Rhosty

Dream on.

@Robert LePage

You appear to have shot yourself in the foot (but that’s what comes from riding shotgun for the AGW bandwagon!)

You haven’t provided evidence for << the corporate world [being] the puppet master pulling all of your denialist's strings>>.
On the contrary, you have provided evidence that “environment-related group” are the ones into coercion and censorship.



ExxonMobil is an ENERGY supplier.
ENERGY = petroleum products AND renewables

In 2002, it was among a consortium of four who agreed to invest $225 million over a decade or more. Into the Global Climate and Energy Project, whose mission statement is: “ to conduct fundamental research on technologies that will permit the development of global energy systems with significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions” –I applaud that!

In 2009, it invested $600 million investment in algae-based biofuels --and I applaud that

But why would it need to be beholding to the <<The Royal Society >>?

And why would it need to donate << $9 million (£5.5million) to environment-related groups in 2008>>?

You recite the AGW mantra about << the corporate world is the puppet master pulling all of your denialist's strings>>.
But your own words show that the real manipulators are <<environment-related groups>>.

Get that foot wound looked wont you,ay!

Yes, sorry, Agronomist, I have trouble giving blind obedience to authority, I know that is a defect on the totalitarian left and to its self-appointed public intellectuals. My granddad was a Wobbly, an Anarchist, so I like to think that slavish obedience to bullsh!t does not come easily, but I'm open to persuasion like anyone else.

Just a couple of things: accusing people of being part of some conspiracy (as some other contributors are doing on this thread) is merely a slightly more sophiticated form of insult and brow-beating, of ad hominems.

Get something straight: capitalism will make as buck out of anything it can, including the switch from reliance on petroleum products to relaince on renewables - certainly as long as their are public subsidies to do so. To be sceptical about AGW is therefore not necessarily to be in the pocket of Wall Street.

Come to think of it, to promote myths about AGW may be precisely a sign that someone is in the pocket of the more forward thinkers of Wall Street.

When I see the snow-fields of the Australian Alps start to disappear, and the sea-walls around our coastlines come under constant battering from rising seas, I'll start to take some of this AGW rubbish seriously.

What do the data tell us ? Sea-levels have risen a couple of inches in a century. Temperatures have risen 0.8 degrees in a century.

As Poirot put it so characteristically, and with all the sophistication and depth of the current student left, 'Whoopy-do !'

Is extreme weather the new fad ? Have we had a cyclone as bad as Tracey since 1974 ?

Extreme temperatures ? I believe the hottest temperature ever recorded in Australia was at Cloncurry, back in 1916.

No, Agronomist, take heart - the sky isn't falling.

Cheers,

Joe

:)

Agronomist, are you suggesting that the people who signed the Oregon Petition have as little expertise as the head of the IPCC, a railway engineer who defended the baseless IPCC assertion that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035?

Or as little expertise as the governing body of the Royal Society, which had not one climate scientist when it issued the ludicrous and unsupportable statement about the effect of human emissions on climate?

Will you accept the authority of 48 top scientists including 7 astronauts writing to NASA about its support of unproven climate science:

“We feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate,” they wrote. “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/04/astronauts-condemn-nasa%E2%80%99s-global-warming-endorsement/469366

Support of the AGW proposition can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty.

There has been no warming for 14 years, and the warming which occurred before 1998 is .8 of a degree, less than one degree.

We are in a cooling trend at the moment, which started 2000 years ago, so forget global warming:

“researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium“
http://www.uni-mainz.de/eng/15491.php

Loudmouth,

"...something like 73% of all Australians believed in a god of some sort...."

I can only reiterate Vicky Pope's point that it's not something you should "'believe in or not believe in' - this is a matter of evidence - and there's plenty out there."

It's not a matter of faith, but of evidence.

Also, if you take a peek at John Cook's article, you'll likely recognise a few of your own tactics - especially this one:

"Another method of avoiding the consensus of evidence is through the use of logical fallacies. The straw man fallacy is confirmation bias applied through logical argument, misrepresenting an opponent's position by focusing on their weaker arguments while ignoring their stronger points."

"Extreme temperatures" - It's the increased frequency of extreme events that is the signifier here, not your fanciful straw men.

SPQR,

Exxon and the Koch Brothers are amongst the biggest financial supporters of climate "skepticism"...and it's not so surprising that an oil company would be looking at profiting from all that algae caused by chemical fertilizer run-off.

Following your logic about engineers Leo, doesn't leave much left from the Oregon Petition.

Astronauts? Come to think of it, how'bout plumbers, teachers, economists, "scientists", GP's, yada yada yada? They gotta know more about it than a "railway engineer" even - not that post-grad stuff has any meaning, hey?

I spose being a chairman (head/leader) of any organisation has its pitfalls though, not least being damned if you do and damned if you don't.

You did get one thing right though (albeit you don't understand long term natural variability and the intervening bumps and troughs caused by other drivers) - we are headed for an ice age - in thousands of years time.