Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[JackOutback]

What, you don't think we criticise Soros and his ilk too?

I knew it was the rich Jews. Even when it was Greta, it was the rich Jews.

The veneer really is quite thin.

 

[M Malice]

IMO we should all assume the fetal position and kiss our ass's goodbye.

Let the planet start afresh and in a few billion years the next homo sapiens may do a better job.

 

[ChampRevesby]

 

[FPPF]

Ah, good old Prof Seitz, co-founder of the GMI. The 'Conservative think tank,' or more exactly, a front for Big Oil.

Also attacked the science on the danger of smoking, pesticide use, CFC's. A really 'unbiased' corporate warrior that one.

Conflicted, most definitely

Yes, everything is a front for big oil. So it can't be trusted.

But everything you agree with, isn't a front for anything, so we should trust it.

 

[Power Raid]

I do have to laugh at this. We’ve spent about 20 years building monoliths that require air conditioning to be livable, both McMansions and high rises.

What is sad is, if we spent a little time thinking about housing designs we would shed our heating and cooling costs.

Large North facing windows, mono pitch rooves, east west breeze ways, concrete floors, sub surface air intakes for ventilation and insulation.

 

[woota]

OMG I'm dying! LOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Corpuscles]

The question is, why are David Attenborough's parents pushing him into making public comments on climate change?

Well, they are extremely rare and very special fossils, who have already been through one major extinction event.

Either that, or Brexit?

They had a son who has no particular science training whatsoever, but remarkably (long pause) ,has seen the world many times over and has noticed more than a few things!

 

[madmug]

Yes, everything is a front for big oil. So it can't be trusted.

But everything you agree with, isn't a front for anything, so we should trust it.

Please tell me who the mass of Scientists involved in Climate research are aligned to?

 

[Power Raid]

Quick question for our Greta Thunberg haters:

99% of climate scientists say climate change is real and the consequence are dire, you should be alarmed.
You say, yeah nah, I want more proof, I'm not taking the word of no climate scientist, who do they think they are, experts on climate?

16 year old girl gives speech on climate change.
You: alarm bells, George Soros, the left & various other right wing nut jobbery theories.

So the question is:

Why do you get alarmed about a 16 year old girl giving speech but you're not alarmed by expert opinion?

I’d suggest 99% of scientists and people believe in climate change

99% of scientists and people believe humans have an impact.

What is in debate is
- how much humans have an impact.
- What the solution, that actually work, are.
- What the consequences are.

I’d also highlight 99% of scientists would suggest the consequences are dire.


I also find it interesting that those waiving their arms the most about climate change support technologies that are proven to not deliver 40g/kWh.

So is climate change just an excuse for renewables and the health of the planet not really matter?


In addition we have a really simple way of reducing net CO2, create billions for indigenous and regions, displace banking and look after the environment, atmosphere and farm lands.

Yet this concept is ignored by many and the ABC engages in misleading and deceptive conduct relating to this endeavour.

 

[Chief]

Climate Denial: a $billion industry using tactics from the tobacco industry.

According to Brulle's research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues.​

...​

​

Now, what you can see in the movement itself is that it has two real roots. One is in the conservative movement itself, in that you see a lot of conservative foundations that had been funding the growth of the conservative movement all along now appear as funding the climate countermovement. You also can see dedicated industry foundations that come in to start funding the climate countermovement.​

​

So it’s kind of a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.​

​

What you see is the tactics that this movement uses were developed and tested in the tobacco industry first, and now they’re being applied to the climate change movement, and in fact, some of the same people and some of the same organizations that were involved in the tobacco issue are also involved in climate change.​

Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...enial-movement-180948204/#Brj2ZpUe7KLMpUp7.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[Craven Morehead]

In addition we have a really simple way of reducing net CO2, create billions for indigenous and regions, displace banking and look after the environment, atmosphere and farm lands.

Expand on this please?

 

[Power Raid]

Expand on this please?

Craven, is your land holding in WA?

I can’t give too much away as I’m under CA but the opportunity represents $140m - $280m profit per annum from year four for 25 years on 240,000 ha

I dare say what the government is seeking to be done, every significant land holder (cattle, indigenous, farmer) will have a life changing windfall.

I’m pumping $30m into this, to disclose my interest

 

[Craven Morehead]

Craven, is your land holding in WA?

I can’t give too much away as I’m under CA but the opportunity represents $140m - $280m profit per annum from year four for 25 years on 240,000 ha

I dare say what the government is seeking to be done, every significant land holder (cattle, indigenous, farmer) will have a life changing windfall.

I’m pumping $30m into this, to disclose my interest

No, I'm on freehold land in Qld...with some state govt leases.

However you are clearly referring to WA pastoral land, ( where I have a small interest), and where i sell bulls to yearly and have long term friends.

