O/T: The climate change scam

[MagpieTony]

Your link is nearly 10 years out of date!

Yes, it is. forgive me. Was in a rush this morning and posted something that I had received and didn't have time to look up when written, just saw the date at the top and posted. An interesting link regarding the 'Skeptical Science' site that was posted earlier.

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...l-science.html

This just goes to show the battle that is taking place to come to the truth which I think should be everyones objective, mine included. As I have stated previously, the only way the global climate change thing makes real sense to me at this current time is when viewed through the prism of world poliitics. Many of us will never have the acumen to understand the science side of it which makes it all the more important that we get to hear every side of the argument fully rather than just a selected and even adapted set of convenient appraisals which have been ring fenced from the critical exposure of other leading figures in the field.

[BigFatPie]

Yes, it is. forgive me. Was in a rush this morning and posted something that I had received and didn't have time to look up when written, just saw the date at the top and posted. An interesting link regarding the 'Skeptical Science' site that was posted earlier.

http://www.populartechnology.net/201...l-science.html

This just goes to show the battle that is taking place to come to the truth which I think should be everyones objective, mine included. As I have stated previously, the only way the global climate change thing makes real sense to me at this current time is when viewed through the prism of world poliitics. Many of us will never have the acumen to understand the science side of it which makes it all the more important that we get to hear every side of the argument fully rather than just a selected and even adapted set of convenient appraisals which have been ring fenced from the critical exposure of other leading figures in the field.

That final sentence is a work of art.

[drillerpie]

I’ve just finished Tony’s film. It’s quite compelling and has well-qualified guests, but also shows signs of being a ‘pseudo’-documentary (not a single contrasting voice was given right to reply on any of the points at any time during the entire film).

To summarise: They’re trying to make you feel guilty but don’t – people used to skate on the Thames and have vineyards in Central London. It was very hot in medieval times.

There is correlation between CO2 levels and temperature but it’s not causal.

There is correlation between solar activity and CO2 levels and it is causal.

Conventional climate science was born out of an unholy alliance between Mrs Thatcher who wanted to **** the miners over, and neo-Marxists who wanted to destroy capitalism.

If you don’t have a climate change angle to your research project you won’t get any government funding for it. The climate change ‘industry’ sustains tens of thousands of jobs and, y’know, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Scientists who oppose conventional climate science on the other hand are conviction-driven martyrs, and anyway there is hardly any funding for climate scientists from the fossil fuel sector. Ten seconds later we are told that one of the talking heads’ research project is partly funded by, ahem, the fossil fuel sector.

Sea levels will be fine because historical evidence shows that ice in Greenland didn’t melt even when temperatures we high 1000 years ago. Next guest – OK glaciers are melting but, melting glaciers are nothing to worry about, relax.

Global warming = fewer storms, apparently.

Sad doctor in Africa with solar panel on his roof has to choose between turning the fridge on or turning the lights on. Earnest and hardworking African mother cooks on a wood fire in her hut exposing her child to smoke.

Meanwhile, complacent elites descend on Africa for a conference on global warming.

I’ll give my reaction to it in a seperate post.

[drillerpie]

I’ve just finished Tony’s film. It’s quite compelling and has well-qualified guests, but also shows signs of being a ‘pseudo’-documentary (not a single contrasting voice was given right to reply on any of the points at any time during the entire film).

To summarise: They’re trying to make you feel guilty but don’t – people used to skate on the Thames and have vineyards in Central London. It was very hot in medieval times.

There is correlation between CO2 levels and temperature but it’s not causal.

There is correlation between solar activity and CO2 levels and it is causal.

Conventional climate science was born out of an unholy alliance between Mrs Thatcher who wanted to **** the miners over, and neo-Marxists who wanted to destroy capitalism.

If you don’t have a climate change angle to your research project you won’t get any government funding for it. The climate change ‘industry’ sustains tens of thousands of jobs and, y’know, turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.

Scientists who oppose conventional climate science on the other hand are conviction-driven martyrs, and anyway there is hardly any funding for climate scientists from the fossil fuel sector. Ten seconds later we are told that one of the talking heads’ research project is partly funded by, ahem, the fossil fuel sector.

Sea levels will be fine because historical evidence shows that ice in Greenland didn’t melt even when temperatures we high 1000 years ago. Next guest – OK glaciers are melting but, melting glaciers are nothing to worry about, relax.

Global warming = fewer storms, apparently.

Sad doctor in Africa with solar panel on his roof has to choose between turning the fridge on or turning the lights on. Earnest and hardworking African mother cooks on a wood fire in her hut exposing her child to smoke.

Meanwhile, complacent elites descend on Africa for a conference on global warming.

I’ll give my reaction to it in a seperate post.

