climate change industry - dodgy

Tourist Tony · June 2007

Bonj is the one who suggested that global warming could be reduced by evaporating the Mediterranean in, er, large trays, ignoring (or being ignorant of) the fact that water vapour functions as a greenhouse gas.

Note to Admin: please don't ban Bonj again. We need a buffoon to enjoy slapping.

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The article does not mean what you claim it does at all. It is about the way in which mechanisms based on international agreements to deal with climate change have not worked in the way they were intended and have allowed opportunities for corruption and shoddy practice. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, exactly - that companies that are set up to deal with climate change are corrupt. I'd say that was pretty revealing, and quite damning for the climatists to be honest.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

I will repeat for you again, because you continually make this flawed style of argument: you cannot read backwards from political or economic responses to scientific findings anything about the science.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Like I've explained, it doesn't PROVE the science is false, but the very strong financial gains so blatantly being exercised provide a very clear motive for falsifying it, so it very strongly suggests it.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

It would be like arguing that the smoking ban in the UK in 2007 proves that scientists who discovered the link between smkoing and cancer in the 1950s were involved in a massive web of conspiracy with anti-smoking campaigners to curtail freedom. You cannot construct a conspiracy theory in retrospect as a serious argument... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, it would be more like the other way round - if research came out to suggest smoking wasn't harmful and then it was unbanned. Cigarette manufacturers would be suspected of being behind it, because it would mean they can make more money on fags.
There's no actual tangible direct link to the science, but the fact of a financial motive is a very strong circumstantial link. But as I've explained to mjones, relying solely on the fact that there is no direct tangible link from the pocket-lining we're seeing here to the IPCC's 'science' is putting you in strong danger of placing all your eggs in one basket.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Kyoto is a joke
CDM is (largely) a joke
The UN has always been a joke

So tell us something new Bossj
or explain how these facts alter the scientific consensus on climate change
For the umpteenth time of asking[xx(]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

papercorn2000 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by papercorn2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6716003.stm

There we go, proof that planes can't actually fly. Or something.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well I don't think it's quite the same thing, as the first pic clearly shows a plane blatantly in the act of, well, flying.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Never heard of photoshop?
The story says something about some planey things being dangerous. Ergo all planes can't fly. Or something

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Gary Askwith

Kyoto is a joke
CDM is (largely) a joke
The UN has always been a joke

So tell us something new Bossj
or explain how these facts alter the scientific consensus on climate change
For the umpteenth time of asking[xx(]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
They don't alter the facts. The facts are that it was made up before this report, it's still made up after it. Hence, no change there then. It's made up. Fact. This report doesn't alter those facts. Climate change is made up for money-making purposes. Full stop.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
The facts are that it was made up before this report, it's still made up after it. Hence, no change there then. It's made up. Fact. This report doesn't alter those facts. Climate change is made up for money-making purposes. Full stop.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Those aren't facts, they are opinions. Climate change hasn't been proven or disproven*, and never will be (well not 100%), that's the good thing about science!

*Though the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.

papercorn2000 · June 2007

And planes can't fly.

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But the political and fiscal evidence points very strongly towards it having been completely made up.

Jaded · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But the political and fiscal evidence points very strongly towards it having been completely made up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you quote that evidence please, or does it come from the same source as the ones that says bacteria are viruses?

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But the political and fiscal evidence points very strongly towards it having been completely made up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

It still just an opinion though, not a fact!

papercorn2000 · June 2007

So suddenly it goes from a few neds making a fast buck to overwhelming evdence!

Genius!
Never, ever ban this clown!

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Jaded

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But the political and fiscal evidence points very strongly towards it having been completely made up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Can you quote that evidence please, or does it come from the same source as the ones that says bacteria are viruses?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, I did - the evidence in my original post that quotes the guardian's finding that the companies set up to tackle climate change are corrupt.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But the political and fiscal evidence points very strongly towards it having been completely made up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How?

