It's all over but for the sweating?

[CFECO]

We probably need to Agree to Disagree and stay friends, I don't think we will change anyones mind here.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by CFECO

We probably need to Agree to Disagree and stay friends, I don't think we will change anyones mind here.

Seconded - can we agree to disagree and get on sticking bits of Correx / coroplast to our cars and just ignore this even when some muppet dredges it up ?

Peace

Edit - unsubscribing, lets all do the same.

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Where is the science that you are depending on to throw out the conclusions of anthropogenic climate change?

Heartland Institute and Willie Soon are funded by oil companies - gee isn't that a conflict of interest?

What Neil would like to have us believe is that oil companies are only funding foundations and think tanks that do not support the climate change agenda. Actually the oil industry funds both sides of the issue. Why? "Isn't that a conflict of interest?"

To get a better understanding of how money and politics are involved, read this article: Bret Stephens: Climategate: Follow the Money - WSJ.com

Anyone who understands how the game of politics is played knows that if you are a huge corporate or philanthrophic organization and have enough money to spread around, you can retain political influence by backing both sides.

The climate change activists are currently are making a big fuss over funding by the counter movement. Here is a quote from The Guardian over the amounts reported:

The groups collectively received more than $7bn over the eight years of Brulle’s study – or about $900m a year from 2003 to 2010. Conservative think tanks and advocacy groups occupied the core of that effort.

$1 billion per year is a pittance compared with the staggering amounts at the disposal of various foundations, world banks and trust funds worldwide, to advance the climate change agenda. The money they control is just as "dark". It is not easy to find statistics regarding the number of foundations and banking interests involved, nor the amounts they have at their disposal. (To illustrate my point, try finding financial reports for foundations with actual $$$ figures online.) The media certainly isn't going to report it as "dark money" as they did with the counter movement. Meanwhile, the activists have seized upon media reports about "dark money" to portray the counter movement as being evil - although their activities are just as legal as the big money involvement of the world banks and foundations. The counter forces look like David, compared to Goliath.

For example, here is a list of donors from the website of the Climate Works Foundation:

Arcadia Fund
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
Dutch Postcode Lottery
Ford Foundation
Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment
Grousbeck Family Foundation
Heising-Simons Foundation
Kresge Foundation
McCall MacBain Foundation
Meher Pudumjee
Stiftung Mercator
Oak Foundation
Pirojsha Godrej Foundation
Pisces Foundation
Robertson Foundation
Rockefeller Foundation
Schmidt Family Foundation
Stordalen Foundation
Tilia Fund
TomKat Trust
TOSA Foundation
United Nations Environment Programme – Global Environment Facility

That is merely ONE foundation devoted to the climate change agenda. There are many others.

To get some idea of how the Rockefeller Foundation distributes its grants, check this link: Grants & Grantees : The Rockefeller Foundation

And remember, that is merely one foundation, with their list filter set to showing only grants of $1 million or more, and the categories selected are only those regarding "Developing Climate Change Resilience" and "Green Jobs". The green movement money can also be spread through other categories with less specific earmarks, such as agriculture development, wildlife protection, etc. etc.

Why does Goliath feel so threatened by little David? After all, by comparison, he only has a slingshot...

[NeilBlanchard]

Here's one of the 3% of climate denier scientists:

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

Richard Lindzen is one of the most prominent and widely-referenced climate scientist "skeptics". After all, there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic global warming, so there are few climate scientist "skeptics" to choose from. Lindzen has researched climate science for four decades, since the field really began to grow and develop in the early 1970s, has published hundreds of peer-reviewed papers, works at a prominent academic institution (MIT), and has been a "contrarian" for most of his career.

So his combination of expertise and "skepticism" make Lindzen an appealing figure to "skeptics". He's even been compared to Galileo quite frequently. But there's one major difference between Galileo and Lindzen: Galileo was right.

Galileo's positions were based on and supported by scientific evidence. Other scientists at the time also recognized that Galileo was right and supported by the evidence. In this post we will see that Lindzen, on the other hand, has a history of consistently being wrong on climate issues, and his positions are contradicted by the scientific evidence and observational data.

Who are the others? Nobody wants to defend Christopher Monckton?

