Another phenomenon hijacked by the liberals.

[Javert]

That is the point I stopped reading. Your experts are reputable scientists, my PHD graduate climatologist's are fakes that cherry pick data.

Pompous is not the word.

Scrolling back again through this thread, you have not actually linked the peer reviewed scientific articles that prove your case - I can only find links to articles that go against your opinion or are irrelevant about Margaret Thatcher using climate science for political gain.

Please post the peer reviewed and recognised research proving your case.

[Borchester]

That is the point I stopped reading. Your experts are reputable scientists, my PHD graduate climatologist's are fakes that cherry pick data.

Pompous is not the word.

I think deluded is.

A while back Prof Liu of Madison Wisconsin University published a paper in which he noted that he had two sets of data. One suggested that pretty soon it would be so cold that every brass monkey in the world would be singing soprano and the other indicated that due to Global Warming the polar bears would need to be kitted out with bikinis.

The good professor, being one of that rare breed of climatologists with a sense of humour, proceeded to piss himself laughing.

[Nick]

or on the other hand you can believe a bunch or fake experts who have cherry picked some data to try to prove that white is black.

That is the point I stopped reading. Your experts are reputable scientists, my PHD graduate climatologist's are fakes that cherry pick data.

Pompous is not the word.

[Javert]

This is not a made up theory about Thatcher, this is documented and recanted by Nigel Lawson.

Once climatologist's realised there was money available to them for research why would they say there wasn't a problem? It doesn't take long for this to propagate around the world. The motive is these economic shysters come up with theories proving anthropogenic Climate Change to keep the gravy flowing.

The science doesn't add up, simple. Show me the science that proves otherwise.

The science is very complicated to understand and cannot be interpreted by one graph or one article compiled by someone who has set out to prove something.  Neither of us are PHD climate scientists, so we can only decide whether to believe at least 90% of all the world's reputable scientists, most of the world's governments, lots of private companies (including BP by the way), or on the other hand you can believe a bunch or fake experts who have cherry picked some data to try to prove that white is black.

The reality is that neither of us has a good enough scientific understanding of all the concepts involved to work it out on our own.  Not to mention, even if you did, unless you go and collect all the data yourself with your own observations, how do you know the data has not been faked?

Therefore in the end it comes down to whether you choose to believe a small minority who don't accept the general science.  I have yet to come across one of them who doesn't have a clear political or financial motive to prove the climate science is wrong.

It's also for this reason that questioning the motive of scientists puts you in the glass house throwing stones.

Can you point me to an interview with a retired eminent and qualified scientist who supported this science, but then after retirement stated that he had deliberately made all that stuff up just to get government grants?  Just a single one?

How come none of the people in this conspiracy have come forward in all these decades to admit it?

All of the evidence in favour of climate change being caused by humans is freely available and you can search for it - as I mention above, I am pretty sure that you wouldn't be able to understand it all in the detail, hence you are relying on distorted summaries from people who have come to the conclusion that you like.

Edit:  Also I assume you have heard of the concept of peer review?  No doubt all of these scientists are all just waving through all the papers from the gravy train.

[patman post]

Good to see Rolls Royce is leading a UK consortium to develop an affordable power plant that generates electricity using a small modular reactor. The concept is to use advanced manufacturing techniques to assemble reliable technology into modular packages that can be delivered to site for operation — almost off the production line.

Knowing build costs and the price of the electricity generated takes the open-cheque book approach to nuclear construction overcomes one of the major obstacles to greater utilisation of nuclear power.

Wonder if it will set the Anti Nuclear Brigade leaping up and down in dispute with the Global Warming Crew...

[Nick]

Trying to stay somewhat on topic, I asked what was the motive for most of the world's governments, companies, scientists to come to the belief that global climate change is mainly caused by human activity.

You proposed that this was caused by Margaret Thatcher because she wanted to close the coal mines, somehow implying that the climate change issue was fabricated by her in her grocer shop or something.

I'm thinking you haven't even read the articles you linked to the end - both of them support my case.  Even if there is some cause to suspect that Margaret Thatcher used climate science to her political advantage, neither of these articles remotely state that the actual science itself was incorrect.
Leaving that aside, even if it was true for the UK (which I dispute), you would still then have to explain how this ended up being followed and accepted by most other countries and organisations in the world.  I suppose it's another example of the UK being so great and influential that whatever Maggie says, the world follows, even after she is long dead?

