I may have been wrong about Global Warming

[WTFH]

That is simply untrue. Last time I checked it was closer to 50/50.

What IS true is that the overwhelming majority of NGO's, environmental commentators, renewable investors and manufacturers, etc are right behind the CAGW meme. They stand to gain a lot, so why wouldn't they

The actual number of papers that deal directly with human induced climate change is tiny, the rest are dealing with the effects, assuming the models are correct.

There is zero scientific evidence that links CO2 to climate change, see my OP. All they have are dodgy models, massive speculation, massively adjusted temperature records, a PR campaign and a dogma.

There is no hotspot, ice is up, sea levels are not rising exponentially, their theory is busted. The dogma keeps them going

The damage they are doing to the poor and the third world is a scandal.

Hey presto, my prediction came true!


http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2136193


BTW, when you talk about all these people making money from climate change, does that mean the oil companies are charities? Last time I checked they were doing quite well for themselves by making sure people believed their message.

[EternalOptimist]

Hey presto, my prediction came true!


http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2136193


BTW, when you talk about all these people making money from climate change, does that mean the oil companies are charities? Last time I checked they were doing quite well for themselves by making sure people believed their message.

what on earth are you babbling on about now ?

[WTFH]

what on earth are you babbling on about now ?

I see that's your standard response when you disagree with someone.

[DodgyAgent]

I see that's your standard response when you disagree with someone.

in the case of scientists just think what they would be doing if climate change were not an issue. Many of them are being paid to investigate climate change so they are hardly going to say "nothing to see here". IPCC would not exist and most would be back playing with their stevenson's screens instead of enjoying the limelight and credibility that comes with being associated with such a problem that we "apparently" face.

Then there are the envy motivated lefties who can manipulate the wealthy and make them feel bad for being - well wealthier than they are by tut tutting about their consumerism whilst promising as usual to save people from themselves in the interest of "equality" and "fairness" (having lost the moral high ground as to the benefits of taxation).

Finally we have the zealots who want to use climate change as a means to suppress and control climate change. These people are on a par with religious extremists with their use of words like "denier" and attributing all the ills of the world (including the creation of ISIS) to climate change.

Of course in all this the actual truth about climate change is irrelevant.

[WTFH]

in the case of scientists just think what they would be doing if climate change were not an issue. Many of them are being paid to investigate climate change so they are hardly going to say "nothing to see here". IPCC would not exist and most would be back playing with their stevenson's screens instead of enjoying the limelight and credibility that comes with being associated with such a problem that we "apparently" face.

Then there are the envy motivated lefties who can manipulate the wealthy and make them feel bad for being - well wealthier than they are by tut tutting about their consumerism whilst promising as usual to save people from themselves in the interest of "equality" and "fairness" (having lost the moral high ground as to the benefits of taxation).

Finally we have the zealots who want to use climate change as a means to suppress and control climate change. These people are on a par with religious extremists with their use of words like "denier" and attributing all the ills of the world (including the creation of ISIS) to climate change.

Of course in all this the actual truth about climate change is irrelevant.

So, if you have someone who constantly witters on about how anyone concerned about climate change is ignoring the poor and needy in the world, then that person would be an "envy motivated lefty"?


Sorry, the scientists/IPCC do not make more money that the oil companies who are trying to supress facts. If scientists were not researching the climate, then who would challenge those who want to cut down rain forests, or frack to the point of poisoning the water table and causing earthquakes? If no one is prepared to do research to learn, then everyone ends up believing whatever the best marketing department can present.

[EternalOptimist]

Sorry, the scientists/IPCC do not make more money that the oil companies who are trying to supress facts. If scientists were not researching the climate, then who would challenge those who want to cut down rain forests, or frack to the point of poisoning the water table and causing earthquakes? If no one is prepared to do research to learn, then everyone ends up believing whatever the best marketing department can present.