As I said before the first problem I have with this film is that no dissenting voices were interviewed to put counterpoints to the narrative. Apart from being a surefire sign of propaganda, I actually thought it hindered my understanding of the subject. I would have liked to have listened to a debate about certain points not just to be proved right but because I found them interesting (solar activity for example).

The guests seemed to be extremely well qualified but again we didn’t hear from anyone else to be able to compare their qualifications and experience. These guys have PhDs and have won awards so their argument is convincing, but the people who disagree with them almost certainly have PhDs and awards and there are a lot more of them, which brings us on to the subject of consensus. This reminds me of a circular argument I used to have about 9/11 with an ex-girlfriend who was a big conspiracy theory fan. She used to say that it was an inside job because an engineer with a Nobel Prize said it was (no idea if that’s true or not) and I used to say that there are loads of people with Nobel Prizes and if only one is saying it was an inside job that means most Nobel Prize winning engineers don’t think it was an inside job. Repeat ad infinitum.
A lot was made of the financial support given to conventional climate change scientists while very little was made of where funding for scientists who deny man-made climate change comes from. They lined the talking heads up to deny receiving funding from nasty multinationals but I would expect a proper documentary to give me some concrete figures and analysis of how much oil companies spend on this kind of thing rather than anecdotal evidence.
I strongly doubt that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions really the only reason a woman in rural Africa is not hooked up to the grid.

And now to the elephant in the room. If some of themes in this film sound familiar (bloated self-serving and out of touch elite, heroic little guy campaigning for freedom, naïve liberals and insidious neo-Marxists, corrupt and overbearing big-government, lack of clarity over origins of funding) it’s because it was written and directed by the man who made Brexit – The Movie. Obviously everyone can make their own minds up about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but I would say that it doesn’t make him an objective journalist, and I urge people not to reach a conclusion before reading the rebuttals of his claims (and in some cases the accuracy of his data) that can be found online.

[MagpieTony]

As I said before the first problem I have with this film is that no dissenting voices were interviewed to put counterpoints to the narrative. Apart from being a surefire sign of propaganda, I actually thought it hindered my understanding of the subject. I would have liked to have listened to a debate about certain points not just to be proved right but because I found them interesting (solar activity for example).

The guests seemed to be extremely well qualified but again we didn’t hear from anyone else to be able to compare their qualifications and experience. These guys have PhDs and have won awards so their argument is convincing, but the people who disagree with them almost certainly have PhDs and awards and there are a lot more of them, which brings us on to the subject of consensus. This reminds me of a circular argument I used to have about 9/11 with an ex-girlfriend who was a big conspiracy theory fan. She used to say that it was an inside job because an engineer with a Nobel Prize said it was (no idea if that’s true or not) and I used to say that there are loads of people with Nobel Prizes and if only one is saying it was an inside job that means most Nobel Prize winning engineers don’t think it was an inside job. Repeat ad infinitum.
A lot was made of the financial support given to conventional climate change scientists while very little was made of where funding for scientists who deny man-made climate change comes from. They lined the talking heads up to deny receiving funding from nasty multinationals but I would expect a proper documentary to give me some concrete figures and analysis of how much oil companies spend on this kind of thing rather than anecdotal evidence.
I strongly doubt that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions really the only reason a woman in rural Africa is not hooked up to the grid.

And now to the elephant in the room. If some of themes in this film sound familiar (bloated self-serving and out of touch elite, heroic little guy campaigning for freedom, naïve liberals and insidious neo-Marxists, corrupt and overbearing big-government, lack of clarity over origins of funding) it’s because it was written and directed by the man who made Brexit – The Movie. Obviously everyone can make their own minds up about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but I would say that it doesn’t make him an objective journalist, and I urge people not to reach a conclusion before reading the rebuttals of his claims (and in some cases the accuracy of his data) that can be found online.

Great analysis Driller. Thank you. I share your frustration that all that seems to be available is articles/videos etc that solely seek to justify their own particular stance. I would have thought that the objective of scientific research was to discover truth. The closed circles on this issue seem to defy this. It appears that the two conflicting views are more intent on protecting their stances than they are in collaborating to reach, through research and scientific analysis, a mutual conclusion. Both sides of the debate are represented by a professional array of experts and I would have thought whatever their views were, they would welcome critical analysis from their peers. This doesn't seem to be the case and there is almost a protectionist attitude which to me, seems to go against the very principles of scientific research.

[ncfcog]

As I said before the first problem I have with this film is that no dissenting voices were interviewed to put counterpoints to the narrative. Apart from being a surefire sign of propaganda, I actually thought it hindered my understanding of the subject. I would have liked to have listened to a debate about certain points not just to be proved right but because I found them interesting (solar activity for example).

