Meet the money behind the climate denial movement

[Phys251]

I have always said I am merely a humble servant of the data.

As if you cared about your credibility enough to actually do that.

 

[Jack Hays]

As if you cared about your credibility enough to actually do that.

I do. The reason my posts irritate you is because they expose the weak science at the core of what is essentially a political movement to advocate for AGW.

 

[Phys251]

I do.

But that's not what you said earlier, is it, Jack? :lol:

 

[PoS]

I do. The reason my posts irritate you is because they expose the weak science at the core of what is essentially a political movement to advocate for AGW.

LOL all of his posts are worthless- theyre just fallacies.

 

[Jack Hays]

But that's not what you said earlier, is it, Jack? :lol:

You have obviously misunderstood.

 

[Phys251]

You have obviously misunderstood.

You are trying to claim that a direct quote of yours was taken out of context?!

Keep going, Jack. This is pure comedy now. :lol:

 

[Jack Hays]

You are trying to claim that a direct quote of yours was taken out of context?!

Keep going, Jack. This is pure comedy now. :lol:

Sorry, but your poor reading comprehension is not my problem. My quotes meant exactly what they said. They are not in contradiction.

 

[Jack Hays]

Extinction Rebellion are run by paid activists — the £200,000 “grassroots” movement

Looks like a religion, acts like a religion… @ExtinctionR
​

Just another group profiting from “climate change”

What other grassroots movement has fears of “six figure tax bills”? And these are just the UK figures.
How Extinction Rebellion climate change zealots – including a baronet’s Cambridge-educated granddaughter – are paid £400 a week to bring mayhem to our streets

by Holly Bancroft and James Heale, Mail on Sunday

• Extinction Rebellion activists are being paid up to £400-a-week to lead protests
• Activists have been paid more than £200,000 since the start of the scheme
• The eco-protest group privately fears it could face six-figure tax bill from HMRC
• Tory MP calls on HMRC to launch an investigation into the group’s tax affairs

A document entitled Finance Policy And Processes seen by this newspaper in a ‘work in progress’ version states: ‘The maximum claim for volunteer living expenses is £400 a week (or £200 for someone volunteering part-time).”
But XR’s documents raise concerns about the fact that it has paid no tax or National Insurance on these sums, and questioned the employment status of activists.
The payments aren’t illegal, though the tax avoidance might be. But it says something about the motivations of key players and about how much money all told is still rattling around the alarmist camp. Most protestors are not paid, but how many would be there if there wasn’t money to throw at key organizers?
Speaking of key organisers…

“XR co-founder Roger Hallam asked for £300 a week.” Gail Bradbrook who co-founded Extinction Rebellion, asked for payments of £600 a month. She and Hallam set up the movement after she was inspired by a hallucinogenic experience. The same woman that called for a rapid reduction in air travel, just happily admitted that she flew 11,000 air miles to Costa Rica for a holiday herself in 2016 where she took the drugs. The Sun is pointing out that hypocrisy. After that “trip” she then returned to the UK to start a movement, separate her family, end a marriage and “that was the right thing to do”. Curious phrasing.
Bradbrook, a consultant who has two grown-up sons and lives in a council house in Stroud, Gloucs, added: “I’d been focused on trying to start civil disobedience since 2010. I’d tried many things and they hadn’t worked. So I went on a retreat and prayed, with some psychedelic medicines. It was really intense and I prayed for what I called the codes for social change and within a month my prayer was answered.”. . . .

 

[Phys251]

Sorry, but your poor reading comprehension is not my problem. My quotes meant exactly what they said. They are not in contradiction.

As if someone who doesn't care about their credibility cares if ANY of that were actually true. :lamo

You've blown your cover, Jack. You've exposed yourself and there is absolutely no way you can put the horse back in the barn.

 

[Phys251]

Extinction Rebellion are run by paid activists — the £200,000 “grassroots” movement

Here comes more denialist spam :mrgreen:

 

[Jack Hays]

As if someone who doesn't care about their credibility cares if ANY of that were actually true. :lamo

You've blown your cover, Jack. You've exposed yourself and there is absolutely no way you can put the horse back in the barn.

Sorry, but the only thing exposed here is your weak grip on the English language.
#44: My credibility does not matter. (The credibility of what/who I cite matters.)
#50: I'm a humble servant of the data.
#52: I do care about my credibility (even if it doesn't matter).

 

[Jack Hays]

Here comes more denialist spam :mrgreen:

Here comes more denial and deflection.

 

[Phys251]

My credibility does not matter.

You already said it once; why are you reminding us? We already know that your credibility does not matter! :lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

You already said it once; why are you reminding us? We already know that your credibility does not matter! :lamo

Your near-illiteracy has been exposed. You embarrass yourself by extending this exchange.

 

[vegas giants]

I do. The reason my posts irritate you is because they expose the weak science at the core of what is essentially a political movement to advocate for AGW.