I wasn't sure if you were a gibbering fool or simply misinformed.
The oil companies are not suppressing facts you idiot, Royal Dutch Shell has been lobbying against coal, funding 'progressive' think tanks, and promoting carbon capture. Exxon paid four times more to the Stanford Global Climate and Energy project, than they ever gave to sceptics

Anyone who thinks that the oil companies support fracking is a deluded idiot.


now stop gibbering and go and have a lie down in a darkened room.

[DodgyAgent]

So, if you have someone who constantly witters on about how anyone concerned about climate change is ignoring the poor and needy in the world, then that person would be an "envy motivated lefty"?


Sorry, the scientists/IPCC do not make more money that the oil companies who are trying to supress facts. If scientists were not researching the climate, then who would challenge those who want to cut down rain forests, or frack to the point of poisoning the water table and causing earthquakes? If no one is prepared to do research to learn, then everyone ends up believing whatever the best marketing department can present.

Spot on with the first comment.

Spot on with the second but it does not mean that every scientist and institution has to jump onto the bandwagon

[DodgyAgent]

So, if you have someone who constantly witters on about how anyone concerned about climate change is ignoring the poor and needy in the world, then that person would be an "envy motivated lefty"?


Sorry, the scientists/IPCC do not make more money that the oil companies who are trying to supress facts. If scientists were not researching the climate, then who would challenge those who want to cut down rain forests, or frack to the point of poisoning the water table and causing earthquakes? If no one is prepared to do research to learn, then everyone ends up believing whatever the best marketing department can present.

People who say they are acting for others are usually acting for themselves and using others (without any mandate from them) as a smokescreen to hide their own agenda which is usually envy. example: Lefties bang on about taxing the rich to help the poor. They take it as given that any money levied in this way will actually benefit the people to who the money is supposed to go. The fact that they do not even question the efficiency of how tax is spent reveals all. If they really "cared" then the left would challenge the delivery of these servicces far more than they do.

as for your second point - yes we need to challenge the powerful corporations but the there are now too many gorging at the trough of "investigating" climate change. Sack 90% of them and re employ them to solve the problem with technology

[WTFH]

I wasn't sure if you were a gibbering fool or simply misinformed.
The oil companies are not suppressing facts you idiot, Royal Dutch Shell has been lobbying against coal, funding 'progressive' think tanks, and promoting carbon capture. Exxon paid four times more to the Stanford Global Climate and Energy project, than they ever gave to sceptics

Anyone who thinks that the oil companies support fracking is a deluded idiot.


now stop gibbering and go and have a lie down in a darkened room.

You know that GCEP is nothing to do with climate change research? They give out grants to people who find new sources of energy or make systems more energy efficient. One of their latest grants was to do with carbon capture so that it could be converted into a fuel to burn again.


As for me being deluded, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Statoil are four of the largest players in the fracking market.
(just to make it easier for you, here's a link to one of them: XTO Energy Inc., a subsidiary of ExxonMobil - XTO Energy )


You're making yourself look rather foolish.

[pjclarke]

The scientific community overwhelmingly supports that the climate is changing and that humans are to some degree responsible. That doesn't mean they are right, but that IS the current position.

That is simply untrue. Last time I checked it was closer to 50/50.

Nope, it is right. 'Checking' needs to involve more than swallowing everything posted at WUWT uncriticaly and unsceptically. Like I said, there is a list of dissenting scientists on Wiki, that runs to a grand total of around 70. So either

1. The total number of scientists in the world is 140
2. The wiki list has missed off several tens of thousands of scientists, who dissent but keep quiet about it or
3. The 50-50 number is the same level of bollox as 'arctic ice is up' (as we approach maximum melt, this year will be the 2nd or 3rd lowest on record <- oooh look a recovery!).

Likewise the percentage of scientific organisations who disagree with the IPCC is not 50%, it is 0%. There really is practically no debate in the scientific community; they have moved on from is it happening? to how bad will it get? and what can we do about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...climate_change