Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Chief]

View attachment 764274

What are you talking about?

 

[Snake_Baker]

This is where the popularity of an anti-science outlook (underpinning the fringes of the extreme left and right) is a real danger. The potential for technological solutions needs to be fully funded and explored.

I'll go as far to claiming that human ingenuity is the ONLY solution, and the rest of this garbage only serves as a counter productive distraction.

 

[Chief]

I'll go as far to claiming that human ingenuity is the ONLY solution, and the rest of this garbage only serves as a counter productive distraction.

Is it wrong then to campaign for the government to put more resources into finding solutions, which includes research done by bodies like the CSIRO and universities?

The whole sector needs an unreasonable amount of investment to make the big breakthroughs as well as the incremental improvements. Align the rewards with the goals through grants and R&D funding.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is it wrong then to campaign for the government to put more resources into finding solutions, which includes research done by bodies like the CSIRO and universities?

What percentage of this swarm of jazz ballet exponents are doing that?

Politics does far more to get in the way of progress than it does to assist it.

The whole sector needs an unreasonable amount of investment to make the big breakthroughs as well as the incremental improvements. Align the rewards with the goals through grants and R&D funding.

This problem is not hard to fix, and it doesn't require childish grand standing politics..

 

[Taylor]

I think there might be better results if the big money folk put up a $10 billion bounty for solutions.

They could even set up a council that could decide on part rewards for part works towards their goal.

 

[Kwality]

Is it wrong then to campaign for the government to put more resources into finding solutions, which includes research done by bodies like the CSIRO and universities?

The whole sector needs an unreasonable amount of investment to make the big breakthroughs as well as the incremental improvements. Align the rewards with the goals through grants and R&D funding.

Of course we should/will do more .... I nremember scoffing as clean coal a long time ago now.

Grants and R&D funding with real honest reporting. Isnt it happening, you want more?

 

[Chief]

I think there might be better results if the big money folk put up a $10 billion bounty for solutions.

They could even set up a council that could decide on part rewards for part works towards their goal.

Yes, bounties are a great way to go too.

 

[Chief]

What percentage of this swarm of jazz ballet exponents are doing that?

Politics does far more to get in the way of progress than it does to assist it.



This problem is not hard to fix, and it doesn't require childish grand standing politics..

While the federal government cuts the guts out of unis and CSIRO, maybe it does. Nothing else seems to have worked.

 

[Chief]

Predictably reaching for the moronic outrage vote.

Lift your game.

Lol you agreed with KAK and I’m the outrage merchant? :lol:

 

[woota]

^rofl

Where is craven morehead?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Fact check: Is the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu growing, and not sinking?

Coalition backbencher Craig Kelly says that the low-lying Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is growing, rather than sinking. Fact Check finds that checks out.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Leeda]

People can only do what they can do...Those that want will do..those who feel guilty will do something...
Those who cannot be f..c..ked will give you the equality of a jack s .h?it
The swearing is exceptional in this post don't u think.....

 

[Chief]

Fact check: Is the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu growing, and not sinking?

Coalition backbencher Craig Kelly says that the low-lying Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is growing, rather than sinking. Fact Check finds that checks out.

www.abc.net.au

Craig Kelly. Jesus.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Craig Kelly. Jesus.

I couldn't give a stuff if it was Idi Amin.

What part of FACT check don't you get?

 

[Chief]

I couldn't give a stuff if it was Idi Amin.

What part of FACT check don't you get?

Did YOU have a POINT you WANTED to MAKE with that FACT check?

 

[Leeda]

And the stuff is that we can't quite "give a dog his bullocks" until we understand the meaning of the word..
So what is the word?.....um ruff nuts.?.?yeah or n.at....being particularly salty.?.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Did YOU have a POINT you WANTED to MAKE with that FACT check?

You literally can't see past the political branding.

 

[Chief]

You literally can't see past the political branding.

You posted an article.

I don’t know what point you were trying to make.

The fact check showed that he is a goose.

Was that the point you were making?

 

[Snake_Baker]

I don’t know what point you were trying to make.

If it's not self evident to you then you have no place in this discussion.

 

[Chief]

If it's not self evident to you then you have no place in this discussion.

What was evident was that Craig Kelly was cherry-picking.

I still don’t know whether you posted it to vindicate him or show what a twat he really is.

 

[Crankitup]

Taken at least $125000 from Exxon Mobil.

When was that BTW? Must've been a long time ago because Exxon hasn't donated one cent to any group that disagrees with AGW for years.
Whatever they did donate in the past is chicken-feed compared to the amount of money they gave (& still give) to environmental groups. OTOH almost every AGW alarmist is backed by special interest money from lefty trust funds or direct government grants. The latter has fueled most AGW hype. There's lot's of interest in creating permanent, worthless positions to reward those in academia who have been willing to prostitute themselves to allow the powers that be to assert the need for carbon taxes and other controls which is the ultimate prize for the participants. To get funded (paid) in the AGW research community, you must already support the concept. You cannot be funded by saying you are interested in disproving AGW. Those that don't believe are soon found out and drummed out of their research circles.

