As last year’s global temperature becomes the hottest on record, Rachel Stewart & Gareth Morgan ask the hard questions

67
0

John-Key-sold-environment-300x224

For the climate deniers, last year’s record heat on Earth will be just another fact that makes it difficult for them to be taken seriously.

Climate change stopped being a scientific issue some time ago, it is now a cultural issue. Those who have benefited from the current unsustainable economic system will refuse point blank to acknowledge their privilege, and like a Tobacco Company desperately trying to ignore the links between smoking and cancer, are in total denial.

Rachel Stewart, one of the most courageous voices in NZ media when it comes to asking hard questions of the Dairy industry asked some harder ones yesterday in her must read column…

I watched Federated Farmers dairy spokesman Andrew Hoggard say last week that he was “shocked”. Yes, shocked by another big drop in the GlobalDairyTrade auction.

I’m genuinely shocked that he’s shocked. Clearly he’s only been listening to his cronies, and reading those farming papers, and not extending himself much wider than that.

Because anyone over the last half decade who’s written anything even remotely resembling the truth about the dairy sector has invariably been dismissed as either a nut job, a traitor, and in some more extreme cases, received death threats. Ask me how I know?

Throughout this era I’ve watched truckloads of provincial rural reporters do nothing more than suck, and grease, and fawn over the entire industry. With very few exceptions, nary a searching question has passed their lips.

What questions should they have asked? Here’s a random selection of thousands that could and should have been asked.

Why are we content to produce masses of low-commodity, low-value milk powder to the lactose-intolerant Chinese?

Why aren’t we actively pursuing value-added products to trade with the rest of the world?

Why do we think that high input farming – having to use imported feed like PKE – isn’t ‘factory farming’?

How sustainable is this industry given the level of intensification, outside inputs, environmental damage and debt required to conduct “normal” business?

Has the short-term boom been worth the long-term bust of our dying waterways?

Have farmers been doing enough to protect the environment while making that quick buck?

…we can not separate the demand to intensify Dairy farming and climate change. Gareth Morgan makes this point over at his blog

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

supplements all cost money (even the relatively cheap PKE), and now that extra production doesn’t justify spending that money. So we will see farmers paring back, cutting stock numbers, farming fewer cows and making less milk. That means less income, but it also means far lower costs. As our farmers like to say – you don’t have to pay for the rain and sun – and we are blessed with both those in this land.

Luckily this is not only a more financially sustainable way to farm, it is better for the environment too. Fewer cows on the land means less nutrients end up in our waterways, which means our rivers, lakes and aquifers will be better off.

We need some boldness to tackle climate change and our reliance on Dairy. To date we have seen little of that.

67 COMMENTS

  1. I refuse to be labelled as a “climate change denier”, and even find it slightly insulting. It doesn’t even make sense, since we know with absolute certainty that the climate is changing, so, no, I’m NOT in “denial”. Indeed, I seriously doubt that ANYONE is a true “climate change denier”. What I am, however, as a scientist, is sceptical of the underlying cause(s). “Climate change believer’s” (see what I did there?) tend to approach climate change in an entirely unscientific manner – i.e. they stringently adhere to climate models that year after year fail to make meaningful predictions about, you know, the climate. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge these models can’t even accurately predict the PAST climate – i.e. if you input data from 1915, the models utterly fail to predict on a per decade basis (or even over the century) the changing climate – i.e. they don’t support known climate FACTS. Surely this must be the FIRST requirement of a believable climate model – test it against EXISTING data. Yet these very models are religiously (for lack of a better word) believed to make predictions about the FUTURE climate(!).
    In any case, if Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever (who was once a staunch supporter of man-made climate change) is anything to go by, support among scientists is slowly but surely dropping (as you expect, given that the ACTUAL SCIENCE isn’t producing useful results). His seminar was quite telling
    ( http://www.mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/videos/34729/ivar-giaever-global-warming-revisited/laureate-giaever ). Here are some choice quotes from the talk: “Global warming really has become a new religion, because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.” and “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”
    He’s of course dead right, IF you approach this from a scientific viewpoint.
    Also I have yet to see anyone successfully deconstruct Burt Rutan’s talk – he approached the whole debate (because that IS what it is) from en engineers viewpoint, rather than a scientific one. http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf
    I urge everyone here at TDB to read this and consider the various points RATIONALLY.

    • Science is not an “exact science” so I rather err on the side of caution here.

      If science was exact then we would never have other catastrophes as we are having today like diseases that are mutating to other strains or crops that fail or people dying of horrific deaths from chemical overexposures Bopal India and the like.

      No we cant look at science as perfect any more than we can look at the Climate change predictions being made.

      What is certain is that our climate is changing and as I said we would perhaps be best to err on the side of caution and start to plan for the catastrophe now rather than sit and wait until the floods wash us all away or we starve from crop failure.

      • Exactly, Cleany;

        When nuclear power was invented the possibility of catastrophe was so remote it was preposterous. Until it happened in Chernobyl. And 3-Mile.

        Subsequent safety measures then made it almost impossible that it could happen again. Until Fukushima.

        Now, of course, it simply couldn’t happen again – hence the jubilation at Iran’s ‘wonderful’ nuclear deal.

        • Add also Windscale nuclear fire in the U.K. on 10 Feb 1957 which ranked severity level 5 out of max 7. Windscale quickly renamed Sellafield and triggered a “controlled” nuclear explosion on 11 Feb 2001.

    • Burt Rutan
      WTF is slide 7 about? Engineering my arse, some vague implication that CC is another scare story – logical fallacy, hello.
      Slide 10 – “The temperature trend is so slight that, were the global average temperature change which has taken place during the 20th and 21st centuries were to occur in an ordinary room, most of the people in the room would be unaware of it. The CO2 % in this room will increase more during this talk than the atmospheric CO2 % did in the last 100 years.”
      Slide 12 – “He (an alarmist) must convince us that CO2 is a pollutant. But calling it a pollutant is an uninformed joke. CO2, along with oxygen and water is essential for all life.”

      Enough of this rubbish – I’ve wasted too much time looking at this crap already. But like a moth to the flame I continue on to see to what level of egregiousness this can possibly sink.

      More slide 12 – “Human‟s emissions of CO2 each year = 1 tablespoon in 300 gallons. So, take a tablespoon (360 drops) of warm water, slowly drip it into a 300-gallon drum of water (6 barrels) over one year at 1 drop every day.”
      The old nothing that small could make a difference bullshit – OK try taking that concentration of arsenic on your next Weetbix and see how you get on.
      Slide 13 – repeat of 12.
      Slide 24 – more CO2 is good for us
      Slide 25 – “The danger is too-low atmospheric CO2” (Is Burt a bit of a wag or is he for real?)
      Slide 26 – “CO2 might now be the highest in the human era.” Equivocating a bit here, “might”??
      Slide 29 – CO2 follows temperature rise – that old saw.
      Slide 80 – “Is the current temperature perfect? Unlikely.
      Will warming and increase in CO2 be good? Yes.”
      Slide 92 – Conclusion
      The CAGW agenda is supported with deceptively altered science. In spite of recent, human-caused atmospheric CO2 increases, there is nothing out of the ordinary happening with our climate.
      • Climate Change is real. The earth has been naturally
      warming since the “Little Ice Age”, with cooling cycles.
      • Fossil fuel use adds a small % to an important trace gas,
      that is not only beneficial, but is the essence of life itself.
      • We cannot burn fossil fuels to prevent the next ice age; the
      greenhouse gas effect is far too weak for that.
      • Current fuels will become naturally constrained by cost as
      they become scarce. Government taxes are not required.
      • If Man, in the future, achieves a capability to change global
      temperatures, he will likely use that technology to warm
      the planet, not to cool it.
      • Manmade global warming is over. It existed only in the
      minds of grant-seeking scientists and academics, ratings obsessed
      media and opportunistic eco/political-activists.

      And you want me to assess these points RATIONALLY?
      Doesn’t it strike you as odd that these negations come in one-off documents and presentations, that there isn’t a coherent body of work that supports the skeptic position? Isn’t it a tad odd that the skeptics throw a multitude of theories as to what’s happening and why? Compare that with the science that has a straightforward core principle of heat absorption by GHGs. There is no need for climate scientists to explain warming in multiple ways. Sure there is a whole lot of complexity in how warming manifests – just because temperature rise isn’t a simple linear correlation doesn’t negate the underlying principle.

