• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

About those renewable jobs claims

Media_Truth said:
Not sure what you're saying. Your comments are a little confusing. Here is some back up for my ">90%" claim.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle the expert climate consensus question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Click to expand...

The Skeptical Science site is anything but.
Even given that, did you read it and not see methodological flaws in how those studies were conducted?
All those studies have long ago been exposed as resulting in criteria dependent conclusions.
This line alone - "Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus,..." - should have fired off a flare.
 
Media_Truth said:
Engineering requirements are different for different areas. I am guessing that our pedestal mounted solar PV panels has more concrete and rebar than some areas, due to the high winds. New Mexico doesn't have the stringent permitting that Colorado has. We looked at a few green homes there, that had solar panels falling apart, hanging from supports, with wires dangling. We often get winds in excess of 80 MPH.
Click to expand...
I am guessing you did not see where I said state/local government.
 
Jack Hays said:
From WUWT's "Frequently Asked Questions:"

Q. Are you paid to blog?
A. No. There are some people who have this idea that because I put so much effort into WUWT that I must be on somebody’s payroll and that my stories are “pay for play” or something like that. Nothing could be further from the truth. Being a broadcaster, the surest way to kill a career is to run afoul of the FCC’s payola laws, and because I see blogging as just another style of broadcasting, I’d never consider “pay for play”. Besides, most people don’t know how I abhor “dead air”, be it on radio, TV, or in blogging. I’m self motivated to keep it interesting and fresh. Plus, WUWT’s reach gives me a larger sense of purpose.
WUWT doesn’t run articles for hire, it is not nor has it ever been on the payroll of any company or organization (and that goes for me personally too), and it is managed mostly by myself with the help of about half a dozen volunteer moderators. . . .
Q. Do you accept paid advertising?
A. Generally no, as it conflicts with the wordpress.com ad sharing program. There are some ads on WUWT’s right sidebar for my own business interests and for some Amazon books. Occasionally WUWT may highlight a product or service of interest, or promote a cause that needs funding such as the 50 to 1 project, but WUWT takes no portion of these promotions and they are done as a community service.
Q. What about that $44,000 that supposedly came from the Heartland Institute that was written about by document thief Dr. Peter Gleick?
A. First, that didn’t come from Heartland, it came from an independent donor that Heartland helped me find through their networking.
Second, that was specifically for a special project my company is doing to make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman. Currently NOAA does not include the state of the art Climate Reference Network data in their monthly State of the Climate Reports, even though it is a superior system. More about this here.
The project was to be funded to completion in 2012, but due to interference by Gleick, that second phase funding seems unlikely to materialize. . . .
Q. Aren’t you paid to go to Heartland conferences?
A. Yes, and that’s nothing any different from what any other organization does. Like any other invited speaker at a conference, trade show, or conclave, Heartland pays a small honorarium and travel expenses for people they invite to speak at their conferences. For example, Dr. Scott Denning, a scientist who is on the opposite side of the climate debate from me who has spoken at Heartland conferences, got the same honorarium and travel reimbursements that I did.
Click to expand...

Damn Jack.... don't you even read your cut and pastes and think about them before you post them? Anthony makes plenty of money off of WUWT. Or haven't you noticed all the advertising he does nowadays? Sure... He might not be on Heartland's payroll anymore but he makes enough to live off of. And it certainly doesn't hurt when he has an army of denialists like you who spam links to his BS all over the internet.

Oh... and his special project that he received 44,000 for to supposedly "make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman" is more BS. His real intention was to create another tool for denialists to mislead and misinform the public.

Fact of the matter is that Anthony Watts has lots of monetary incentive to keep pushing denialist lies and misinformation.
 
Buzz said:
Damn Jack.... don't you even read your cut and pastes and think about them before you post them? Anthony makes plenty of money off of WUWT. Or haven't you noticed all the advertising he does nowadays? Sure... He might not be on Heartland's payroll anymore but he makes enough to live off of. And it certainly doesn't hurt when he has an army of denialists like you who spam links to his BS all over the internet.

