Martin

I don't think there is any way you could sound more bleeding sanctimonious.

!!!!

T.A.

Edit: BTW Martin. Just what scientific qualifications do you hold that allow you to sound off with such profundity ???

@ Мишель
What you seem to have trouble accepting and understanding is that the same thing is happening on the Warmist side of things.

Мишель wrote:

Alright, prove it. There have been academic studies into who pays for the climate skeptical studies. I'm sure there should be academic studies into who pays the proponents of man made global warming. So it should be fairly easy to prove that warmists have a major industry backing them. In fact, theirs should be bigger, given that they got more scientists on their side.

Мишель ... you make an excelent point.

Also just my humble opinion,

Byron :)

!!!!

T.A.

So, T.A., are you telling us all on these forums and for the world that you believe in the deceitful propaganda on http://www.co2science.com/ ?


Only on our one little planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So, T.A., are you telling us all on these forums and for the world that you believe in the propaganda on http://www.co2science.com/?


Only on our one little planet,
Martin

No. I'm saying that I don't believe the deceitful propaganda on http://www.SkepticalScience.com !!

T.A.

T.A.

Edit: BTW Martin. Just what scientific qualifications do you hold that allow you to sound off with such profundity ???

None needed. That is the beauty of Science and honest truth. You can see for yourself if you choose to look and learn.


From my style of postings, you should see that I do know at least something of physics and science in general and computers and engineering and how things work... ;-)

Perhaps one of the great failings of communicating science is that Marketing-speak style and propaganda is abhorred, totally. Unfortunately, most of the population have been so bombarded by Marketing propaganda that they seem to only respond to whoever it is can shout the loudest... Regardless of real world truth...


Our planet is what we are making it...
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So, T.A., are you telling us all on these forums and for the world that you believe in the propaganda on http://www.co2science.com/?


Only on our one little planet,
Martin

No. I'm saying that I don't believe the deceitful propaganda on http://www.SkepticalScience.com !!

T.A.

OK, lets play a game of which of those two websites is fraudulent and deceitful.

I'll start with the crass Marketing jingoism created on the 'co2science' of atmospheric "CO2 enrichment" as opposed to more accurately describing fossil fuels burning produced CO2 as pollution.

Does increasing the CO2 in our atmosphere really 'enrich' our world in any way other than enriching the profits of the fossil fuels industry? Are the environmental benefits of increasing CO2 demonstrated to be better than all the known and experienced adverse effects? So... Please show your good examples of how overall your preferred site is not deceiving us?


In contrast, what presumed lie can you show from http://www.SkepticalScience.com ?


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

That is the beauty of Science and honest truth. You can see for yourself if you choose to look and learn.

Martin, I think the problem with you is that you choose only look at one side of the story. Therefore you cannot learn

To truly appreciate "the beauty of Science and honest truth" you have to look at both sides of a discussion with an open, enquiring mind. Not just accept one side as gospel and write off the other side as the work of charlatans.

As I said above, the truth lies about midway between the two arguments as both extremes are influenced in their own way by politics and commerce.

Climate change is happening, but as with every event there will be pluses and minuses, winners and losers. For every area that becomes drier, one will become wetter, for every area that becomes warmer, one will become cooler and so on.

Rather than denying the inevitable and trying to play the little Dutch boy, we should be planning for a changed environment in the future, because CO2 is not the real problem. The elephant in the room has a much greater atomic weight.

T.A.

BTW. I would appreciate it if stopped talking to me like I was a gullible child. I am at least as intelligent and "worldly wise" as you are. The differences are that we looked at the same evidence but drew different conclusions and that I am open minded enough to look at both sides of the argument, not just one !!

In contrast, what presumed lie can you show from http://www.SkepticalScience.com ?

Martin, do you actually bother to follow a thread or do you just fire off an arrogant reply to the last post on the thread ?

The answer to your question can be found in my post above

T.A.

That is the beauty of Science and honest truth. You can see for yourself if you choose to look and learn.

Martin, I think the problem with you is that you choose only look at one side of the story. Therefore you cannot learn

Then please give me something definite to learn rather than vague hand-waving.

Sorry, but your one source link so far is utterly discredited, and you avoid admitting to that. Who is it that cannot learn?

To truly appreciate "the beauty of Science and honest truth" you have to look at both sides of a discussion with an open, enquiring mind. Not just accept one side as gospel and write off the other side as the work of charlatans.

And so far, the lies and deceit and selective snippets used show the Deniers to be either ignorant, charlatans, or simply paid-off shills.

I'm as eager as anyone for some real evidence that we can pollute our atmosphere without consequence...

As I said above, the truth lies about midway between the two arguments as both extremes are influenced in their own way by politics and commerce.

That's a nicely hopeful 'rationalisation' except that we can see the commercial and political interests that keep profiting from pollution will go to any extremes possible to maintain their greed. And the rest of the world be damned and gets damned.