The numbers you are quoting make absolutely no sense at all.

 

[Lebbo73]

See

Seeds, that's the pot calling the kettle black. You clearly need to call this



I have heard it helped both Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devive, so it may be of help to you.

Now the science bit. There is no doubt the earth is warming and the sea level rising faster than 150 years ago - 1.5mm per year then, 3.2 mm per year now. Good solid data, so an undisputable fact that even the most simple can understand.

The question then becomes what is it due to? The Greenhouse gas effect has been known for centuries, and in the 1970's many scientists (including Exxons!) started to worry the rise in CO2 that was happening then could lead to global warming. The rising CO2 correlates well with rising temperatures and particularly the rate in rise, which is unprecedented in the paleoclimatology of our planet.

So we have a good correlation between CO2, which from experiment we know is a powerful greenhouse gas, but could it be something else? Water vapour is a powerful green house gas but it essentially stable and kept that way over time because of the water cycle. So it's not that. Could it be Methane? Probably a yes to some degree but thought less so in magnitude. Is it the sun? No, because the suns been quiet of late.

So after thousands of studies there is no other major culprit except CO2.

What does predictive computer modelling show us? Mainstream models actually have modelled events close to what has happed, despite the deniers saying they have been wrong.

So, Seeds, you ask us to believe the science. The science says the recent global warming is caused by human activity, mostly related to the release of green house gases and the largest contributor is CO2.

That's all poor old Greta is asking you to do, believe the scientists over the Murdoch press and other shills.

Do not say 'the climate has always changed' because that is a truism that in this context is irrelevant. The climate has never heated up as fast.

Do not say 'CO2 is plant food', again a truism, a deflection and disinformation. it's a poison to animals, it's our waste. Go stick your head in an atmosphere infused with a piddly little 2% C02 and see how long you live.

Do not pretend ther is any real scientific opposition to the concept of AGW. Those brave 500 souls who recently sent there deniers document to the UN are not climate scientists or scientists at all. They are Hugh Morgan, Senator Moron Roberts, countless geologists, PR and business people employed mostly by the fossil fuel industry or with links with it. Good old Guus who started it is a petrochemical engineer for Shell.

Now you’re just being blatantly deceptive or dishonest. CO2 levels were 0.02% of gases in the atmosphere and are now 0.04%. Where did the 2% come from?

 

[Power Raid]

No, I'm on freehold land in Qld...with some state govt leases.

However you are clearly referring to WA pastoral land, ( where I have a small interest), and where i sell bulls to yearly and have long term friends.

The numbers you are quoting make absolutely no sense at all.

The answer to the $s just highlights the price attached to carbon is out of sync from reality

 

[Craven Morehead]

The answer to the $s just highlights the price attached to carbon is out of sync from reality

That wasn't an answer.

 

[madmug]

Climate Denial: a $billion industry using tactics from the tobacco industry.

According to Brulle's research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues.​

...​

​

Now, what you can see in the movement itself is that it has two real roots. One is in the conservative movement itself, in that you see a lot of conservative foundations that had been funding the growth of the conservative movement all along now appear as funding the climate countermovement. You also can see dedicated industry foundations that come in to start funding the climate countermovement.​

​

So it’s kind of a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.​

​

What you see is the tactics that this movement uses were developed and tested in the tobacco industry first, and now they’re being applied to the climate change movement, and in fact, some of the same people and some of the same organizations that were involved in the tobacco issue are also involved in climate change.​

View attachment 757946
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...enial-movement-180948204/#Brj2ZpUe7KLMpUp7.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Thank you.

I shall print this & stick it on my fridge door.

A couple of my friends who are political RWNJ's will see it as they reach in for another beer. Talk about rising temperatures, they'll go scarlet & choke on their Cascade Pale Ale over it.!

I'll tell them, its just a 'scientific' conversation piece.

 

[Number37]

I’d suggest 99% of scientists and people believe in climate change

99% of scientists and people believe humans have an impact.

What is in debate is
- how much humans have an impact.
- What the solution, that actually work, are.
- What the consequences are.

I’d also highlight 99% of scientists would suggest the consequences are dire.


I also find it interesting that those waiving their arms the most about climate change support technologies that are proven to not deliver 40g/kWh.

So is climate change just an excuse for renewables and the health of the planet not really matter?


In addition we have a really simple way of reducing net CO2, create billions for indigenous and regions, displace banking and look after the environment, atmosphere and farm lands.

Yet this concept is ignored by many and the ABC engages in misleading and deceptive conduct relating to this endeavour.

Not only solve climate change but displace banking and create $$ for indigenous issues & regions.

Do you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true?

 

[Power Raid]

Not only solve climate change but displace banking and create $$ for indigenous issues & regions.

