Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

N

NEIL J JONES

Guest
Yes and the alarmists only had 8 links, the skeptics a lot, lot more.
 

MikeTV

Distinguished Member
Originating site here
This is an organisation founded by Donn D. Dears, a retired executive who was a senior manager at General Electric for 35 years.

Funny how the denialist campaign is so closely associated with energy executives.
 

AgentCool

Well-known Member
Why is it that AGW advocators always have to try and disregard the 'other side' by claiming they're connected to the energy industry and therefore must have some kind of agenda? I know many people who don't believe the AGW bandwagon is all it's cracked up to be and none of them work for energy/petroleum companies and some, including myself, don't even own a car and have a very low carbon output. I could argue without a shadow of a doubt that I produce less CO2 than 99% of those who say I must be belching it out because I don't believe AGW. We're not all getting money from BP to 'deny' AGW, we're just using our own minds to think for ourselves.

However, that often seems to be a crime these days...
 

Andy3

Banned
And of course the pro-MMCCers never have any dubious connections. One example is Prf David Begg. He's the guy who pops up with depressing regularity to urge more action against car use (congestion charging, tolls, bus lanes etc) and for us all to get on the bus 'for the sake of the planet'. Turns out he has strong connections with First Group..... a bus company.
 

njp

Well-known Member
Why is it that AGW advocators always have to try and disregard the 'other side' by claiming they're connected to the energy industry and therefore must have some kind of agenda?
I don't think Mike is saying that, and neither am I.

However, if you look behind the rather more high profile opposition to the AGW consensus, you do often uncover some interesting connections. I think those are worth pointing out.
 

AgentCool

Well-known Member
I don't think Mike is saying that, and neither am I.

However, if you look behind the rather more high profile opposition to the AGW consensus, you do often uncover some interesting connections. I think those are worth pointing out.

That's a fair comment but it's worth pointing out that much of my scepticism of AGW is due to the mentality of some groups who promote it and the possible connections they might have to lead them to their conclusions. About 2 years ago I was pretty agnostic when it came to AGW but then I read an article in a newspaper (can't remember which but there are references on the internet) about the construction of the ITER Nuclear Fusion reactor project in Southern France. At the time, Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident." I could not believe what I was reading and then it all became clear when Jan Vande Putte (also of Greenpeace) claimed, "Governments should not waste our money on a dangerous toy which will never deliver any useful energy" and "should invest in renewable energy which is abundantly available, not in 2080 but today." (This is from Wikipedia's article on it but is quoted directly from the Greenpeace website)

Over the following weeks after this it became apparent that the vast majority of 'Green' groups oppose research into nuclear fusion even though the science behind is real and it is by far the most viable source of renewable energy over the coming decades. The idea that because it doesn't exist you shouldn't try to make it, combined with their lousy understanding behind fusion technology made me realise that Greenpeace were being unjustifiably pessimistic about something that more governments should be putting money into. I just completely lost what little faith I had in environmentalists as it makes no sense whatsoever to halt progress in order to push your own agenda. They advocate wind turbines/solar panels and therefore, in their eyes, everything else is rubbish.

It makes me wonder if Greenpeace are connected to manufacturers of wind turbines/solar panels because, in my opinion, actively attempting to prevent the realisation of fusion technology is complete madness of the highest order.
 

njp

Well-known Member
About 2 years ago I was pretty agnostic when it came to AGW but then I read an article in a newspaper (can't remember which but there are references on the internet) about the construction of the ITER Nuclear Fusion reactor project in Southern France. At the time, Bridget Woodman of Greenpeace said "Pursuing nuclear fusion and the ITER project is madness. Nuclear fusion has all the problems of nuclear power, including producing nuclear waste and the risks of a nuclear accident."
[...]
Over the following weeks after this it became apparent that the vast majority of 'Green' groups oppose research into nuclear fusion
Just so you know where I am (as they say on Dragon's Den), I am firmly in favour of nuclear fusion research and reluctantly in favour of increased use of nuclear fission as an interim measure.

I regard wind turbines as largely green icons, which have their uses but are by no means a panacea and are often sited in the wrong locations. Domestic versions are in almost all cases an irrelevant rip-off. Other renewables should be used where appropriate, and with due regard to total lifetime cost, environmental impact and so on. Improvements in energy efficiency are almost always a Good Thing.
 