      As for Giaever – love his opening – with no hint of irony – as you have quoted above Global warming really has become a new religion, because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper.” – and then proceeds to discuss it for the next 28 minutes!

      However, while we debate this – the earth acquires the heat of 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second.

      • E-clectic;
        Thanks for the slide and bullet point summary!
        They are all correct,of course, minus your silly comments.

        Cheers.

        • The comments apply a level of symmetry to the points that preceded them.

          However, humour me if you will and please reply with a succinct statement of the skeptic’s position du jour.

          Please say it’s geoengineering as you have done before.

    • Thanks for that rather pointless point of view (see what I did there).

      The shift from a scientific to a cultural argument necessarily means that many people will not have read every single piece of literature, peer-review and counter argument, weighed that against the agreed body of knowledge and sought wider input in order to come to a formulated, meta-analysed conclusion.

      I doubt you even did that about the moon landing – you just accepted it, like everyone else with a brain.

      The cultural part of it goes thus: IF there is a chance that catastrophe MIGHT be happening, the consequences are so dire, why shouldn’t we change anyway? Who cares about a corporation’s profit? I’d prefer the certainty of the food chain/water resource/species diversity/whatever.

    • “choice quotes from the talk” ?

      No, it’s run of the mill nuttery. Change the labels and it’s straight from any kook science denier’s big bag of stupid:

      “Evolution really has become a new religion, because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.” and “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”

      “Vaccination really has become a new religion, because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.” and “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”

      “Community water Fluoridation really has become a new religion, because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.” and “When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory.”

      (shrug)

      Don’t you just love contrarians.

      Sublime confidence that their personal expertise (or lack of expertise) holds more weight than the scientific community’s consensus.

      …the relentless scouring of blogs, “think tanks”, and newspapers… exposing the real troof.

      • Straw man much? I can do that too! How about that it was consensus that the Earth was flat? Or how about that it was once consensus that God created all species on Earth? Or how about the consensus that the Earth revolved around the Sun and was the very centre of the universe? Or how about the consensus that Newtonian gravitational theory was correct? Scientific understanding has been shown to be wrong multiple times over the course of history, but “this time it’s different” I suppose, because Anthropomorphic Climate Change Theory is too precious to discuss without knee jerk over-reaction and BILLIONS (if not TRILLIONS) in expenditure. I’m merely suggesting that Anthropomorphic Climate Change IS testable against evidence over the course of time, and that so far the climate models AREN’T predicting the observed FACTS.

        • Neatly illustrated Nitrium.
          How about that it was consensus that the Earth was flat?

          Never a scientific consensus

          Or how about that it was once consensus that God created all species on Earth?

          Never a scientific consensus.

          Or how about the consensus that the Earth revolved around the Sun and was the very centre of the universe?

          Never a scientific consensus, at least, as far as the modern scientific method is concerned.

          And before you play the standard Galileo fallacy, Galileo’s stand represented a dawning of the scientific methodologies reliance on observation vs revelation/dogma.

          Or how about the consensus that Newtonian gravitational theory was correct?

          Good example of how science advances and changes when evidence demands it. Much of Newtonian physics was pure mathematical construct, to be confirmed by observation.

          Scientific understanding has been shown to be wrong multiple times over the course of history, but “this time it’s different”

          No, no ,no.
          Nothing has changed, scientific consensus will always change when evidence demands.

          So congratulations, you used

          Claim CA250

          right on the nail:

          Scientific claims are always changing

          Unless you meant …

          (voice lowers to whisper)

          ..the consensus is controlled by conspiracy….

          Claim CA325
          Creationists (sceptics) are prevented from publishing in scientific journals

          Claim CA320
          Scientists are pressured not to challenge established dogma

          Claim CA321.1
          Scientists conclusions are motivated by money

          CA310
          Scientists find what they expect to find

          Take home lesson:

          If you don’t want to be treated like every other creationist or science denier stop using their arguments
          : .