Do you know what they say about things that sound too good to be true?

Don’t shoot the messenger

I’m only passing on the word of scientists. Arguably Australia’s premier science organisations.

Or does their word only mean something sometimes?

 

[Power Raid]

That wasn't an answer.

I’m under CA.

I’m also limited to WA until next Tuesday and Qld will be introduced but it’s a silo opportunity (the finance definition rather than the farming)..

 

[Number37]

Don’t shoot the messenger

I’m only passing on the word of scientists. Arguably Australia’s premier science organisations.

Or does their word only mean something sometimes?

I haven't actually read the word of arguably Australia's premier science organisations on this matter.
I've read yours.
Are you arguably Australia's premier science organisation?

 

[Craven Morehead]

I’m under CA.

I’m also limited to WA until next Tuesday and Qld will be introduced but it’s a silo opportunity (the finance definition rather than the farming)..

Ok then son, I'll look forward to this fanciful announcement on Tuesday.

lol.

 

[Groin guru]

Climate Denial: a $billion industry using tactics from the tobacco industry.

According to Brulle's research, the 91 think tanks and advocacy organizations and trade associations that make up the American climate denial industry pull down just shy of a billion dollars each year, money used to lobby or sway public opinion on climate change and other issues.​

...​

​

Now, what you can see in the movement itself is that it has two real roots. One is in the conservative movement itself, in that you see a lot of conservative foundations that had been funding the growth of the conservative movement all along now appear as funding the climate countermovement. You also can see dedicated industry foundations that come in to start funding the climate countermovement.​

​

So it’s kind of a combination of both industry and conservative philanthropies that are funding this process, and what they did was they borrowed a great deal of the strategy and tactics that came out of the tobacco industry’s efforts to prevent action on the health impacts of smoking.​

​

What you see is the tactics that this movement uses were developed and tested in the tobacco industry first, and now they’re being applied to the climate change movement, and in fact, some of the same people and some of the same organizations that were involved in the tobacco issue are also involved in climate change.​

View attachment 757946
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...enial-movement-180948204/#Brj2ZpUe7KLMpUp7.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Just as much deceit coming from the other side and lets not pretend all of a sudden that big money isn't plumbing up the other side. Open the other eye Chied

Professor Mann refuses to provide his data for public scrutiny. The hockey stick graph's accuracy has long been contested but instead of showing the data Mann opts to sue for defamation. He knows full well that if the data is analysed and is wrong it will ruin his career and the millions of funding he's received since. The same graph was featured in 'An Inconvenient Truth'. I'm not saying he's lied but when a lot of money + policies ride on your data you should provide that transparency. It is part of the reason why journals are asking researchers to provide their data set to give it that extra bit of transparency. We've seen researchers win big throughout their career by manipulating data only for it to come out decades later as lies.

It's no real surprise when money is at stake. Any researcher knows that if you do a study and you have results that are statistically significant = win. Find nothing = shit. Journals even play a role in that and often don't want to publish a study that doesn't show anything worthwhile (publication bias) and results in 'The file drawer problem'

Global Warming Hoax EXPOSED! — 'Hockey Stick' Graph Creator Loses Major Lawsuit, Must Pay Defendant's Legal Fees

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the famous (infamous?) “hockey stick graph” that global warming nuts have used to show global temperatures rose during the time period when man began using fossil fuels that were releasing CO2 or Carbon Dioxide into the atmosp

www.davidharrisjr.com

Climate change = big $$$. 359 billion in 2012. The same in 2011.

Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

This is very true:

This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate it. If you are a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion-dollar grant.

"Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is getting worse, not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had such minuscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down industrial production."

Climate Change Investment Totals USD $359 Billion Worldwide - CPI

– The most comprehensive inventory of climate finance to-date shows investment is far short of the need, and falling further behind each year – Public sector played a central role, private investment provided the lion’s share of finance – Most investment was domestic; less finance flowed between...

climatepolicyinitiative.org

 

[Chief]

Last year, PBS talked to Brulle about his investigation into the climate change countermovement. The project, says Brulle, is the first part of three: in the future he'll turn a similar eye to the climate movement and to the environmental movement. But for now, the focus is on the deniers.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...enial-movement-180948204/#BzGB88mitOjL3qmK.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

 

[Groin guru]

Last year, PBS talked to Brulle about his investigation into the climate change countermovement. The project, says Brulle, is the first part of three: in the future he'll turn a similar eye to the climate movement and to the environmental movement. But for now, the focus is on the deniers.
Read more: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smar...enial-movement-180948204/#BzGB88mitOjL3qmK.99
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! http://bit.ly/1cGUiGv
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter

Good. I look forward to reading the response in part 1 vs. the response he receives in part 2.

He'll probably get death threats.