Wellington Tim

Active Member
Just so you know where I am (as they say on Dragon's Den), I am firmly in favour of nuclear fusion research and reluctantly in favour of increased use of nuclear fission as an interim measure.

I regard wind turbines as largely green icons, which have their uses but are by no means a panacea and are often sited in the wrong locations. Domestic versions are in almost all cases an irrelevant rip-off. Other renewables should be used where appropriate, and with due regard to total lifetime cost, environmental impact and so on. Improvements in energy efficiency are almost always a Good Thing.

That's what I think too.
 

MikeTV

Distinguished Member
Why is it that AGW advocators always have to try and disregard the 'other side' by claiming they're connected to the energy industry and therefore must have some kind of agenda?
It is sensible to question the motives, and verify the credentials, of people claiming to be experts on any subject matter. What worries me is that so many people jump on the skeptical bandwagon at the meerest hint of any uncertainty, without any real appreciation for the scientific basis.
I know many people who don't believe the AGW bandwagon is all it's cracked up to be and none of them work for energy/petroleum companies and some, including myself, don't even own a car and have a very low carbon output.
But you have to question who has put that doubt in their minds, when the scientific consensus is the opposite?

Why can't the skeptics see that they are being manipulated, and why do they constantly choose to ignore the complete lack of reliability in their sources, even after their dubious nature is exposed? At some point I'd expect these people to wake up, and realise that they are backing the wrong horse. But they don't, and so I find this very indicative of an agenda.
I could argue without a shadow of a doubt that I produce less CO2 than 99% of those who say I must be belching it out because I don't believe AGW.
I wouldn't make that accusation, and I consider your lack of Co2 output, commendable.

We're not all getting money from BP to 'deny' AGW, we're just using our own minds to think for ourselves.

However, that often seems to be a crime these days...
I am not suggesting you are getting any money from BP, I just dont think you are using your mind to it's true potential;) Let's face it, none of us are leading scientists, and none us can appreciate the science as well as the scientists studying GW themselves. Nevertheless, many of the more outrageous skeptical remarks made on this forum could be easily discredited by a quick bit of research on the science, using the internet, by anyone. And yet many people aren't even prepared to do that, in order to test the validity of their own arguments. Hence, these protestations about independent thought being repressed are simply utter nonsense. It's not "a crime these days" - at it's best, it's just ignorance, and at it's worst, it's an agenda. IMHO.
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
It is sensible to question the motives, and verify the credentials, of people claiming to be experts on any subject matter.

You don't like it when we question whether some people in the environment movement might have Marxist agendas.
 

MikeTV

Distinguished Member
You don't like it when we question whether some people in the environment movement might have Marxist agendas.
Just like the skeptical movement, then?

You can question the integrity of individuals, as much as you like. And so will I. Particularly when they choose to contribute their "expert" opinion. But it's utter lunacy to suggest the scientific consensus have a marxist agenda.
 

njp

Well-known Member
'scientific consensus' is a nonsense phrase.

Not at all. There's a nice piece on what the consensus really means here. It's from 2004, but much of the discussion is still relevant now.

This part could have been written especially for you, Steve:

The skeptic attitude to consensus usually starts with "there is no consensus". That's wrong, and they usually retreat from it to "but consensus science is meaningless", and/or "consensus has nothing to do with science". The latter is largely true but irrelevant. The existence of the consensus doesn't do a lot to determine what science is done; it doesn't prevent contrary lines being explored. But the consensus view does come into the tricky interface between science and policy, and science and the media.
 

damo_in_sale

Well-known Member
But it's utter lunacy to suggest the scientific consensus have a marxist agenda.

I didn't suggest that, as well you know.
 

MikeTV

Distinguished Member
I didn't suggest that, as well you know.
You only suggest that significant numbers of the environmental movement are Marxist (because if it wasn't significant, why mention it at all?). I'm just pointing out that the "environmental movement" is more than just a few crackpot activists living in trees. So to suggest an influential amount of Marxism exists among this large diverse group, is false. As you well know. :lesson:
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: Cleer Audio speaker + HiFi Rose Streamer Reviews & Movie/TV Show talk
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom