Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Total Power]

This BS line again??

Last time you took this route I responded with #5,840 and you went silent. Care to respond to it now?

Also, while you're at it you could respond to #2,951. It wasn't specifically directed at you but I'm curious as to your thoughts.

I wasn't silent, i didn't bother reading your posts as they are as predictable as it comes, i have read it now and nothing has changed. I do not think you understand law at all. Just "ex employee " for exxon doesn't disqualify a person, it depends what "interest" he has with Exxon as of now. Is he paid by exxon? or exxon funds IPCC? he was an economist for exxon. Classic strawman argument from you. Exxon funding climate denial studies and an ex-exxon employee holding the chair of IPCC is not the same thing. He was an economist, he had no stakes in exxon, unlike the heartland institute and Koch brothers who hold several stakes in the oil and gas industry. I do not think you understand what conflict of interest means actually. This is the reason why i didn't reply to you in the first place, keep those fossil fuel funded bs studies coming but don't waste my time

 

[Crankitup]

.... doesn't disqualify a person, it depends what "interest" he has with Exxon as of now. .... keep those fossil fuel funded bs studies coming but don't waste my time

Exxon hasn't funded anyone espousing a skeptical position on climate change since 2008 (i.e. more than a decade). When it did it was chicken feed compared to the millions that people like Phil Jones received (£13.7 million from grants alone at the point Climategate erupted and exposed his funding).

 

[Bradesmaen]

View attachment 823603

View attachment 823605

Big night on the sauce old chap?

 

[Total Power]

From here.




The last one (Royal Dutch Shell) was WWF's first donor. It was a big one too and they funded them for the next 4 decades.

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/04/11/the-wwfs-vast-pool-of-oil-money/

Not to mention the billions of dollars in tax that Chevron and Exxon pay each year, some of which would obviously make it's way into the pockets of at least some of the alarmists through grants and government salaries. I wonder how they feel about all this 'dirty' money?

LOL why pick from a low hanging tree? you are getting more and more desperate.

They've never had any credibility!!! The WWF never had a soul. It was founded by big game hunters for the perpetuation of their ‘sport’ and has continued to elect the royals as its president ever since. Prince Philip is a liar. He shot various forms of big game on numerous occasions

The World Wildlife Fund, an organisation funded by the Rockefellers, has always been steeped in eugenics and Malthusian ideology. There's a good piece that looked at this in Forbes magazine a couple of years back.

One of the WWF's founders was a former member of the SS, the honourable Nazi Prince Bernhard.

Here's a pic of WWF's former president, Prince Philip posing with a dead tiger in India in 1961 (the year the organisation was founded in part in order to protect dwindling numbers of Indian tigers). He shot the animal himself.

another 'President of Honor' of the WWF was his Majesty King Juan Carlos I of Spain. Here's a pic of him posing with a dead African elephant in 2012 (quite an accomplishment considering how few there are left in the world now).


WWF just a money making machine to line the pockets of those who run it.

 

[Total Power]

View attachment 823608

Exxon hasn't funded anyone espousing a skeptical position on climate change since 2008 (i.e. more than a decade). When it did it was chicken feed compared to the millions that people like Phil Jones received (£13.7 million from grants alone at the point Climategate erupted and exposed his funding).

Sauce?

Analysis of ExxonMobil Worldwide Contributions and Community Investments reports and ExxonMobil Foundation 990 tax forms reveals that Exxon continues to fund climate denier groups. Between 1998-2014, Exxon gave over $30 million to such groups (Source: Greenpeace and Union of Concerned Scientists). Since 2007, ExxonMobil has also donated $1.87 million to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change.

Why is ExxonMobil Still Funding Climate Science Denier Groups?

A decade after pledging to end its support for climate science deniers, ExxonMobil gave $1.5 million last year to 11 think tanks and lobby groups that reject established climate science and openly oppose the oil and gas giant’s professed climate policy preferences, according to the company’s annual

blog.ucsusa.org

On top of that EVERY single research you and Snek post has some link to the fossil fuel industry or far right tinfoil hat sites. I have completely exposed Snek posting links from UKIP politicians posing a climate change scienitst, no wonder he never post his sources. As i said, please don't waste my time and now you understand why i don't reply to you

 

[mcnulty]

Since local (or relative) sea level changes are affected by global sea level fluctuations how many more references to sea levels of ~2m higher than present do you want to see to be convinced? Will another dozen do? Maybe 20?