If Exxon-Mobil did once make contributions to organizations that are dedicated to fighting the possibly mistaken hypothesis of AGW, so what? Is it wrong for a company to support real science? If your thinking is their donations tarnish that science, what about the donations they've made to organisations that believe in AGW? Are they impossibly & irrevocably tarnished too?

 

[Crankitup]

Fact check: Is the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu growing, and not sinking?

Coalition backbencher Craig Kelly says that the low-lying Pacific island nation of Tuvalu is growing, rather than sinking. Fact Check finds that checks out.

www.abc.net.au

Tuvalu, that old chestnut.

I posted the following on a different forum about Tuvalu - 11 years ago. It's still a political football I see.

This coral atoll is built on a disintegrating volcanic rock base. Slightly different to Holland, which is just subsiding. It's only constant deposition of new coral that keeps islands like this from sliding into the sea. When that coral is used as a building material by the islanders, that deposition is greatly slowed. Also keep in mind the US Army made widespread land changes for their base at Tuvalu in WWII. They essentially dug up a third of the island. There are many other land degradation issues on the island e.g. the chopping down of coconut trees affecting the islands hydrology.

THE TRUTH ABOUT TUVALU

A New Zealand climate scientist and a Pacific Island writer give assurances Tuvalu is not sinking .

Dr Vincent Gray: NZ CLIMATE & ENVIRO TRUTH NO 103

JUNE 15TH 2006

SNOW JOB ON TUVALU

A couple of years' ago I was interviewed by the Dunedin-based Natural History Unit as part of documentary for the National Geographic Channel. I had over an hour to give my views on greenhouse warming, which I expected would appear in an internationally distributed documentary. They sent me a copy of the final doco "to enjoy". I found that it was all about how Tuvalu is faced with imminent disaster, with a "moaning Minnie" lady persistently bemoaning the loss of her homeland from a comfortable flat in Brisbane. My contribution had been almost eliminated .

But Tuvalu reminds me of a comic song I used to sing of Gracie Fields called "He's dead but he won't lie down". Tuvalu persistently refuses to subside .

A tide gauge to measure sea level has been in existence at Tuvalu since 1977, run by the University of Hawaii It showed a negligible increase of only 0.07 mm per year over two decades It fell three millimeters between 1995 and 1999. The complete record can still be seen on John Daly's website: http://www.john-daly.com Obviously this could not be tolerated, so the gauge was closed in 1999 and a new, more modern tide gauge was set up by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology's National Tidal Center by Flinders University at Adelaide. But Tuvalu refuses to submit to political pressure. The sea level has actually fallen since then Tuvalu cannot be allowed to get away with it. So Greenpeace employed Dr John Hunter. a climatologist of the University of Tasmania, who obligingly "adjusted" the Tuvalu readings upwards to comply with changes in ENSO and those found for the island of Hawaii and, miraculously, he found a sea level rise of "around" 1.2 mm a year which, also miraculously, agrees with the IPCC global figure .

Since all this seems biased, or politically influenced, Dr John Church of the CSIRO at Hobart, Tasmania, a lead author of the IPCC Chapter on "Sea Level", plus his colleague Dr Neil White, have sought to reverse actual measured trends by "combining records from tide gauges from all over the world with satellite altimeter data to assess regional variation". Unsurprisingly, and equally miraculously, they reach the same conclusion as Greenpeace and the IPCC. All this has to be imposed on poor little Tuvalu to "prove" global warming.and speed emigration .

The IPCC Chapter on Sea Level is one of the more dishonest. It practices two important deceptions. First, it completely fails to mention the fact that many tide gauges are situated close to cities where the land is subsiding because of erection of heavy buildings, or removal of ground water, oil and minerals. It so happens that the island of Hawaii is one of the more heavily populated Pacific islands where the sea level is "rising" because the land is "falling" Another reason for upwards bias is Port Adelaide, Australia, where they decided to increase the water level in the harbour to allow for larger ships, They dredged and built a bar on the harbour. Unsurprisingly, the level rose on the tide-gauge. Corrections for these upwards biases in tide-gauge measurements have never been permitted to be discussed by the IPCC .