Let's have some historical evidence with references to how political and 'fiscal' (by which I presume you mean economic) interests did this...

If you can't provide this, there is no case.

The only thing this article reports is that there are some serious flaws with the CDM and the mainstream international approach to dealing with climate change. That's it.

It doesn't 'suggest' anything about, or provide a motive for anything to do with climate science, except if you are minded to believe such an idea already.

This is pointless conspiracy thinking in which everything that now happens you decide is 'suggestive' for a chain of causality in the past. It isn't. There is no such chain and you have not a shred of direct evidence to suggest that there is.

Bonj, you've gone down this road before, you've been shown to have no basis for these arguments. You just seem to reboot your memory every few weeks, which means you basically learn nothing...

So - let's have some real evidence for particular political and economic forces creating the climate change science in order to do whatever nefarious things you think it was created to do, or please shut up.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

Climate change is made up for money-making purposes. Full stop.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

[url][/url]http://www.swissinfo.org/xobix_media/images/sri/2006/sriimg20060831_7021777_0.jpg[url][/url]

[url][/url]http://www.mongabay.com/images/external/2005/kilimanjaro_etm_93_00.jpg[url][/url]

[url][/url]http://www.sfu.ca/~jkoch/research/Garibaldi/rec02.JPG[url][/url]

Really?[xx(][:0]

[url][/url]http://forum.shutterbug.com/photopost/data/500/2583laughing_horse-med.jpg[url][/url]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

papercorn2000 · June 2007

Many of those pictures were taken from aeroplanes, and because we can't trust the fact that airiemaplanes can fly, they should be stricken from the record and disregarded.

God told me to skin you alive.
http://www.ekroadclub.co.uk/

Jaded · June 2007

And besides, the coloured lines clearly show the glacier growing, not shrinking!

--
[Warning] This post may contain a baby elephant or traces of one

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Peyote

the body of evidence currently suggests it is occuring, and that man has an influence on it.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">But the political and fiscal evidence points very strongly towards it having been completely made up.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How?

Let's have some historical evidence with references to how political and 'fiscal' (by which I presume you mean economic) interests did this...

If you can't provide this, there is no case.

The only thing this article reports is that there are some serious flaws with the CDM and the mainstream international approach to dealing with climate change. That's it.

It doesn't 'suggest' anything about, or provide a motive for anything to do with climate science, except if you are minded to believe such an idea already.

This is pointless conspiracy thinking in which everything that now happens you decide is 'suggestive' for a chain of causality in the past. It isn't. There is no such chain and you have not a shred of direct evidence to suggest that there is.

Bonj, you've gone down this road before, you've been shown to have no basis for these arguments. You just seem to reboot your memory every few weeks, which means you basically learn nothing...

So - let's have some real evidence for particular political and economic forces creating the climate change science in order to do whatever nefarious things you think it was created to do, or please shut up.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
I've often wondered why it is that a higher standard of proof is required for anthropogenic climate change than for the denial lobby. We know that an oil lobbyist has been placed in a senior position within the White House, and has edited scientific reports to play down the effect of man on climate change. We know that the oil industry has been funding denial groups and think tanks for many years. Clearly then, we have much more evidence that the conspiracy is on the side of the deniers, but hey, they tell people what they want to hear so it doesn't matter.

simoncp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I've often wondered why it is that a higher standard of proof is required for anthropogenic climate change than for the denial lobby.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pigs don't fly. Anyone who thinks they do needs to come up with some independent evidence.