Here is the actual science


NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[marke]

Meet the Money Behind The Climate Denial Movement
|
Smart News
| Smithsonian



Old article but the problem has not gone anywhere; it's just gotten worse. Big Oil and Big Coal are pumping billions of dollars worth of disinformation to confuse the conversation over climate change, and many conservatives are lapping it up. The question is why they choose to listen to these corporatist hacks instead of scientists, and why we allow these corporatists to poison the discussion.

The global warming argument is that officials in "big oil" are greedy and evil and that the "honest, unbiased, testimony" of those making a living off government support of climate change is good, unbiased, and irrefutable. The global warming argument is wrong, it is biased and it is a scam.

 

[Phys251]

Your near-illiteracy has been exposed. You embarrass yourself by extending this exchange.

You just don't get it, do you. You feel entitled to spam WAWT crap and actual scientific articles which you deliberately and intentionally take out of context. And then! You post one of the funniest quotes that I've ever seen you make, and you have the nerve to whine that I'm taking you out of context?!

Cry me a river, Jack. You set the standard for dishonesty, so you don't get to whine when you feel that other people are doing the same. Your credibility does not matter!

 

[Phys251]

The global warming argument is that officials in "big oil" are greedy and evil and that the "honest, unbiased, testimony" of those making a living off government support of climate change is good, unbiased, and irrefutable. The global warming argument is wrong, it is biased and it is a scam.

What specific scientific research have you personally done to prove this?

 

[marke]

What specific scientific research have you personally done to prove this?

I have taken the trouble to read reports from esteemed scientists who have exposed the truth about the flawed science behind the erroneous extreme narratives promoted by the climate change industry.

 

[Phys251]

I have taken the trouble to read reports from esteemed scientists

Obviously you missed an important part of my question so let me emphasize it so that you can clearly see it. What specific scientific research have you personally done to prove that AGW is false?

 

[Jack Hays]

You just don't get it, do you. You feel entitled to spam WAWT crap and actual scientific articles which you deliberately and intentionally take out of context. And then! You post one of the funniest quotes that I've ever seen you make, and you have the nerve to whine that I'm taking you out of context?!

Cry me a river, Jack. You set the standard for dishonesty, so you don't get to whine when you feel that other people are doing the same. Your credibility does not matter!

Please cite where I said you took my words out of context. You can't because I didn't. Your post is a lie.
Driven by your zealous advocacy, you failed to comprehend my meaning.
I take pride in the honesty and factual content of my posts. You can't attack their content so you attack me. Ad hominem is the desperate last resort of those who have lost the debate.

 

[Phys251]

Please cite where I said you took my words out of context.

Gladly. Assuming that you know what basic words such as context, comprehension, and contradiction mean--and that is a big stretch--here are two examples:

Sorry, but your poor reading comprehension is not my problem. My quotes meant exactly what they said. They are not in contradiction.

Sorry, but the only thing exposed here is your weak grip on the English language.
#44: My credibility does not matter. (The credibility of what/who I cite matters.)
#50: I'm a humble servant of the data.
#52: I do care about my credibility (even if it doesn't matter).

In other words, from your biased POV, my quote takes you out-of-context. :thumbs:

So which is it, Jack? Did you misspeak when you claimed that I took you out of context, or did you misspeak when you denied this claim?

(Not like you care to get this right, because...you know.)

 

[Jack Hays]

Gladly. Assuming that you know what basic words such as context, comprehension, and contradiction mean--and that is a big stretch--here are two examples:




In other words, from your biased POV, my quote takes you out-of-context. :thumbs:

So which is it, Jack? Did you misspeak when you claimed that I took you out of context, or did you misspeak when you denied this claim?

(Not like you care to get this right, because...you know.)

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You did not take my words out of context; you simply failed to understand what I wrote. The former would indicate lack of integrity; the latter a lack of capacity.
You continue to lie.

 

[Phys251]

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. You did not take my words out of context; you simply failed to understand what I wrote. The former would indicate lack of integrity; the latter a lack of capacity.

There it is. There's the denialism! :lamo

He got caught in his lie and refuses to admit it. :lol:

Since he cannot answer honestly, he will have the answer supplied to him: He misspoke both when he claimed that I took him out of context AND when he denied this claim.

 

[longview]

Obviously you missed an important part of my question so let me emphasize it so that you can clearly see it. What specific scientific research have you personally done to prove that AGW is false?

It was never a question of proving AGW false, but how much warming would added CO2 cause.
Adding CO2 will almost certainty cause some level of energy imbalance, but how much warming will result?
If we look at the stated warming from the long term energy imbalance,
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Taking the Measure of the Greenhouse Effect
the +150 Wm-2 of imbalance, creates 33°C of warming .
Then each Watt per meter square of imbalance forces 33/150=.22°C.
If doubling the CO2 level will cause an imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2, then
each doubling would cause a total warming of 3.71X .22= .8162°C.