the same time as the hottest year ever recorded? Come on, we're dying to know.
And you still haven't told us who stands to profit from climate change or how they've managed to persuade every climate change scientist to falsify data.
We're waiting...."
Firstly, you are making the assumption that this year will be the hottest ever. This will not be confirmed until next year, at least.
Secondly, have you not remembered your physics, Will? To quote you:
Lynne - climate change is leading to more unpredictable weather: extremes of hot and cold, wet and dry. That means both unusually quiet weather and unusually turbulent weather.
What you are saying is an example of this.
To quote: In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor be destroyed, but it transforms from one form to another, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.
On that basis, as climate scientists work, they treat Earth as a closed system. We all know, of course, that this is untrue. The Sun is a variable that we still know very little about and therefore is, over time, unpredictable. Therefore the Earth cannot be treated as a closed system.
By logic, as carbon dioxide is supposedly, the cause of our anthropogenic climate change, then the increase in global temperature should follow the same curve as the CO2. It doesn't.
And you still haven't told us who stands to profit from climate change or how they've managed to persuade every climate change scientist to falsify data.
Data is being manipulating all the time - from Climategate to South American temperature data, and this is only what has been found, I'm sure there are plenty of other examples. Because of the groupthink that surrounds climate science, scientists are manipulating the data to support their beliefs. The fact that the IPCC is a political organisation, rather than a scientific one, makes it worse.
As for profits, here are ten to get you started. http://www.climatefundsupdate.org/abo...
Add into that the system that trades in carbon credit certificates.
Oh dear. It gets worse. Let's start from the beginning. 2015 isn't over yet, but is already almost certain to be the hottest ever. That blows the "climate change has stalled" argument out of the water. By all means wait for it to be officially confirmed. It's coming.
Climate change scientists don't claim that the earth is a closed system. They're the ones doing the credible science, remember, not the armchair experts.
Incidentally, I love your "logic". You say that the earth isn't a closed system and then you insist that CO2 must follow global temperature as if it was a closed system. Oops.
What we are seeing is that CO2 and global temperature are linked, no matter how much the amateurs try to quibble. If they alleged "stalling" had continued they might have had a point. It hasn't. Argument over.
The IPCC is a political organisation? Well, it is funded by Governments, that is true. But for this ridiculous conspiracy theory to hold any water, someone will need to have influenced every scientist in the IPCC, every scientist in NASA, the Met Office, Environment Agency, Shell, Texaco, Esso. And every Government official. And every politician.
Climategate was not data manipulation. Read the facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...
But come on, entertain us. You still haven't answered the questions (and they are starting to pile up):
Who has a financial interest in climate change to persuade all these scientists to falsify data?
How was worst hurricane in history caused by "energy redistribution"?
message 290:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 02, 2015 03:23AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "Oh dear. It gets worse. Let's start from the beginning. 2015 isn't over yet, but is already almost certain to be the hottest ever. That blows the "climate change has stalled" argument out of the water. By all means wait for it to be officially confirmed. It's coming. Supposition
Climate change scientists don't claim that the earth is a closed system. They're the ones doing the credible science, remember, not the armchair experts.
Incidentally, I love your "logic". You say that the earth isn't a closed system and then you insist that CO2 must follow global temperature as if it was a closed system. Oops. No oops, the statement is correct. If you wish to take it out of context, which you often do, go ahead.
What we are seeing is that CO2 and global temperature are linked, no matter how much the amateurs try to quibble. If they alleged "stalling" had continued they might have had a point. It hasn't. Argument over. More supposition. Building an argument based upon unproven data. So like a climate change evangelist.
The IPCC is a political organisation? Well, it is funded by Governments, that is true. But for this ridiculous conspiracy theory to hold any water, someone will need to have influenced every scientist in the IPCC, every scientist in NASA, the Met Office, Environment Agency, Shell, Texaco, Esso. And every Government official. And every politician.No, it is a political organisation. Period. Additionally, the reports are edited by bureaucrats and because they are not a scientific organisation their sources and fact checking are proven to be inadequate.