Gary Askwith · June 2007

Petrolheaded right-wing neo-conservative free-market conspiricy-riddled climate-denying 'social smokers'-dodgy
[:)]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I've often wondered why it is that a higher standard of proof is required for anthropogenic climate change than for the denial lobby.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pigs don't fly. Anyone who thinks they do needs to come up with some independent evidence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

[:)][:)]
[url][/url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/hypocrite_wallpaper.jpg[url][/url]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

Pingucp · June 2007

Bonj could be on to something here. The financial jiggery pokery at Enron obviously discredits the entire science of geology. Therefore oil doesn't exist, so we haven't really been adding CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and hence climate change isn't occurring. It all fits together beautifully [:)]

<hr noshade size="1"><center>Wear the fox hat.
Cols d'cosse</center>

The Bosscp · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The only thing this article reports is that there are some serious flaws with the CDM and the mainstream international approach to dealing with climate change. That's it. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What do you mean, that's IT ?! Surely that's quite big?
Or perhaps you take the attitude that, well - what does a little bit of corruption matter on the grand scheme of things?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

It doesn't 'suggest' anything about, or provide a motive for anything to do with climate science, except if you are minded to believe such an idea already.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That there is financial gain to be made by an organisation through a solution to a problem suggests that it is in that organisation's best interest for the problem to exist in the first place. That's a fairly simple axiom, even for you.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

So - let's have some real evidence for particular political and economic forces creating the climate change science in order to do whatever nefarious things you think it was created to do, or please shut up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well there isn't any real evidence, so stop asking for it. There is, however, strong reason to believe that it was made up based on the motives of those who are profitting from the 'solution' to it.
Like I say, you keep putting all your eggs in the one basket of there not being any hard evidence for it, because you can't escape the fact that it is simply incredibly convenient for these companies for climate change to exist, which reflects in an extremely dodgy way on the elaborate construction of the case that it exists.

Tourist Tony · June 2007

I was told that My roof might leak.
I was told about builders who could repair it.
I was then told about cowboy builders who would rip me off.

Ergo, my roof can never ever leak!

If I had a stalker, I would hug it and kiss it and call it George...or Dick

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by ransos

I've often wondered why it is that a higher standard of proof is required for anthropogenic climate change than for the denial lobby.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Pigs don't fly. Anyone who thinks they do needs to come up with some independent evidence.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You're not making any sense. Again.

simoncp · June 2007

And there is no denial lobby regarding man made climate change. There are those who believe and who want to boss us about and take our cash, and there is the rest of us who don't want to fund the fads and authoritarian tendencies of other people. If no cash or bossiness were involved then everyone would be pleased to let the climate change devotees waffle away harmlessly to themselves about their half-baked ideas, like David Icke and his followers do.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

So - let's have some real evidence for particular political and economic forces creating the climate change science in order to do whatever nefarious things you think it was created to do, or please shut up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well there isn't any real evidence, so stop asking for it. There is, however, strong reason to believe that it was made up based on the motives of those who are profitting from the 'solution' to it.
Like I say, you keep putting all your eggs in the one basket of there not being any hard evidence for it, because you can't escape the fact that it is simply incredibly convenient for these companies for climate change to exist, which reflects in an extremely dodgy way on the elaborate construction of the case that it exists.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Oh dear. You really do have this all harris about face. The real vested interest and power lies with the denial camp. There is plenty of evidence that these people have used their money and position to pevert the debate and discredit the science. Fortunately they have failed.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

And there is no denial lobby regarding man made climate change. There are those who believe and who want to boss us about and take our cash, and there is the rest of us who don't want to fund the fads and authoritarian tendencies of other people. If no cash or bossiness were involved then everyone would be pleased to let the climate change devotees waffle away harmlessly to themselves about their half-baked ideas, like David Icke and his followers do.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Not a question of belief old boy, simply of having a couple of brain cells to engage.

ransos · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

And there is no denial lobby regarding man made climate change. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Well, if you believe that, it's no wonder that you believe man isn't causing climate change. Talk about being sucked in...

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by The Boss
Well there isn't any real evidence, so stop asking for it. There is, however, strong reason to believe.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

[:o)]

Is there anything else to say on this?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

Gary Askwith · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by simoncp

And there is no denial lobby regarding man made climate change. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

[url][/url]http://www.toolspot.co.uk/products/Domestic/Large Size Sink Plunger_t.jpg[url][/url]

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

climate change industry - dodgy

Comments

Categories