The guests seemed to be extremely well qualified but again we didn’t hear from anyone else to be able to compare their qualifications and experience. These guys have PhDs and have won awards so their argument is convincing, but the people who disagree with them almost certainly have PhDs and awards and there are a lot more of them, which brings us on to the subject of consensus. This reminds me of a circular argument I used to have about 9/11 with an ex-girlfriend who was a big conspiracy theory fan. She used to say that it was an inside job because an engineer with a Nobel Prize said it was (no idea if that’s true or not) and I used to say that there are loads of people with Nobel Prizes and if only one is saying it was an inside job that means most Nobel Prize winning engineers don’t think it was an inside job. Repeat ad infinitum.
A lot was made of the financial support given to conventional climate change scientists while very little was made of where funding for scientists who deny man-made climate change comes from. They lined the talking heads up to deny receiving funding from nasty multinationals but I would expect a proper documentary to give me some concrete figures and analysis of how much oil companies spend on this kind of thing rather than anecdotal evidence.
I strongly doubt that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions really the only reason a woman in rural Africa is not hooked up to the grid.

And now to the elephant in the room. If some of themes in this film sound familiar (bloated self-serving and out of touch elite, heroic little guy campaigning for freedom, naïve liberals and insidious neo-Marxists, corrupt and overbearing big-government, lack of clarity over origins of funding) it’s because it was written and directed by the man who made Brexit – The Movie. Obviously everyone can make their own minds up about whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, but I would say that it doesn’t make him an objective journalist, and I urge people not to reach a conclusion before reading the rebuttals of his claims (and in some cases the accuracy of his data) that can be found online.

Great post, if nothing else you always appear to consider both arguments which I find refreshing. So are we to assume that the jury is still out on mankind’s impact on climate change from your perspective?

[Old_pie]

I strongly doubt that efforts to reduce CO2 emissions really the only reason a woman in rural Africa is not hooked up to the grid.

Their argument was more I think that there was lack of willingness to support the use of natural resources to produce the cheap power on which the West was built.

When they did the doctor and his clinic my first thought was - well put in another solar panel. But then of course that wouldn't provide light or power for the refrigerator at night so they'd need some more and store the electricity in batteries for overnight use. But a couple of overcast days would leave them short again and so we go on and on until we end up at the only logical solution for long term pollution free and environmentally friendly power, nuclear.

As I said earlier, I just want more clear facts and less rhetoric. I guess there must be some very detailed studies of the compelling solar activity issue which potentially dwarfs all else.

I despair at the current generation's set of leaders to grasp the nettle, and from what I see of the youth of today then there's no chance of getting it right for their future. I won't be around to see the mess.

[Old_pie]

Great analysis Driller. Thank you. I share your frustration that all that seems to be available is articles/videos etc that solely seek to justify their own particular stance. I would have thought that the objective of scientific research was to discover truth. The closed circles on this issue seem to defy this. It appears that the two conflicting views are more intent on protecting their stances than they are in collaborating to reach, through research and scientific analysis, a mutual conclusion. Both sides of the debate are represented by a professional array of experts and I would have thought whatever their views were, they would welcome critical analysis from their peers. This doesn't seem to be the case and there is almost a protectionist attitude which to me, seems to go against the very principles of scientific research.

Without being a student of history what bit I've come across is that there is little objectiveness in scientific research whereby scientists, mathematicians, the church, doctors have all taken polarized views to the point of being zealots instead of what one would have hoped, a cold analytical view.

I recall when penguins were first observed trying to mate with one of their dead the scientists refused to publish their findings as necrophilia was deemed immoral. Never mind that this was being observed in nature and never mind that when it was investigated further it seemed likely that the penguin didn't know its intended mate was dead.

[matt5cott]

I recall when penguins were first observed trying to mate with one of their dead the scientists refused to publish their findings as necrophilia was deemed immoral. Never mind that this was being observed in nature and never mind that when it was investigated further it seemed likely that the penguin didn't know its intended mate was dead.

I didn't know that, unfortunately plenty gets swept under the carpet presumably because it's not deemed "palatable" like Mozart being into scat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology

[drillerpie]

Great post, if nothing else you always appear to consider both arguments which I find refreshing. So are we to assume that the jury is still out on mankind’s impact on climate change from your perspective?

Hi Ncfcog, glad you appreciated it.

No quite the opposite, I tend to trust the consensus reached by experts (very unfashionable these days I know) and the more I dig into the background of this film the more doubts I have about it.

From a layman's perspective I would say that if there is any doubt about climate change being man-made we should still err on the side of caution as the alternative is quite literally catastrophic, a point of view the film seeks to discredit but which seems perfectly sensible to me.