The other deception of the IPCC Sea Level Chapter is in statistics. The sea level averages are so inaccurate that they have to supply only one standard deviation as a measure of inaccuracy, instead of the otherwise universal use of two standard deviations. One standard deviation gives only a one in three chance that the measurement lies outside the limits. Two standard deviations puts it up to one in twenty. If you use the proper figures you find that the accuracy sometimes permits a less than one in twenty chance of a sea level fall. That must never be allowed This whole melancholy story is told in an article in "Science" 2006 Volume 312, pages 734 to 736, It seems that the Greenpeace organisation is now occupying the role of the late Trofim Lysenko in their ability to reverse the findings of scientific research .

 

[bfff]

When was that BTW? Must've been a long time ago because Exxon hasn't donated one cent to any group that disagrees with AGW for years.
Whatever they did donate in the past is chicken-feed compared to the amount of money they gave (& still give) to environmental groups. OTOH almost every AGW alarmist is backed by special interest money from lefty trust funds or direct government grants. The latter has fueled most AGW hype. There's lot's of interest in creating permanent, worthless positions to reward those in academia who have been willing to prostitute themselves to allow the powers that be to assert the need for carbon taxes and other controls which is the ultimate prize for the participants. To get funded (paid) in the AGW research community, you must already support the concept. You cannot be funded by saying you are interested in disproving AGW. Those that don't believe are soon found out and drummed out of their research circles.

If Exxon-Mobil did once make contributions to organizations that are dedicated to fighting the possibly mistaken hypothesis of AGW, so what? Is it wrong for a company to support real science? If your thinking is their donations tarnish that science, what about the donations they've made to organisations that believe in AGW? Are they impossibly & irrevocably tarnished too?

From InfluenceMap:

This research finds that the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas majors (ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP and Total) have invested over $1Bn of shareholder funds in the three years following the Paris Agreement on misleading climate-related branding and lobbying. These efforts are overwhelmingly in conflict with the goals of this landmark global climate accord and designed to maintain the social and legal license to operate and expand fossil fuel operations.

From Environmental Research Letters:

Available documents show a discrepancy between what
ExxonMobil’s scientists and executives discussed
about climate change privately and in academic circles
and what it presented to the general public. The
company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and
internal communications consistently tracked evolv-
ing climate science: broadly acknowledging that AGW
is real, human-caused, serious, and solvable, while
identifying reasonable uncertainties that most climate
scientists readily acknowledged at that time. In
contrast, ExxonMobil’s advertorials in the NYT
overwhelmingly emphasized only the uncertainties,
promoting a narrative inconsistent with the views of
most climate scientists, including ExxonMobil’s own.
This is characteristic of what Freudenberg et al term
the Scientific Certainty Argumentation Method
(SCAM)—a tactic for undermining public under-
standing of scientific knowledge [57,58]. Likewise, the
company’s peer-reviewed, non-peer-reviewed, and
internal documents acknowledge the risks of stranded
assets, whereas their advertorials do not. In light of
these findings, we judge that ExxonMobil’s AGW
communications were misleading; we are not in a
position to judge whether they violated any laws.

Exxon’s own scientists acknowledge AGW but the company keeps selling the lie.

 

[CM86]

Tuvalu, that old chestnut.

I posted the following on a different forum about Tuvalu - 11 years ago. It's still a political football I see.

This coral atoll is built on a disintegrating volcanic rock base. Slightly different to Holland, which is just subsiding. It's only constant deposition of new coral that keeps islands like this from sliding into the sea. When that coral is used as a building material by the islanders, that deposition is greatly slowed. Also keep in mind the US Army made widespread land changes for their base at Tuvalu in WWII. They essentially dug up a third of the island. There are many other land degradation issues on the island e.g. the chopping down of coconut trees affecting the islands hydrology.

Did you ever end up posting that magical study that you insisted on specific bets on?

 

[Crankitup]

From InfluenceMap:




From Environmental Research Letters:



Exxon’s own scientists acknowledge AGW but the company keeps selling the lie.

Idiotic: InfluenceMap is arguing that Shell's promotion of solar power is now “climate denial”
Anthony Watts / April 7, 2016