        • Nitrium, I notice that you give specific examples of wrong conclusions only for the pre-scientific period. When you get to Newton, examples stop. After that you vaguely say “Scientific understanding has been shown to be wrong multiple times over the course of history,”. Thats it. No examples given.
          But even if you can list instances of science being ‘wrong’ that may prove nothing except that scientific theories evolve as new data is revealed. Which is what you would expect, and what is happening with climate research right now.

      • Oh and btw, the geriatric (age 87) Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever expertise is in solid state physics.

        He hasn’t published a word in the field of climate science.

        Zilch.

        That figures, it isn’t his area of expertise.

        And…the financing his retirement is presumably helped along by
        The Heartland Institute, for whom he is a “scientific adviser”.

        Just guessing.

        Yes, that Heartland institute, those fighters for big tobacco, the climate denying folks at the Heartland Institute.

        But anyway scientist making the quotes above has already ruled themselves out of rational debate.

        • Ok so how many, exactly, of the oft-cited “consensus” of scientists (that I remind you are routinely rubbed in our faces as “proof”) are actually published CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, given that you deem this as important in determining if any critique whatsoever of climate science should be taken seriously as opposed to completely ignored as mere conjecture?

    • So when are you going to write about evolution which is a religion of the masses today. There is still no repeatable observed science to explain it.

    • Nitrium – I don’t believe “global warming really has become a new religion” any more than the discovery that chloroflourocarbons very nearly destroyed the Ozone Layer last century.

      If we’d ended up endlessly debating the observed data on that crisis, by now the Ozone Layer would be gone, and we’d be frying under increased UV radiation.

      Somehow I don’t believe that NASA – which has launched probes to the farthest planets; put humans on the moon; looked deep into the oceans; drilled ice-core samples under Antarctica, etc, is wrong on this one.

      (Disclaimer: Ok, I’m a science geek, and have been ever since I first saw ‘Star Trek’, in black and white, on the NZBC when I was a kid…)

      Nor do I think that the scientific community is wrong on this.

      And if they are – what’s the worst that could happen? That we start cleaning up the foul sh*t that our species dumps every day into the atmosphere?

      I can live with a “mistake” that results in clean air.

    • NITRIUM;
      Thanks for the links. Burt Rutan’s talk is particularly interestiing.
      It is confirmed by my research also. By that I mean other professors/scientist’s.
      I agree with all you have said.

      I also took offence to the nonsense sentence ‘Climate Change Denier’ and made
      similar comment in Martyn’s previous post on the subject. I suppose it is meant to
      read ‘Conspiracy Theorist’,to put the many off track,and have us ‘ducking for cover’ so to speak. It’s all about the control of language.

      Don’t be intimidated by Richard, and others, whom seem to fit a pattern in their replies. eg belittle,denigrate,deflect,divert,ridicule,confuse or even bully,(see internet troll-Wiki). Also seem to use the same logic and roll out the same MSM websites.
      Sometimes it seems as if they have attended the same ‘night class.’
      Others,it seems,are still believing what MSM rolls out. ‘Blind Faither’s” ??

      I urge you to read Martyn’s post “Using Temperatures to……” July 14 with the
      links of Prof.Richard Lindzen who was IPPC report CEO of chapter 7 and contributor to chapter 4 in previous report. They deal with ‘Scientific Consensus’
      and how Peer Review really works.
      He is a proper Empirical Scientist and I am sure you will find Donald E Scott-Ph.D
      introduction very interesting.
      Also Martyn’s “Climate Denial is……” June 29. has many important links in the
      dialogue between Richard,Frank and I that were never addressed properly.
      Other readers should do same with a truly open mind.

      Iam sure you will be interested in the Electric Cosmos Theory.
      All predictions validated.

      Cheers.

      • Thanks for the links. Burt Rutan’s talk is particularly interestiing.
        blah blah…

        Translation:

        “I’m with you Nitrium! go for it, keep referring to political and psuedo-science blogs; newspaper articles; data anomalies; the tiny, tiny minority of contrarian climate scientists; opinion pieces.

        Ignore the global scientific community and its consensus, NASA, NOAA, The Royal Society etc etc etc.

        I’m not a science denier!

        Don’t be intimidated by people who point out how flawed our methodology is.

        Hey! look over here! here’s some blog posts that have a whole lot of links climate change denial eggs already laid in them – the sort of opinions we like to read. “

        • Donald E Scott-Ph.D.
          http://electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm
          “The selection and publication of only the data that support the accepted theory is expedited by the “peer review system”. If the experts who have accepted a given theory control both the funding of future research and also what gets published, there is little chance for conflicting viewpoints to develop.”

          Now on to ‘Consensus’ and how it really works with the
          attacking and sacking of real scientists who actually have performed Empirical experiments.

          An insider of the UN’s IPCC recent report who was CEO in the writing of chapter 7.
          Also contributor of chapter 4 in previous report.

          Prof. Richard Lindzen;
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-of-fear-global-warming-alarmists-intimidate-dissenting-scientists-into-silence/5294
          and a much longer paper that must be read to understand fully what is really going on.
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-science-is-it-currently-designed-to-answer-questions/16330

          Has everyone forgotten ClimateGate and the Emails’ Scandal in 2009 published in MSM-The Telegraph?
          “The British media has acknowledged that the scientists were intent upon manipulating the data on Climate Change as well as excluding the critics:”
          And who really stands to gain with ‘carbon trading’?
          http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-fixing-the-climate-data-around-the-policy/16339
          – See more at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/07/14/using-freezing-temperatures-to-claim-global-warming-is-a-hoax/#sthash.LJlorHOn.dpuf

          Richard;
          I see you did not respond to this even though you posted after mine.
          The IPCC is POLITICAL not scientific.

          ‘Scientific Consensus’ and ‘Peer Review’ = Political/Ideological Dogma!
          Please read,and others,to understand the state of science today.

          Cheers.

          • Donald E Scott is a Professor of Electrical Engineering – not someone trained in climate science.

            Has everyone forgotten ClimateGate and the Emails’ Scandal in 2009 published in MSM-The Telegraph?

            Iain, just because people screwed up with the contents of their emails does not negate the reality of rising CO2 levels; rising heat; and the development of human industrialisation at the same time. That can’t be a coincidence, regardless what some conspiracy-website maintains.

            Just look at the two graphs at the top of the page and tell us what they represent.

            Regarding Prof Lindzen, as far as I can determine, he has offered his opinions on climate change – but no real data to back it up. Last I heard, everyone has an opinion – but few can come up with the real data. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Views_on_climate_change)

            As for “who really stands to gain with ‘carbon trading’?” – I would suggest to you that those most affected would be the fossil fuel industry. It is the fossil fuel industry that stands to lose the most but has most to gain by discrediting AGW. Hence why they fund anti-AGW groups and support voices who deny the science.

            Lastly, you refer to “The IPCC is POLITICAL not scientific”.

            IS NASA and the NOAA “political”? They are a lot less political than the Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-fixing-the-climate-data-around-the-policy/16339) website you link to, which has it’s own political agenda;

            TTIP: A Corporate Lobbying Paradise – Which Businesses Are Pushing Most for EU-US Trade Deal?

            George Clooney Paid by Lockheed Martin to Oppose War Profiteering by Africans Disloyal to the U.S. Agenda

            Iran Is Not The Threat

            Israel Exploits Syrian Chaos to Plan Looting of Golan Oil

            “It’s Raining Missiles. A Nightmare that Refuses to End!” – Testimony from the War in Yemen

            Netanyahu Bluffed an Attack on Iran, and Jeffrey Goldberg Helped Out

            American Zionist Campaign against White House in Panic Bid to Kill UN Security Council Deal with Iran

            Ukrainian News Service Says Standard of Living Is Plummeting

            Finding Aliens: SETI, Talking Lions and Wittgenstein

            US Targets Venezuela Using Border Dispute as Pretext

            etc…

            On matters relating to climate science, I think I’ll take my cue from climate scientists. Because so far you haven’t presented any hard facts refuting AGW – just opinions from individuals.

            • Frank;
              This was a reply to Richard to show the real story behind ‘consensus’ but seeing that he is missing in action again, and you are here, I cannot let this go without my right of reply.

              You know that to protect the ‘status quo’ one has to
              either ‘shoot the messinger’ or critisize his sources,
              Being the gentleman you seem to be you have chosen
              the latter.
              Lets try and get this over in note form.

              1. You are right.Donald E,Scott does not specialize
              in climate but would know more on the subject than
              you and I put together. eg; Electric currents are the
              main driver of winds.
              This was put up to explain the Scientific Method the
              IPCC is using and to support what Prof.Lindzen has to
              say about ‘consensus’ and ‘peer review’.

              2. You have chosen to attack the professor(above)with
              Wiki. Please actually read his two links because this is
              exactly what he is talking about.
              You should know that Wiki is part of the apparatus that supports the ‘status quo’ (MSM) and cannot be
              totally relied upon.
              He is a highly respected Emperical scientist who reseached the ‘Iris Effect’ which,after initial debunk,
              was validated by later reseach with better technology.
              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis
              A major negative feedback loop.

              3.You have tried to debunk GlobalRearch with the
              headlines that just happened to be there(on the side)
              at the time. ‘Cherry picking’? Obsucate?
              You bloody well know this is NOT a ‘conspiracy’ website with a political agenda other than to present
              researched facts that our ‘leaders’ and MSM are not
              telling us. We have discussed this before.
              Did you note in that link that geoengineering was on
              the agenda of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit?
              The author noted it has since dissappeared off all
              agenda’s since.
              Which leads to my last point.

              4. You asked me before why the IPCC science was
              seriously flawed. Apart from the information contained
              in the many links provided, the answer is quite simple.
              (a) The Sun’s energy input is NOT included in their
              ‘models’. (every scientist knows it is the main driver)
              (b) Geoengieering taking place is not considered or
              even mentioned.

              Historical evidence of Environmental
              Modification Techniques (ENMOD) from
              the Professor himself;
              http://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-change-geoengineering-and-environmental-modification-techniques-enmod/5357966

              Military/Gvt document;”Owning the Weather
              in 2025″
              http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/documents/vol3ch15.pdf
              – See more at: https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/06/29/climate-denial-is-cultural-not-scientific/#sthash.PU0RMcPY.dpuf

              Is NASA etc political? – Yes,at least their PR/Media
              statements and any cue’s you are taking from just
              are Not Real Emperical Climate Scientists.

              Cheers.

              • A slow hand clap for Iain Mclean. How embarrassing for him.

                He has nothing. Only a big bag of stupid and links copied and pasted from fellow conspiracy kooks.

                The global scientific community don’t share his viewpoint. In fact they actively oppose it.

                http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                All Iain has is political blogs and articles from individual, usually retired, contrarians.

                Poor Iain Mclean, he has absolutely no idea how the global scientific community or consensus works.

  2. In my region they want to build a dam and I doubt they are seriously considering stopping it because of the low dairy prices because too much (tax payer) money is being thrown at irrigation schemes.

    • ‘First they came for the tax payers but I didn’t care. I was earning in The Black.

      Then they came for the rate payers. I said nothing. I was still camped at home.

      Then they came for the renters, and the squatters – and my wallet is as flat as all the others.’

      They’ll get their pound of flesh, their gallons of blood, and you won’t be able to use the dam lake because – you might pollute it.

  3. CO2 emissions and corporate greed and lobbying against regulations are clearly the main reasons for our drastic climate and weather changes. This is proven and agreed upon. I agree with Martyn that it is now very much a cultural issue. Nitrium, I do not support your immense faith in science and scientific research.
    Your highly revered scientific defense holds very little water because many of us now believe that much scientific data and research is a lot of propaganda and INTENTIONALLY biased towards the outcomes that those who pay for the research want.

    As for nobel prize winners and peace prize winners, many of us feel that these are often also a crock of biased B.S.
    Obama , the king of drown murders, was awarded the peace prize and that is insane as his govt. are supporting perpetual war; drone murders and not contributing towards peace.

    Placing so much emphasis on scientific data is naive when much of the data is biased and fictional and meant to defend whatever these corporations want that fund the very data we think depicts the truth.