Oh... and his special project that he received 44,000 for to supposedly "make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman" is more BS. His real intention was to create another tool for denialists to mislead and misinform the public.

Fact of the matter is that Anthony Watts has lots of monetary incentive to keep pushing denialist lies and misinformation.
Click to expand...

I see nothing to criticize in the fact that his blog is profitable. And he was never on anyone's payroll.
 
Buzz said:
Damn Jack.... don't you even read your cut and pastes and think about them before you post them? Anthony makes plenty of money off of WUWT. Or haven't you noticed all the advertising he does nowadays? Sure... He might not be on Heartland's payroll anymore but he makes enough to live off of. And it certainly doesn't hurt when he has an army of denialists like you who spam links to his BS all over the internet.

Oh... and his special project that he received 44,000 for to supposedly "make data from the Climate Reference Network more widely available and easier to view for the layman" is more BS. His real intention was to create another tool for denialists to mislead and misinform the public.

Fact of the matter is that Anthony Watts has lots of monetary incentive to keep pushing denialist lies and misinformation.
Click to expand...

So you're saying if someone doesn't live off the taxpayer teat then what they say can't be trusted.

And ... just how thoroughly have you researched the climate change establishment's research before accepting their conclusions?
 
Jack Hays said:
I see nothing to criticize in the fact that his blog is profitable.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't. In your mind, it is only bad if climate scientists get on the global warming gravy train.

But the criticism was really meant more for you. Your the one who posted Watts' outdated "frequently asked questions". And if you weren't so willfully ignorant of what you post and what the facts really are you wouldn't be posting something that is no longer true.

Jack Hays said:
And he was never on anyone's payroll.
Click to expand...

How do you know? Just because Anthony says so?
 
bubbabgone said:
So you're saying if someone doesn't live off the taxpayer teat then what they say can't be trusted.
Click to expand...

Nice strawman. What I am saying is Anthony Watts lives off of the profits coming from advertisements on WUWT. Jack's post incorrectly said that Watts doesn't get paid and that the site doesn't "generally" advertise. It was wrong.

Now if you want to debate the influences of funding sources then I think I can say that I would rather trust someone whose livelihood wasn't completely dependent on a denialist viewpoint.

bubbabgone said:
And ... just how thoroughly have you researched the climate change establishment's research before accepting their conclusions?
Click to expand...

Thousands of hours worth over about 12 years. And you?
 
Buzz said:
Of course you don't. In your mind, it is only bad if climate scientists get on the global warming gravy train.

But the criticism was really meant more for you. Your the one who posted Watts' outdated "frequently asked questions". And if you weren't so willfully ignorant of what you post and what the facts really are you wouldn't be posting something that is no longer true.



How do you know? Just because Anthony says so?
Click to expand...

It has always been true. You need to free yourself from the climate matrix.
 
Buzz said:
Nice strawman. What I am saying is Anthony Watts lives off of the profits coming from advertisements on WUWT. Jack's post incorrectly said that Watts doesn't get paid and that the site doesn't "generally" advertise. It was wrong.

Now if you want to debate the influences of funding sources then I think I can say that I would rather trust someone whose livelihood wasn't completely dependent on a denialist viewpoint.



Thousands of hours worth over about 12 years. And you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your post is dishonest to the point of being a falsehood.
 
Buzz said:
...

Now if you want to debate the influences of funding sources then I think I can say that I would rather trust someone whose livelihood wasn't completely dependent on a denialist viewpoint.
Click to expand...

Exactly who funds the different studies chosen for the IPCC reports and who selects them for inclusion? What effort is made to assure balance and independence in their Reports?


Buzz said:
Thousands of hours worth over about 12 years. And you?
Click to expand...

Oh? What are some of the "denier" sources you've consulted in those thousands of hours you've spent assuring your complete familiarity with the subject?
 
Buzz said:
Can you be more specific? What exactly has always been true? And what did I say that was dishonest?
Click to expand...

It has always been true that Watts was not/is not on anyone's payroll.