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Here's one of the 3% of climate denier scientists:

Lindzen Illusion #7: The Anti-Galileo

Who are the others? Nobody wants to defend Christopher Monckton?

Neil,

Every time a thorough response is given to any question you have posed, you ignore it, switch gears and go on the offensive by asking more questions. In other words, you constantly change the subject to try to win points by shifting the debate elsewhere to accommodate your talking points taken from canned websites. Apparently that is what activists do to try to attract an audience.

Your latest material is culled from a newly spawned website run by John Cook. Here is his own descriptive bio, quoted from that same site:

About the author
Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than Paypal donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love. The design was created by John's talented web designer wife.

By his own admission Mr. Cook states he is NOT a climate scientist. He says he is a "Climate Communication Fellow" (whatever that means?) His activity is obviously that of an activist zealot. Despite the title of the site being "Skeptical Science", the admitted, more surreptitious name of the site is The Consensus Project. Genuine science is concerned with objective research. Propaganda masquerading as science is obsessed with consensus building. Supposed "truth" determined by consensus is no longer science (nor truth, nor provable fact), but entirely that of political dominance - dictated by consensus, AKA a polite term for majority rule.

Here's your chance to try to lampoon the commentary of an actual climate scientist (rather than rely upon quoting a "Climate Communication Fellow" as your guru du jour):

Global Warming « Roy Spencer, PhD

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by P-hack

But since we just copy and paste gobs of crap now, maybe I will start pasting blogs in their entirety...

You could copy/pasta your favorite Bucky Fuller quotes.

Originally Posted by myself from /forum/showthread.php/its-all-over-but-sweating-23123-62.html#post361882

Arragonis is always trying to incite people to unsubscribe. I've seen him do it two or three times.

Good times. Nobody wanted to talk about Cool Planet or Moon power then, and they probably don't still.

[P-hack]

The main problem is that there is so much noise, and it is very detrimental. Assume we are here for one reason (save gas), when others hijack the forum with heavy controversy (politics/religion/etc) then they steal that initiative, that unifying cause, for their own agenda. Actual projects here are pretty low, just a lot of bickering. You may agree with that agenda but plenty of smart/bright people do not, or at least do not think this is the place for it.

Believers will go on ad nauseum (perhaps some Patty Hearst syndrome after listening to Al Gore preach about thermal runaway), it is simple self siloing, not intellectual victory, and it is bringing down the site as a whole IMHO.

[freebeard]

Internet gives us an unblinking look at ourselves and this is what we see.

A Peace offering, although it will be red meat to one side or the other.

Climate Engineering – What do the public think?
10 January 2014 Southampton, University of

Under embargo until 12 January 2014 18:00 GMT

Lead author, Professor Malcolm Wright of Massey University, said: “Previous attempts to engage the public with climate engineering have been exploratory and small scale. In our study, we have drawn on commercial methods used to evaluate brands and new product concepts to develop a comparative approach for evaluating the public reaction to a variety of climate engineering concepts.”

The results show that the public has strong negative views towards climate engineering. Where there are positive reactions, they favour approaches that reduce carbon dioxide over those that reflected sunlight.

“It was a striking result and a very clear pattern,” said Professor Wright. “Interventions such as putting mirrors in space or fine particles into the stratosphere are not well received. More natural processes of cloud brightening or enhanced weathering are less likely to raise objections, but the public react best to creating biochar (making charcoal from vegetation to lock in CO2) or capturing carbon directly from the air.”

Nonetheless, even the most well regarded techniques still has a net negative perception.

I like the part about Biochar.

Seconded - can we agree to disagree and get on sticking bits of Correx / coroplast to our cars and just ignore this even when some muppet dredges it up ?

4x8 sheets of Coroplast folded once lengthwise for US$8 at my local recycler.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Good times. Nobody wanted to talk about Cool Planet or Moon power then, and they probably don't still.

Quite happy too, just not here.

And Neil - that article is bollocks, Lindzen hasn't done forecasts - they made it up. But hey, its the graun - what do you expect.

Bye again.

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Who are the others? Nobody wants to defend Christopher Monckton?

Why would anyone ?

Would you care to write a living eulogy to Al Gore, or perhaps those people who thought the 10:10 video was just "funny" ?

Honestly you are like a clown running round a minefield.