EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 12:11 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1272 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 ... 85  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:02 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters if you won't believe me than how about the scientists the Cultist have been quoting for decades? Would you believe them?

http://realclimatescience.com/2016/10/b ... rm-period/

Image



You mean a small fraction of the group of scientists perhaps. The 7.5% of the group is roughly equal to the 93% expert consensus is it not?

Quote:
Quote:
The total lack of evidence for man-made global warming wasn’t going to raise any money for them, so ten years later the IPCC bumped 1990 temperatures way up, and created the wildly fraudulent hockey stick. By doing this, these “scientists” brought tens of billions of dollars into their own pockets.


Its all about the money fence sitters. Always has been. Hell I'd lie to if it meant a 6 figure salary for me and my family. Kind of makes you wonder why those who don't make one penny foster and promote the lies. :-k


You have lied here for much less than a 6 figure salary ..... :-

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 23, 2016 12:07 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Its all about the money fence sitters. Never forget that fact.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... genda.html

Quote:
One of the world's leading institutes for researching the impact of global warming has repeatedly claimed credit for work done by rivals – and used it to win millions from the taxpayer.
An investigation by The Mail on Sunday also reveals that when the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy (CCCEP) made a bid for more Government funds, it claimed it was responsible for work that was published before the organisation even existed. Last night, our evidence was described by one leading professor whose work was misrepresented as 'a clear case of fraud – using deception for financial gain'. The chairman of the CCCEP since 2008 has been Nick Stern, a renowned global advocate for drastic action to combat climate change.



What a scam.


One of the leading institutes on economic impact indicates to you somehow equates to the entire science being a scam? Really? Did you at least get a four figure salary for that?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles ... alance.htm

Quote:
Climate change skeptics are being banned from BBC News, according to a new report, for fear of misinforming people and to create more of a "balance" when discussing man-made climate change.

The latest casualty is Nigel Lawson, former London chancellor and climate change skeptic, who has just recently been barred from appearing on BBC. Lord Lawson, who has written about climate change, said the corporation is silencing the debate on global warming since he discussed the topic on its Radio 4 Today program in February.


Banning one side of the argument doesn't make you right. What do you think fence sitters?

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 13, 2016 12:19 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/7972/20140709/climate-change-skeptics-dumped-by-bbc-to-create-balance.htm

Quote:
Climate change skeptics are being banned from BBC News, according to a new report, for fear of misinforming people and to create more of a "balance" when discussing man-made climate change.

The latest casualty is Nigel Lawson, former London chancellor and climate change skeptic, who has just recently been barred from appearing on BBC. Lord Lawson, who has written about climate change, said the corporation is silencing the debate on global warming since he discussed the topic on its Radio 4 Today program in February.


Banning one side of the argument doesn't make you right. What do you think fence sitters?


Yes, we should give the Flat Earth Society equal time, those who claim the Holocaust never happened, and those who believe in witchcraft over science. Beliefs are wonderful things for individuals but have no place in any factual discussions.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2016 3:48 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/14/ ... dget-raid/

Quote:
By Megan Darby in Marrakech

US Republicans are expected to axe billions of dollars in climate finance when they take the White House and Congress in January.

Funds to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of global warming and develop sustainably will be redirected to domestic priorities.

“We are going to cancel billions in payments to the UN climate change programmes and use the money to fix America’s water and environmental infrastructure,” said President-elect Donald Trump in his 22 October Gettysburg address.1

With a Republican majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, there appears to be little standing in his way.


Its about bloody time the profit is taken out of this shell game. =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:16 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Good read fence sitters.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathemat ... c2MTEzOAS2

Quote:
Science has been peculiarly resistant to self-examination. During the ‘science wars' of the 1990s, for instance, scientists disdained sociological studies of their culture. Yet there is now a growing trend for scientists to use the quantitative methods of data analysis and theoretical modelling to try to work out how, and how well, science works — often with depressing conclusions. Why are these kinds of studies being produced, and what is their value?

Take a study published on 10 November1 by psychologists Andrew Higginson of the University of Exeter and Marcus Munafò of the University of Bristol, UK. It considers how scientists can maximize their ‘fitness’, or career success, in a simplified ecosystem that allows them to invest varying amounts of time and effort into exploratory studies. The study finds that in an ecosystem that rewards a constant stream of high-profile claims, researchers will rationally opt for corner-cutting strategies, such as small sample sizes. These save on the effort required for each study, but they raise the danger that new findings will not prove robust or repeatable.

A slightly different perspective — but a similar conclusion — comes from work published on 21 September2, by information scientist Paul Smaldino at the University of California, Merced, and evolutionary ecologist Richard McElreath, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. They take an evolutionary view, imagining that laboratories are in competition for rewards, and that the most successful of them produce more 'progeny': new research groups that use the same techniques and strategies. There is generally a trade-off between productivity and rigour: producing more statistically secure, replicated findings takes more time and effort, but generating too many false positives will eventually take its toll on reputations. Under selection for productivity, however, less-rigorous methods spread and false discovery rates increase.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:34 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Good read fence sitters.

http://www.nature.com/news/the-mathemat ... c2MTEzOAS2

Quote:
Science has been peculiarly resistant to self-examination. During the ‘science wars' of the 1990s, for instance, scientists disdained sociological studies of their culture. Yet there is now a growing trend for scientists to use the quantitative methods of data analysis and theoretical modelling to try to work out how, and how well, science works — often with depressing conclusions. Why are these kinds of studies being produced, and what is their value?