    Weather changes and climate changes ==>> we know why. The problem is what steps do we take IMMEDIATELY to stop it and reverse the damage. SCIENCE HAS FAILED US IN MANY WAYS and many in the scientific and engineering realms have sold out to those mega-corporations and their lobbyists who pay big bucks to keep regulations down and save money for them because money is their god. They also pay big bucks to make sure that research data supports their greed and lies about the truths.
    WE NEED TO QUESTION ” ALL AUTHORITY ” AND ALL ” SCIENTIFIC DATA “.
    We need the truth and not a slippery and biased version of it.

    • “CO2 emissions and corporate greed and lobbying against regulations are clearly the main reasons for our drastic climate and weather changes. This is proven and agreed upon.”

      “Nitrium, I do not support your immense faith in science and scientific research.”

      These statements are philosophically self defeating. If you do not support faith in science and scientific research, then how on earth can you claim to know the causes of climate change to be “proven”?

      You would also do well to note the huge funding that is poured into organisations such as the IPCC when questioning the influence of money on science, particularly when the immediate past head of the IPCC is not by a scientist but a railway engineer.

        • I understand both, thanks. I’m just calling Blake on the logical inconsistency of his argument. You can’t use science to say something is ‘proven’ on one hand, and then knock science on the other. Any good scientist is by nature both enquiring and skeptical.

          • gypsy, I am not dismissing all science, that would be insane. I am also far from inconsistent in my argument.
            You have misunderstood me as I see you misunderstand others here. What I am and will continue to affirm is that many ( NOT ALL ! ) research projects are funded by those who have an investment in the data outcome of the research. They influence the results and this is proven all over the show. Biased test results we sometimes can not trust and so we are skeptical and want further results. Nothing wrong with that.

            No one needs to show us much data to affirm the obvious about the real reasons why we are experiencing the horrific events worldwide. There is tons of research, unbiased, that we can depend on that show exactly why we are going through the climate disasters we are. Shame on the greedy mega-corporations and those sold out and owned UNIVERSITIES and their biased and bought scientists spitting out lies and garbage in disguise as being the TRUTH. And then fools quote these idiots to defend something that is not close to the truth.

            I always question authority especially when it comes from the scientific world because it has a tendency to be swayed and manipulated by its funders. Remaining objective and producing un-biased results is the goal but , pity PITY ! it does not always happen. Hence we can not, without question, trust all Science and need to question it always. Firstly, we need to look at who funds these research projects and universities and who pays these scientists.

          • I understand both, thanks.

            Good, and if so then you will know that your mention of Pachauri’s training as an professional engineer has no relevance to climate science or to the funding and establishment of the IPCC.

            Pachauri’s role was executive and administrative, his training and background perfectly suited to the role.

            Most professional engineers achieve executive and managerial positions at some stage of their careers.

            But my guess is that you don’t actually understand either topic.

            • You missed the point of my comment. Posters here have criticised cites from Nitrium and others by ad-hominem attacks on skeptics. Yet the IPCC was headed by a train enthusiast. Don’t you get the irony?

          • Andy, it’s almost like old times to see you venture outside of Richard Treadgold’s bunker once again.

            Re your comment: you presented the arguments in the link.
            You wrote them. You own them.

            You are an adult, active in the denier-sphere, quite capable of dishing it out, so … (take a guess at the rest of the sentence).

            The link is very illustrative.

            Perhaps you’ve since reconsidered your position?

            If so, hats off to you.

            • I completely stand by my comments in that thread, if anyone can be bothered to trawl through 600 comments on Ken’s blog, back in the heyday when Cedric ruled the roost.

              You seemed to upset him about something. I’m still not convinced that Cedric passed the Turing Test, since I seemed to solicit the same response several times in the same thread.

              • I’m still not convinced that Cedric passed the Turing Test, since I seemed to solicit the same response several times in the same thread

                Yes, Cedric Katesby occasionally repeated material – when questions had not been answered or to illustrate to readers that the point he was making had obviously flown right over the head of whoever he was making it to (and guess who that often was).

                I’m sorry that of he’s late he has gone to ground, his slicing and dicing of conspiracy theorists, climate science deniers and assorted kooks was masterful and often highly amusing.

                I completely stand by my comments in that thread,

                Hmm, and we’ll let readers determine how sane they were.

                600 or whatever number of comments and still you never explained how Dr Evil fraudulently controls the science published by the the IPCC beyond asserting it all happens at his single desktop computer – and no one anywhere ever notices or objects.