Climategate was not data manipulation. Read the facts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climati...
But come on, entertain us. You still haven't answered the questions (and they are starting to pile up):
Who has a financial interest in climate change to persuade all these scientists to falsify data?already answered, I'm not repeating myself.
How was worst hurricane in history caused by "energy redistribution"? " Already explained. Again, I'm not repeating myself.
I assume all the delegates to the conference 'jet-shared' to minimise their carbon footprints :o)
Patti (baconater) wrote: "How much can any data be trusted?http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/..."
Well, it's more likely the Chinese wanted to steal the sophisticated weather modeling software rather than somehow alter the data. But that's really just my opinion, and I should add, in the interest of full disclosure, that I don't generally subscribe to conspiracy theories about climate change or much of anything else!
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "I assume all the delegates to the conference 'jet-shared' to minimise their carbon footprints :o)"I think they all bicycled there. Except for the ones from across the oceans, of course. They rowed.
Conversation at dinner last night about something called 50 mile meals or something like that. Apparently restaurants in the uk are doing meals where all ingredients are sourced within 50 miles.I said we should all fly over and check it out.
Geoff - no, you haven't already explained. Stop dodging the questions:Who has a financial interest in climate change?
How was the worst history ever recorded caused by "energy redistribution"?
I'm on the fence again. BUT there are hell of a lot of very well paid jobs as climate change scientists created in the last couple of decades, and the 'charities' which lobby for them and all the ancilliary staff whose livings depend on the principal and the magazines + media programmes. I know its not mega bucks compared to some budgets but its not negligible either.
message 298:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 03, 2015 01:03AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "Geoff - no, you haven't already explained. Stop dodging the questions:Who has a financial interest in climate change?
How was the worst history ever recorded caused by "energy redistribution"?"
Just because you cannot find them does not mean they're not there. You appear to be deliberately avoiding my answers as they are inconvenient. If you do not want to find them, nothing I can do will solve that.
You are very good at getting other people to justify themselves and their position, while you sit back and continue to demand more and more. You then claim you are unsatisfied. This is then used as an excuse to denigrate anyone who disagrees with your standpoint.
But who pays those salaries? That's the question that Geoff keeps dodging.Big businesses don't want climate change to be true because it hurts their profits. It makes people consume less. It makes goods more expensive to manufacture. It stops businesses from cutting costs by exploiting the environment.
Governments don't want climate change to be true. It costs the state a lot of money to deal with climate change. Governments also don't want to do unpopular things, such as making their citizens reduce their consumption of fossil fuels and change their lifestyles.
Scientific institutions have nothing to gain from falsifying data and everything to lose. There are few things which destroy a scientist's career as quickly as being found to have falsified data.
So yes some people are making a living out of climate change. At the same time, some people are losing money from it. For every wind turbine company seeing an increase in profits we are seeing reductions in profits for the coal and oil industries.
So exactly who is providing the money to pay these salaries?
If there was some ridiculous data falsification conspiracy theory happening here, all it would take would be for someone credible to point it out. Someone who didn't want climate change to be true. The oil and gas industry, say. Or China. Or India.
That isn't happening because the weight of evidence is overwhelming. The fact that a small number of people get paid as a result of climate change is no proof of anything. A far larger group of people lose money from climate change.
It is basic economics. Climate change imposes a net cost on society, not a profit.
message 300:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Dec 03, 2015 02:50AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "It is basic economics. Climate change imposes a net cost on society, not a profit."And there is the fundamental flaw in your argument, Will. "Climate change imposes a net cost on society not a profit." I put up a link, that you obviously, accidentally or deliberately (only you know the answer to that), ignored, entitled "10 things to know about climate finance in 2014".
As I have already said, and you seem to not understand at a fundamental financial level, one entity's cost is another entity's profit.
It's quite simple: tow the line, continue to be supported with money, don't tow the line and no more money. Science teams cannot give unbiased opinions when bankrolled. It suits Will to create the straw man of a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy is to do with the distribution of funds that stifles independent thought.