Climate change is happening, but as with every event there will be pluses and minuses, winners and losers. For every area that becomes drier, one will become wetter, for every area that becomes warmer, one will become cooler and so on.

Indeed so, except the losses look to be vastly greater than any plausible benefits. Unless that is, you deliberately wish to kill off a large portion of the existing multi-celled life on planet earth.

Rather than denying the inevitable and trying to play the little Dutch boy, we should be planning for a changed environment in the future, because CO2 is not the real problem. The elephant in the room has a much greater atomic weight.

As has been known and demonstrated for the past two centuries, our human industrially produced CO2 pollution and methane pollution are the driving forces.

By changing our industry to go 'clean', we can still have all the industry and corruption and politics we wish, but without trashing our planet quite so quickly. That just might buy us enough time to educate people and politicians enough to follow the various examples around the world where cultural forces stabilize the population to a level that is sustainable.

Our biggest threat is from our financial institutions that demand perpetual 'growth'...

BTW. I would appreciate it if stopped talking to me like I was a gullible child. I am at least as intelligent and "worldly wise" as you are. The differences are that we looked at the same evidence but drew different conclusions and that I am open minded enough to look at both sides of the argument, not just one !!

Then please look to both sides in proportion. You have honest scientists with one story. You then have Marketing people and random other sources screaming propaganda all without any real world truth shouting it out for their side.

Which should you believe?

Or which is it that you want to religiously believe?

Like it or not, we are all part of a hugely reckless industrial scale world experiment...


I still note that you cannot find anything to discredit the http://www.skepticalscience.com/ site...

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

In contrast, what presumed lie can you show from http://www.SkepticalScience.com ?

Martin, do you actually bother to follow a thread or do you just fire off an arrogant reply to the last post on the thread ?

The answer to your question can be found in my post above

T.A.

And:

For further reading, may I suggest http://www.junkscience.com and http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

From what I've briefly seen, the "junkscience" should be renamed as "junk all of science". Meanwhile "wattsupwiththat" may well have been set up originally as a well meaning crusade by a TV weather presenter to question the accuracy of land-based weather stations (since checked and allowed for), but more recently that site has been seen to be sponsored by Big Oil interests...


You're welcome to offer some better sources, or you're welcome to pick your best two points from that list and we can compare methods...

Your game :-)


All on our only one planet,
Martin


[edit]
OK... So no surprise then for JunkScience.com... Note: from Wikipedia:


Steven Milloy

Steven J. Milloy is a commentator for Fox News and runs the Web site junkscience.com... Milloy also runs CSRWatch.com, which monitors and criticizes the corporate social responsibility movement. From the 1990s until the end of 2005, he was an adjunct scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute... Milloy is head of the Free Enterprise Action Fund, a mutual fund he runs with former tobacco executive Tom Borelli. He also operates the Advancement of Sound Science Center, a non-profit organization which is critical of environmental science... Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and human activity to global warming...
[/edit]

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Then please look to both sides in proportion. You have honest scientists with one story. You then have Marketing people and random other sources screaming propaganda all without any real world truth shouting it out on the other.

Which should you believe?

Or which is it that you want to religiously believe?

Like it or not, we are all part of a hugely reckless industrial scale world experiment...


I still note that you cannot find anything to discredit the http://www.skepticalscience.com/ site...

Ok Martin I withdraw. I should have learned that having a discussion with you is like debating "I.D" on the existence of God. You just cannot admit there is another side to the argument.

Seeing as your only defence is that every argument contrary to your point of view is sponsored by "Big Whatever" (and I noted you very carefully avoided responding to any of the points I made above about mistruths on Skeptical Science) I will leave you to your religiously held belief in a wind and solar powered god.....

T.A.

... Seeing as your only defence is that every argument contrary to your point of view is sponsored by "Big Whatever" (and I noted you very carefully avoided responding to any of the points I made above about mistruths on Skeptical Science) I will leave you to your religiously held belief in a wind and solar powered god.....

I am happy for you to fairly prove me wrong.

You have your long off-the-cuff list from earlier in the thread. To discuss all in depth is worthy of multiple more threads. So... For practicality... Please name your best two examples that we can examine in a little detail.


If you really did have a sound and honest argument, then you should easily prove your case. Sorry, but two websites run by and for Marketing sponsored stooges do not truthfully describe the real world. (Unless you want to become lost in conspiracy theories... :-( )


Your move for your two best shots?

All on our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Ok Martin I withdraw. I should have learned that having a discussion with you is like debating "I.D" on the existence of God. You just cannot admit there is another side to the argument.

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.


What world do you prefer to live in ?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Please name your best two examples that we can examine in a little detail.

OK, #16, #32 and #135

The link to the SS page is at the top of my post. The numbers refer to the points in the SS page.