Since you've had comprehension issues before I'll come at this from another angle. The ocean is one continuous body of water tending to seek roughly similar levels throughout the world. It's true that winds, ocean currents and other local factors will prevent every place from having exactly the same level. However, if 30 recent studies examining sea levels 4000-8000 years ago from diverse places across the earth including India, Australia, the US, Thailand, Europe etc show levels metres higher than present, it's safe to assume levels were higher around the world than now even if the relative height differences may vary from place to place.

Ok, to be fair I did read the abstract of the first one your references. It (your reference) concludes with this:

“Since then, relative sea levels fell until the onset of the Industrial Revolution.”

So without bothering to delve deeper, it seems to conclude that the sea level in that particular area of Thailand is on the rise again. Since the industrial revolution. Now what could that possibly be down to...

If Holocene era sea levels were higher in some places than now it doesn’t change the fact that current sea levels are rising, and projected to continue to rise. And in the absence of orbital or solar factors it’s on us.

 

[mcnulty]

And on an earlier point (and something for oyster farmers to consider) global sea level rises are actually very uneven.

The Secret of Sea Level Rise: It Will Vary Greatly By Region

As the world warms, sea levels could easily rise three to six feet this century. But increases will vary widely by region, with prevailing winds, powerful ocean currents, and even the gravitational pull of the polar ice sheets determining whether some coastal areas will be inundated while others...

e360.yale.edu

 

[mcnulty]

Exxon hasn't funded anyone espousing a skeptical position on climate change since 2008

Wait...what?!?!!

 

[mcnulty]

To be even fairer seeing I’m laid up this weekend I’ve had an even closer look. To truly understand local sea levels you need consider the eustatic (overall) water content and what‘s called global isostatic adjustment, relative movements of the earths crust in relation to the oceans. Fascinating but very complex stuff.

Holocene sea levels in Southeast Asia, Maldives, India and Sri Lanka: The SEAMIS database

We assembled a database of Holocene relative sea-level index points (nâ¯=â¯213) and marine (nâ¯=â¯211) and terrestrial (nâ¯=â¯122) limiting points for the bâ¦

www.sciencedirect.com

The “Haloscene high stand” as it is called seems to involve a good deal of the latter. The second article you linked explicitly mentions this. The third refers to “tectonically corrected” sea levels but as there is only an abstract to go by I’m not sure if this is referring to the same thing. The fourth makes no attribution (again abstract only) and the fifth attributes it to coastal progradation due onshore erosion.

As I said interesting and very complex stuff, but doesn’t hide the fact that sea levels are currently rising, and it’s human induced.

 

[trawlerman]

Some of the world's leading climate change skeptics are paid by coal and oil companies.
Apart from cranks and paid stooges, is there anyone in the world who uses scientific facts to support their argument that climate change and global warning don't exist without exchange payments from ExxonMobil, Chevron or Chinese coal?

 

[Deliverance]

Some of the world's leading climate change skeptics are paid by coal and oil companies.
Apart from cranks and paid stooges, is there anyone in the world who uses scientific facts to support their argument that climate change and global warning don't exist without exchange payments from ExxonMobil, Chevron or Chinese coal?

There are some that don't use facts at all.

30sec mark


4:05 mark

 

[Bazzar]

There are some that don't use facts at all.

30sec mark


4:05 mark

What an appalling stitch-up that garbage Q&A offered up. Its a perfect example why the ABC should be privatised and not tax payer funded.

 

[Deliverance]

What an appalling stitch-up that garbage Q&A offered up. Its a perfect example why the ABC should be privatised and not tax payer funded.

More a disgrace that our elected officials don't seek evidence when making decisions effecting millions of people. Guys like him just look to win their next election. We really need to cap politicians at two terms in this country.

 

[Leeda]

Notification... no where have I said that I condone violence.. norhav that is norwegian for get out of my face...
gonna ad lib and everyone else is going to be ripe for dubious notification...

 

[Leeda]

More a disgrace that our elected officials don't seek evidence when making decisions effecting millions of people. Guys like him just look to win their next election. We really need to cap politicians at two terms in this country.

these things are always being shown up to be a crock...