InfluenceMap Continues Green Campaign to Dupe the Press on “Climate Denial”
by Steve Everley
energyindepth.org , Dallas, Tex.
A new report from a climate-focused advocacy group attempts to quantify spending on “obstructive climate policy lobbying,” estimating that fossil fuel companies may be spending upwards of $500 million per year to “influence” the debate. But a review of the group’s calculations and methods suggests that much of what the group defines as climate-related advocacy actually encourages emissions reductions, or has nothing to do with climate change.
The report, authored by the British group InfluenceMap, is also part of a broader, well-funded political campaign to label fossil fuel companies “deniers” in the press, based upon dubious and even contradictory assumptions that receive little if any scrutiny.
‘Climate Lobbying’
In a press release announcing its report, InfluenceMap accused two oil and natural gas companies (ExxonMobil and Shell) of “systematically trying to stall progress” on climate change. The group goes on to accuse these companies of “manipulating the public discourse,” using a quote from the radical environmentalist Bill McKibben (founder of 35rg) to support its claim. InfluenceMap claims to have conducted a “forensic analysis” of Internal Revenue Service filings and “careful study” of other public advocacy to arrive at its conclusions.
All told, InfluenceMap estimates that these companies, with support from the American Petroleum Institute, spend over $100 million every year on “climate lobbying.”
But the spreadsheet that InfluenceMap included with its report shows that what the group is saying publicly about its data is a deliberate misrepresentation.
For example, InfluenceMap groups together a series of ads released by Shell that focused on bringing power to developing countries. The ads ran in several different formats and languages, but each of them focused on the same general premise, highlighting the importance of energy access and using solar power or other renewable technologies to meet global energy needs.
But InfluenceMap argues that of the total spending on the ads ($24.7 million), 30 percent of it was “climate relevant,” meaning $7.5 million was allegedly earmarked to discuss climate change – even though the group admits in the spreadsheet that the ads don’t mention climate change. The group also claims an “obstructive factor” of 2.5 percent, meaning that – according to InfluenceMap – Shell spent $190,000 to “obstruct” action on climate change with these ads.
Think about that. A company produces ads showing how solar power can help meet the energy needs of developing countries, and InfluenceMap claims the ads are actually about preventing action on climate change. In other words, InfluenceMap is arguing that promoting solar power is now “climate denial.”

InfluenceMap claimed several other Shell ads were part of a climate denial strategy, including:

• An ad discussing the right to energy access in Haiti, mentioning specifically solar and other renewable technologies.
• An ad calling for making homes more energy efficient.
• An ad calling for more solar energy in “frontier markets.”
• An ad highlighting a biomass project in Uganda.

None of those ads even mentioned climate change, and all of them are calling for things that climate activist groups have been advocating for years. But InfluenceMap somehow claimed they represent $750,000 in spending to obstruct climate action.
Other items that InfluenceMap classified as influencing or even “obstructing” action on climate change include:

• An ExxonMobil ad touting the company’s work on carbon capture and biofuels from algae.
• Total spending on conferences, conventions, and meetings by the Western States Petroleum Association. InfluenceMap claims half (49%) of all these expenditures were “devoted to climate influence,” based entirely upon what WSPA lobbied for in the state legislature.
• An ExxonMobil ad describing what hydraulic fracturing is.
• A campaign by the Australian Petroleum Production & Exploration Association (APPEA) called “Our Natural Advantage,” which highlights how important natural gas is to the Australian economy. InfluenceMap claims 62 percent of the campaign is “devoted to climate influence.” The word “climate” does not appear on the campaign’s home page or its About page.
• Nearly half (46 percent) of API’s total spending on its employees’ salaries. InfluenceMap also claims that one-third of API’s entire operating budget is “geared towards opposing ambitious climate policy.”

The list goes on, but the common thread is that what InfluenceMap considers spending on “climate obstruction” largely consists of activities that (a) have nothing to do with climate change, or (b) advocate explicitly for renewables and other emissions-cutting technologies.
But so far, instead of scrutinizing these details, the press has simply swallowed what InfluenceMap fed them. Bloomberg News claimed that the activities listed above were about “blocking climate policies,” even though no objective review could possibly conclude such a thing. Bloomberg also repeated the group’s claims without scrutiny last September, when InfluenceMap made similar accusations about a wide range of companies that were not limited to fossil fuel producers.
Disagreement vs. Climate Denial
Unfortunately, InfluenceMap’s report is part of a broader environmentalist effort to label any criticism or disagreement as “climate denial,” based on a singular focus on attacking energy producers.
Late last year, a professor from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Justin Farrell, published a paper alleging that 160 so-called “climate counter movement” organizations were responsible for public denial of climate change. The school is funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, among other foundations, that also bankroll environmental activists like 35rg and InsideClimate News.
As EID highlighted at the time, Farrell’s definition of what it means to be a “climate denier” was either incredibly lazy or deliberately misleading. His list of deniers included groups that have advocated for carbon taxes, as well as an official advisory body to the U.S. Department of Energy. One of the “denial” organizations even teamed up with an environmental group to call attention to how “climate change threatens to put millions at risk.”
But as with the latest report from InfluenceMap, Farrell’s bogus definition of “climate denial” was never questioned by the reporters who covered his study. Bloomberg wrote that his study identified a “deep network of climate change deniers.” The Washington Post reported the study revealed how “corporate funding” was responsible for raising “doubts” about climate change.
Of course, little can be done about the stories that have already run, and which activists and other fossil fuel critics cheerfully shared on social media. But now that the media knows the truth, the question is: what will they do the next time they’re pitched a story about “climate deniers”?