T.A.

I wrote

Seeing as your only defence is that every argument contrary to your point of view is sponsored by "Big Whatever"

Martin wrote

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

The prosecution rests !!

T.A.

Ok Martin I withdraw. I should have learned that having a discussion with you is like debating "I.D" on the existence of God. You just cannot admit there is another side to the argument.

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.


What world do you prefer to live in ?

All on our only one planet,
Martin

+1

This whole manufactured controversy will go down as just a shameful part of history as the lobbying by the tobacco industry when science started to show the connection between cigarettes and lung cancer.

The idea that there is a "debate" on the science is a fiction. That is what I find so frustrating.

The only debate left between scientists is if its going to be bad or really bad. I am fed up with the way people decide when to pick and chose which science they will "believe" as if belief has anything to do with science.

I put the deniers in the same class of people who think the moon landing is hoax, who believe in chemtrail conspiracies, who think that 9/11 was an inside job and that aliens killed Kennedy and I am tired of arguing with kooks who can't face reality.

---

Reality Internet Personality

I put the deniers in the same class of people who think the moon landing is hoax, who believe in chemtrail conspiracies, who think that 9/11 was an inside job and that aliens killed Kennedy and I am tired of arguing with kooks who can't face reality.

Yes ES, I know exactly what you mean. Except instead of "deniers", I refer to people who are so willing to believe the constant battering from the Main Stream Media that "we're all gonna die" that they lose track of what is really reality.

If you search hard enough you will find that the companies that own solar and wind farms also own coal mines and oil wells. They are just hedging their bets (and making money from government subsidies of "green" energy in the process).

I've always wondered why people, especially intelligent, educated people are so willing to believe "end of life as we know it" disaster predictions. Maybe it's because they feel they have the most to lose...

T.A.

Edit: And you are totally correct. This IS a 100% manufactured controversy. Just so when when your electricity bill and general cost of living rises by 200 or more percent, you can get a nice, smug, rosy, warm glow that you are helping to save the planet

Yes, there is 'another side' in that there is a commercial and Marketing side of outright lies to take business-with-no-morals, "free market libertarianism", and profits at all costs, all to extreme greed.

And the world and everyone else be damned.

It always amazes me how many people think that this only applies to the "Dark Side", i.e. the oil and coal companies. Yet have the idea that the Wind and solar farm operators are somehow divine beings who only want what is best for humanity and the planet at large.

Get a grip on it people, wherever there is money to be made the sharks will circle and they will be circling wherever there is the scent of profit. If Big Business can make a profit mining coal or drilling for oil they will mine coal and drill for oil. If they can make a profit from wind and solar plants they will build wind and solar plants and thus work both sides of the fence at the same time, their only concern is to make money and guess which bunnies will be paying.

Big Business is totally agnostic in this matter, they don't care at all, as long as the balance sheet is in the black.

To quote Shakespeare, "Lord what fools these mortals be."

T.A.

Please name your best two examples that we can examine in a little detail.

OK, #16, #32 and #135

The link to the SS page is at the top of my post. The numbers refer to the points in the SS page.

T.A.

Will consider and link the first two. I can let you expand on that third one to see if you can press a convincing case.

So that's one set of work for you vs the two threads of work for me.


(Note how Denialists and armchair critics can never be bothered to offer any helpful links or any useful links at all? Yet, they are very happy to see everyone else run around the web for them... Part of their Denialist game?)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I put the deniers in the same class of people who think the moon landing is hoax, who believe in chemtrail conspiracies, who think that 9/11 was an inside job and that aliens killed Kennedy and I am tired of arguing with kooks who can't face reality.

Yes ES, I know exactly what you mean. Except instead of "deniers", I refer to people who are so willing to believe the constant battering from the Main Stream Media that "we're all gonna die" that they lose track of what is really reality.

ALERT! ALERT! Argument shift!! Note the change of argument and change of denial!

So? Now it is all the media's fault is it?

If you search hard enough you will find that the companies that own solar and wind farms also own coal mines and oil wells. They are just hedging their bets (and making money from government subsidies of "green" energy in the process).

Indeed so and that shows how completely duplicit the various Fossil Fuels companies are. They know they are in a dying business but will procrastinate and lobby and worse, all to sweat out their existing polluting fossils business as far as extremely possible to everyone else's cost. We really need to enforce a realistic cost on pollution...

I've always wondered why people, especially intelligent, educated people are so willing to believe "end of life as we know it" disaster predictions...

Have you ever considered that there might just be some very real evidence that for what we are doing to our planet with pollution, there is indeed a very real and serious and ever more immediate danger to the way of life as we know it?...

Edit: And you are totally correct. This IS a 100% manufactured controversy. ...

Indeed so. Such is the very highly developed Marketing art of FUD...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)