                • I did explain it quite well I thought. Anyway, I thought I was OCD but seriously, keeping links to 2013 comment threads?

                  • Andy, as long as the konspiacy krackpots keep parroting PRATTs such as ‘the IPCC is corrupt’, or that ‘the science and IPCC is politically driven’, or is untrustworthy because Pachauri was once a railway engineer etc, then the threads are as fresh and relevant as ever.

                    Cedric gave you the floor, yet in 600 or whatever number of comments it was, you couldn’t explain how Dr Evil fraudulently controls the science published by the the IPCC beyond asserting it all happens at his single desktop computer – and no one anywhere ever notices or objects.

                    • I thought I explained it quite well, and the explanation involved someone editing a document on his or her PC. Not that hard really, I kept on repeating this over the duration of the 600 comment thread.

      • You would also do well to note the huge funding that is poured into organisations such as the IPCC when questioning the influence of money on science, particularly when the immediate past head of the IPCC is not by a scientist but a railway engineer.

        Really?

        Well, ‘Gypsy’, that hasn’t stopped you from quoting a commerce professor and right-wing blogs as sources for climate schience, has it?

        As for your remark about “questioning the influence of money on science” – you throw such snide remarks around easily, but fail to back it up.

        Do you mean that money is actually spent on researching climate change rather than the garbage you offer which has no data; no credible research; and no scientific rigour?

        Because if you’re not going to fund science research – how do you expect to get the data? By wishful thinking?

      • ” If you do not support faith in…”

        It’s not some stupid religion!

        And the people engaged in science are as shonky as the rest of us. Fact.

        They’re always making up stuff to get their names in lights. More research money. Kudos and fame. Feel free to let your fingers play ‘google’ on this. Any era. Any country. Any discipline.

        They do not walk ON water – just through it, like the rest of us.

        ‘Support faith in…’ That’s like having mindless faith in WINZ or the medical profession. Too many FUBARs over too long a period – because their egos and incomes depend on outside financial support. They can be – and several have been – bought.

        (Yes, there are decent ones. It’s not ALL, by any means. But the rot is definitely there in the ‘scientific community’ – too many Stepford Wives.)

  4. We can’t keep polluting the atmosphere, we can’t keep polluting the oceans and we can’t keep polluting the soil. Sooner or later there is a price to pay.

    We are running out of time to act intelligently to clean up our act – and all the scientific data in the world will not ease the plight of people who are right now suffocating in polluted air, dying of dehydration and malnutrition. California’s loss of revenue and jobs due to drought is conservatively estimated to be 1.8 billion US dollars and growing.

    Bill Gate’s geoengineering strategy of spraying millions of tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere is a poison from above while another of his hobby interests, Monsanto, poisons the soil from below.

    The price to pay for all talk and no action will be Bill Gates bringing to fruition his stated aim to lower the world population by 10-15%. Those percentages have increased as Bill gets richer and the poor get poorer. Are we having fun?

          • Gypsy – make sure you remember were the rock is that you climbed out from under when the big flood hits.
            Not seen too many folks in as much denial and swimming in bias and mis information.
            What corporation are you linked to ? Bet you are heavily supportive of our “out of touch” and elitist idiots at the political helm.

          • Cleangreen;
            Read my reply to Nitrium above and follow the links.
            It took me a while for the information to sink in.
            And to connect the dots.
            Cheers.

        • In Christchurch, in some areas, you can’t get insurance because the “models” tell us we will be underwater in 50 years

          Expect a lot more “deniers” to crawl out of the woodwork.

          • In Christchurch, in some areas, you can’t get insurance because the “models” tell us we will be underwater in 50 years

            Yes, the smart money follows the science. And consider that the underwriters have only their profits at risk, the stakes are far higher for the whole planet’s ecosystems.

  5. How come corporations are heard above populations?

    They haven’t hired everyone in a country – just threatened the supine serviles in government.

    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” and we won’t be heard until this pseudo-elites situation changes.

    I like de Bono’s notion that (for example) producers have to draw their water supplies from downstream of their plant. We could apply that concept to number of similar scenarios.

Comments are closed.