Meanwhile, this is false: Jack's post incorrectly said that Watts doesn't get paid and that the site doesn't "generally" advertise. It was wrong.

I made no claim that Watts does not get paid. Presumably he supports himself from WUWT revenue. And it's quite true, as Watts explained, that WUWT does not "generally" advertise. WUWT participates in a Wordpress ad-sharing program with many other blogs.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
It has always been true that Watts was not/is not on anyone's payroll.

Meanwhile, this is false: Jack's post incorrectly said that Watts doesn't get paid and that the site doesn't "generally" advertise. It was wrong.

I made no claim that Watts does not get paid. Presumably he supports himself from WUWT revenue. And it's quite true, as Watts explained, that WUWT does not "generally" advertise. WUWT participates in a Wordpress ad-sharing program with many other blogs.
Click to expand...

Think Buzz will be back to this thread?
 
I'm back!

bubbabgone said:
Exactly who funds the different studies chosen for the IPCC reports and who selects them for inclusion? What effort is made to assure balance and independence in their Reports?
Click to expand...

If you don't know the answer to this question then you are in way over your head. And if you do know the answer to this then you know that this is a completely unfair question. Especially when you want me to be exact. If you want to say what you think about the IPCC's sources and their review process then do it but don't expect me to waste a bunch of time answering your question just so you can attack it.

bubbabgone said:
Oh? What are some of the "denier" sources you've consulted in those thousands of hours you've spent assuring your complete familiarity with the subject?
Click to expand...

I have never and would never claim complete familiarity with the subject.

And I don't generally consult denier sources, what I do is debunk them. So... yeah, I am familiar with most of the denialist arguments.
 
Jack Hays said:
It has always been true that Watts was not/is not on anyone's payroll.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that he was or is on anyone's payroll. All I'm saying is that you can't prove that he doesn't/didn't.

Jack Hays said:
Meanwhile, this is false: Jack's post incorrectly said that Watts doesn't get paid and that the site doesn't "generally" advertise. It was wrong.
Click to expand...

Do I really need to remind you of what your cut and paste said? Here are the important parts:

From WUWT's "Frequently Asked Questions:"

Q. Are you paid to blog?
A. No...

....Q. Do you accept paid advertising?
A. Generally no....
Click to expand...

So... there is nothing false in my statements. Watts does get paid and he does advertise. You posted erroneous information that said he didn't. You were wrong!

Jack Hays said:
I made no claim that Watts does not get paid. Presumably he supports himself from WUWT revenue. And it's quite true, as Watts explained, that WUWT does not "generally" advertise. WUWT participates in a Wordpress ad-sharing program with many other blogs.
Click to expand...

So... you can't admit that Watts supports himself from WUWT revenue while you incorrectly claim that he doesn't advertise. Anyone with half a brain can go to his site and see the large profit generating ads for themselves.
 
Buzz said:
I'm back!



If you don't know the answer to this question then you are in way over your head. And if you do know the answer to this then you know that this is a completely unfair question. Especially when you want me to be exact. If you want to say what you think about the IPCC's sources and their review process then do it but don't expect me to waste a bunch of time answering your question just so you can attack it.



I have never and would never claim complete familiarity with the subject.

And I don't generally consult denier sources, what I do is debunk them. So... yeah, I am familiar with most of the denialist arguments.
Click to expand...

So you're answer is that you have no idea how they're funded, who is behind the funding, who is chosen for the IPCC reports, how the studies are selected, etc. - and what's more you don't care because you've chosen sides and don't care to be influenced by alternative information so you avoid exposure to it.
And isolating yourself from such things makes it easy to bitch about things like who pays for a website while remaining unconcerned about the professional AGW money pit.

Tell me ... here's a basic skeptic question ... if CO2 is the driver of warming and CO2 continues to steadily increase, which it does, why would there ever be warming pauses of decades or more, which there is.
What does that suggest to you.

Is it possible that CO2 increases follow warming?

Does warming always increase at the same proportional rate as CO2 increase?