Take a study published on 10 November1 by psychologists Andrew Higginson of the University of Exeter and Marcus Munafò of the University of Bristol, UK. It considers how scientists can maximize their ‘fitness’, or career success, in a simplified ecosystem that allows them to invest varying amounts of time and effort into exploratory studies. The study finds that in an ecosystem that rewards a constant stream of high-profile claims, researchers will rationally opt for corner-cutting strategies, such as small sample sizes. These save on the effort required for each study, but they raise the danger that new findings will not prove robust or repeatable.

A slightly different perspective — but a similar conclusion — comes from work published on 21 September2, by information scientist Paul Smaldino at the University of California, Merced, and evolutionary ecologist Richard McElreath, at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. They take an evolutionary view, imagining that laboratories are in competition for rewards, and that the most successful of them produce more 'progeny': new research groups that use the same techniques and strategies. There is generally a trade-off between productivity and rigour: producing more statistically secure, replicated findings takes more time and effort, but generating too many false positives will eventually take its toll on reputations. Under selection for productivity, however, less-rigorous methods spread and false discovery rates increase.


Especially if you understand the discussion is about only biomedical research .......

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:01 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
My old friend getting some Twitter love.

Image

Check him out fence sitters.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:16 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Who comes up with this crap. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/ ... te-change/

Quote:
A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.


Quote:
This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. High income countries often have a lot of poor people who would be hard hit by increases in the price of food.

Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity.


This is a special kind of stupid.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:44 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
My old friend getting some Twitter love.

Image

Check him out fence sitters.


Then you can check out the truth instead of the lies he posted. There is a huge difference between "could" and "will".

In his Dec. 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech, Gore referred to a prediction by U.S. climate scientist Wieslaw Maslowski that the Arctic’s summer ice could “completely disappear” by 2013 due to global warming caused by carbon emissions.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Nov 19, 2016 12:52 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Who comes up with this crap. :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/ ... te-change/

Quote:
A group of researchers in Oxford University, England have suggested that imposing a massive tax on carbon intensive foods – specifically protein rich foods like meat and dairy – could help combat climate change.


Quote:
This proposal, from a group of people who have probably never missed a meal in their lives, is totally obscene. High income countries often have a lot of poor people who would be hard hit by increases in the price of food.

Needlessly exacerbating the risk poor people don’t get enough to eat, especially children and pregnant mothers, who are especially vulnerable to adverse health impacts from lack of protein in their diet – if this ghastly proposal is ever implemented, future generations will look upon it as a crime against humanity.


This is a special kind of stupid.


You mean those who try to tell us climate change will not be a significant impact on the world population and that we really didn't need to do anything about it? I agree with that being a special kind of stupid.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 10:46 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Like I've always said fence sitters this is all about the money.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/ ... the-money/

Quote:
The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.


Quote:
It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.

I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore


Time to grow up little knuckle draggers. Time to grow up.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 20, 2016 11:10 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Like I've always said fence sitters this is all about the money.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/19/ ... the-money/

Quote:
The Marrakesh COP22 climate conference has ended – and green groups are just waking up that without US financial support, nobody has committed any money to anything.


Quote:
It is genuinely possible most of the members of groups like Greenpeace and Germanwatch really didn’t know where all the money was coming from. Sounds crazy, but think about it – all greens had to do in the past is make a lot of noise, and bundles of cash turned up. They never had any reason to question where the cash was coming from.

I suspect climate activists are only now waking to the horrible possibility that after years of partying on the US taxpayer’s dime, they really don’t have that many friends anymore


Time to grow up little knuckle draggers. Time to grow up.


So when are you going to grow up Milton? I know Watts will not because he makes too much money being a "skeptic" but how about you?

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 8:48 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 760
Its all about the money fence sitters.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/ ... mate-risk/

Quote:
The cash strapped European Union has usurped greater control over three trillion Euros of private pension funds, by issuing a directive which requires EU based funds to consider “Climate Risk” as part of the basis of their investment decisions.


Quote:
Given the disastrous track record of renewables giants like Solyndra and the giant Spanish renewables business Abengoa, I would say banks and pension fund managers have good reasons to steer clear of renewables.

Coercing banks and pension funds into tossing depositors cash into subprime green energy projects in my opinion is unlikely to improve European pension fund performance.

It is also worth noting that until Britain invokes Article 50 and leaves the European Union, the City of London is subject to this new European climate directive, as are any EU based pension funds managed by US banks.


Its all about the money.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 24, 2016 9:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21214
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Its all about the money fence sitters.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/24/ ... mate-risk/

Quote:
The cash strapped European Union has usurped greater control over three trillion Euros of private pension funds, by issuing a directive which requires EU based funds to consider “Climate Risk” as part of the basis of their investment decisions.


Quote:
Given the disastrous track record of renewables giants like Solyndra and the giant Spanish renewables business Abengoa, I would say banks and pension fund managers have good reasons to steer clear of renewables.

Coercing banks and pension funds into tossing depositors cash into subprime green energy projects in my opinion is unlikely to improve European pension fund performance.

It is also worth noting that until Britain invokes Article 50 and leaves the European Union, the City of London is subject to this new European climate directive, as are any EU based pension funds managed by US banks.


Its all about the money.


It seems it is all about the misrepresentation. IF you read the actual article there is no indication of investing in renewable energy sources, but there was a hope the investment in fossil industries would be lessened. The two are not equal as one can invest in something other than fossil fuels and still not invest in renewable energy as Watts indicated.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-eu-fi ... SKBN13J1SV

"This is a big success for the promotion of investments in sustainable products," German Greens lawmaker Sven Giegold said, adding that the law "paves the way for the introduction of fossil divestment by European pension funds".

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1272 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79 ... 85  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Forest Dweller and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group