 

[Deaneus!]

Arguments from Global Warming Skeptics and what the science really says

Examines the science and arguments of global warming skepticism. Common objections like 'global warming is caused by the sun', 'temperature has changed naturally in the past' or 'other planets are warming too' are examined to see what the science really says.

skepticalscience.com

 

[Ron The Bear]

Australian scientists close to developing holy grail of clean energy (paywalled)

Australian scientists are tantalisingly close to developing the holy grail of clean energy, using high-powered lasers to fuse boron and hydrogen atoms together to generate electricity without any emissions or toxic waste.

A team of scientists at the University of NSW is developing the hydrogen-boron fusion technology, which is said to hold the promise of limitless, cheap baseload electricity with virtually no carbon dioxide emissions and zero radioactive waste. The only waste product is helium.

The pioneer of the technology, Heinrich Hora, said: “The clean and absolutely safe reactor can be placed within densely populated areas, with no possibility of a catastrophic meltdown such as that which has been seen with nuclear fission reactors.” Boron is cheap and naturally abundant, with sufficient known reserves to power the world for thousands of years.

Patents for the technology have been granted in the US, Japan and China to UNSW spin-out company HB11 Energy.

Stay calm, be patient and give technology a chance to come up with the answers.

 

[This Is Anfield]

Australian scientists close to developing holy grail of clean energy (paywalled)


Stay calm, be patient and give technology a chance to come up with the answers.

 

[Kwality]

Posted elsewhere, so won't double post. Seems like there are about 3 threads with almost exactly the same discussion going on.

Australia's policy on climate change is completely inconsequential

You why go on tour with that comedy act. Because i'm not chanting the matra about the national KPI's its funny? What was wrong with my suggestion regarding low emmission steel production in Australia?

www.bigfooty.com

Bit of the paralysis of analysis:

Infosurhoy Latest Science NEWS and REPORTS | Infosurhoy

Latest news in United States. Infosurhoy covers news from U.S, Canada, U.K and Australia. Daily Wires, Science, Technology and Entertainment is the main news categories of Infosurhoy.

infosurhoy.com

 

[Kwality]

More a disgrace that our elected officials don't seek evidence when making decisions effecting millions of people. Guys like him just look to win their next election. We really need to cap politicians at two terms in this country.

Possibly Molan is looking thru his glasses not yours. Those challenged by what he said could use less scoffing & a big dose of introspection.
Those seeking to speak over him before he finished what he was saying are the equivalent of an Issy on religious views, bloody idiots unable to respect the views of others.

 

[Deliverance]

Australian scientists close to developing holy grail of clean energy (paywalled)


Stay calm, be patient and give technology a chance to come up with the answers.

This is pretty much the only direction the conversation should be heading really. Solutions to the problem. Kudos Ron

 

[JackOutback]

Australian scientists close to developing holy grail of clean energy (paywalled)


Stay calm, be patient and give technology a chance to come up with the answers.

Its is advisable to minimise damage while awaiting solutions.

 

[Kwality]

Its is advisable to minimise damage while awaiting solutions.

The (cheaper?) power prices we've (not?) experienced have damaged too many household budgets.
But I do agree with you Jack, minimise damage, e.g:

Power woes amp up post-coal fears at Tomago

'Firmed' renewable energy supply isn't nearly cheap enough to replace coal for smelters, says Tomago Aluminium chief Matt Howell.

www.afr.com

 

[Ron The Bear]

Its is advisable to minimise damage while awaiting solutions.

It's a matter of degree. There will always be a faction demanding austerity measures, effective immediately.

 

[Bollox]

Do you understand the basic difference between scientific and anecdotal evidence?

You're asking this of the other bloke ? After the blind ignorance you've been spouting ?

Been a cpl of guys in here close to the mark re sea levels, and seemingly trying to stick to what we KNOW rather than feeding a story, or what others might want to hear.

Based on what you've been writing the last few pages, its obvious that you should at least try to keep your mind open instead of arguing with them.

Tip of the Day:
If you don't know s**t about a topic, it is immediately obvious. Wearing floaties on your arms and attempting to dog paddle your way down the pool with a megaphone is also obvious.

If you don't know something, next time just ask.