Regarding the IPCC...
- does it seem appropriate to have various Chapter authors choose their own studies for inclusion and then also act as reviewers for those chapters?
- do you think the IPCC as established is meant to independently examine the cause of climate change or do they approach their Reports having already concluded it's CO2?
- is there much political influence on the IPCC outputs?
 
Buzz said:
I'm not saying that he was or is on anyone's payroll. All I'm saying is that you can't prove that he doesn't/didn't.



Do I really need to remind you of what your cut and paste said? Here are the important parts:



So... there is nothing false in my statements. Watts does get paid and he does advertise. You posted erroneous information that said he didn't. You were wrong!



So... you can't admit that Watts supports himself from WUWT revenue while you incorrectly claim that he doesn't advertise. Anyone with half a brain can go to his site and see the large profit generating ads for themselves.
Click to expand...

The ads are placed by the Wordpress ad-sharing program, as explained by Watts. So unfortunately your statements were false and your allegations are without foundation. You are developing a reputation for dishonesty.
 
bubbabgone said:
So you're answer is that you have no idea how they're funded, who is behind the funding, who is chosen for the IPCC reports, how the studies are selected, etc. - and what's more you don't care because you've chosen sides and don't care to be influenced by alternative information so you avoid exposure to it.
And isolating yourself from such things makes it easy to bitch about things like who pays for a website while remaining unconcerned about the professional AGW money pit.
Click to expand...

Damn bubba.... you couldn't be more wrong. But nice strawman argument.

bubbabgone said:
Tell me ... here's a basic skeptic question ... if CO2 is the driver of warming and CO2 continues to steadily increase, which it does, why would there ever be warming pauses of decades or more, which there is.
What does that suggest to you.

Is it possible that CO2 increases follow warming?

Does warming always increase at the same proportional rate as CO2 increase?
Click to expand...

And now you're going to change the subject completely? Really?? Typical denialist debate tactic... can't refute what your opponent says then just change the subject.

Sorry... not going there tonight.

bubbabgone said:
Regarding the IPCC...
- does it seem appropriate to have various Chapter authors choose their own studies for inclusion and then also act as reviewers for those chapters?
- do you think the IPCC as established is meant to independently examine the cause of climate change or do they approach their Reports having already concluded it's CO2?
- is there much political influence on the IPCC outputs?
Click to expand...

How did I know you were going to attack the IPCC? It is because I have encountered your type many times. Your just another denialist who can't really debate climate science and has to resort to logical fallacies and talking points.
 
Jack Hays said:
The ads are placed by the Wordpress ad-sharing program, as explained by Watts. So unfortunately your statements were false and your allegations are without foundation. You are developing a reputation for dishonesty.
Click to expand...

Whatever Jack. You cut and pasted some old statements from Anthony Watts that are no longer true. Now if you want to continue to deny these facts go right ahead. That seems to be the norm for you. But anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty knows that you are wrong yet again.
 
Buzz said:
Damn bubba.... you couldn't be more wrong. But nice strawman argument.



And now you're going to change the subject completely? Really?? Typical denialist debate tactic... can't refute what your opponent says then just change the subject.

Sorry... not going there tonight.



How did I know you were going to attack the IPCC? It is because I have encountered your type many times. Your just another denialist who can't really debate climate science and has to resort to logical fallacies and talking points.
Click to expand...

I hope you at least realize that you haven't said anything of substance yet.
Everyone else has.
My questions to you in #45 WERE about climate science.
I'm sure you're a fine fellow but didn't you recognize that's what they were?
That doesn't make you look too good.
 
Buzz said:
Whatever Jack. You cut and pasted some old statements from Anthony Watts that are no longer true. Now if you want to continue to deny these facts go right ahead. That seems to be the norm for you. But anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty knows that you are wrong yet again.
Click to expand...

Watts's statements are as true today as ever, and you have no evidence otherwise, only your unreasoning bile. And you appealing to "intellectual honesty" is like a bank robber protesting an overdraft charge.

:lamo
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom