On 20/01/2018 09:11, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/18 08:57, RJH wrote:
I'm not an alarmist - I certainly wouldn't present my view on
anthropogenic climate change as fact, link to very dubious sources to
support anything I say, or claim any expertise.
Then why are you cpommenting at all.
Anyhoo, meta-reviews are putting the ratio as, at very best 10:1
(supporter: denier). And of those deniers that I've read, and do
manage to scrape through to publication, are usually discredited
pretty quickly and retract.
Well no, they are not.
That is just more faklse news.
I put a monograph out about renewable energy using a name I had *never
used before on the internet* .
Is there supposed to be a link? I'd be interested to read.
Back in around 2011.
Within a day a blog reported thet the 'well known climate demnier author
XXX XXX had been thoroughly discredited years before'
That was enough to tell me that there exist on te internet people whose
JOBS are to discredit anyone who isn't singing from their hymn sheet.
Well, yes - certainly commercial (tobacco, ICE vehicle, alcohol) and
political (China and Russia say) interests will set up quite
sophisticated, and damaging, online presence. In fact almost anything
where big money is involved - including renewables.
Sites like skeptikalscience.com and desmogblog are sites set up to do
just that.
Shout down and lie about what is going on. Ther is bigĀ* big money in
climate change - trillions of dollars worldwide, and there is plenty of
loose change to buy bloggers and scientists up.
And there's trillions going the other way.
You may be irritated by what you see as the waste of renewables,
misdirection of resources, the intellectual elite's support, and (I'd
guess) the most important - the way climate trends might put this
country at a competitive disadvantage (compared to the US, India, and to
a significant but reducing extent, China). But the counter also has
traction - and it isn't a truth/lie binary.
Even if you don't accept depleting natural resources and CO2 doubling
can have climate-related consequences I can find very good reasons to
consume less in any event. But another story, maybe.
A professor admitted to me 'we actually wanted to do the job of
researching efficient coal combustion, but we couldnt get a grant till
we mentioned that it would enable 'carbon capture' to beĀ* done more
easily, if next to impossible is easier than completely impossible, anyway'
I can believe that.
The money flows into 'climate change'. No one funds the truth. Who gives
a **** about the truth, what we want is profits and to rape consumers?
Dramatise a crisis :-)
http://vps.templar.co.uk/slideshow.p...achine-800.gif
OK - I see the point (apart from the media section - more drama). But
welcome to capitalism. Rationality has shifted from a pro-carbon world.
It'll shift again.
--
Cheers, Rob