So even in the best case, you have provided no evidence that climate change by CO2 is completely wrong, other than some dodgy websites produced by fake experts (fake expertise is a well worn trope of conspiracy theorists).  All you show is that Margaret Thatcher cared more about ideological politics than climate science.

The other issue here is that of course, right wing ideological zealots are instinctively wanting to deny the existence of things lime climate change, pandemics and so on, because their classic or neoclassical economic view of the world relies on an unthinking ideology that markets know best, governments should do nothing, and any intervention is wrong, unless it's an intervention aimed at creating a "perfect market competition" even where no such natural situation exists.  All other government interventions are anathema to these folk.

As such, it's not surprising they would be keen to deny the existence of such issues because such problems clearly make the incontestible case that heavy government intervention is needed to deal with certain issues, sometimes on a global scale.

This is not a made up theory about Thatcher, this is documented and recanted by Nigel Lawson.

Once climatologist's realised there was money available to them for research why would they say there wasn't a problem? It doesn't take long for this to propagate around the world. The motive is these economic shysters come up with theories proving anthropogenic Climate Change to keep the gravy flowing.

The science doesn't add up, simple. Show me the science that proves otherwise.

[Javert]

Follow what belief you want. I've posted you 2 links that you have not comment on once, didn't denounce any of the facts within them.

2 Articled that timeline her distrust of the unions and where she used GW to batter the unions, Lord Lawson even tells how he was asked to go out and find a reason to stop coal production but you don't bother addressing the facts.

Trying to stay somewhat on topic, I asked what was the motive for most of the world's governments, companies, scientists to come to the belief that global climate change is mainly caused by human activity.

You proposed that this was caused by Margaret Thatcher because she wanted to close the coal mines, somehow implying that the climate change issue was fabricated by her in her grocer shop or something.

I'm thinking you haven't even read the articles you linked to the end - both of them support my case.  Even if there is some cause to suspect that Margaret Thatcher used climate science to her political advantage, neither of these articles remotely state that the actual science itself was incorrect.

Leaving that aside, even if it was true for the UK (which I dispute), you would still then have to explain how this ended up being followed and accepted by most other countries and organisations in the world.  I suppose it's another example of the UK being so great and influential that whatever Maggie says, the world follows, even after she is long dead?

So even in the best case, you have provided no evidence that climate change by CO2 is completely wrong, other than some dodgy websites produced by fake experts (fake expertise is a well worn trope of conspiracy theorists).  All you show is that Margaret Thatcher cared more about ideological politics than climate science.

The other issue here is that of course, right wing ideological zealots are instinctively wanting to deny the existence of things lime climate change, pandemics and so on, because their classic or neoclassical economic view of the world relies on an unthinking ideology that markets know best, governments should do nothing, and any intervention is wrong, unless it's an intervention aimed at creating a "perfect market competition" even where no such natural situation exists.  All other government interventions are anathema to these folk.

As such, it's not surprising they would be keen to deny the existence of such issues because such problems clearly make the incontestible case that heavy government intervention is needed to deal with certain issues, sometimes on a global scale.

[Nick]

So the BBC published an article proving, according to you, that climate changed caused by human activity is a complete hoax developed by Margaret Thatcher, but then failed to follow up on it during the following years pretending that it's real still?

And your explanation for how the entire rest of the world were completely fooled by this, to the extent of many countries changing their entire economy and strategy and almost all the world's countries signing up to treaties about it, and that was all caused by Margaret Thatcher because she didn't like the unions and miners, and then somehow sustained not only for decades after she left office, but after she was dead.

And none of these scientists that she bribed to create these fake models have ever come clean about it in the meantime even though many of them would be comfortably retired by now and have nothing to lose.

Alternate view - the point that Margaret Thatcher may have used this to her political advantage on one year and then the opposite later is just a typical politician's behaviour.  The two articles you link don't even back up your theory.

Still, I think you for reinforcing my decision to follow the mainstream science here because if this ludicrous theory on the motive and driving force behind the climate change action movement globally is the best you can come up with, it kind of proves my point.

Follow what belief you want. I've posted you 2 links that you have not comment on once, didn't denounce any of the facts within them.

2 Articled that timeline her distrust of the unions and where she used GW to batter the unions, Lord Lawson even tells how he was asked to go out and find a reason to stop coal production but you don't bother addressing the facts.

[Javert]

Is it really?

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound-climate-alarm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22069768


She called for clean energy when she needed it against the unions then rejected when she didn't need it.

So the BBC published an article proving, according to you, that climate changed caused by human activity is a complete hoax developed by Margaret Thatcher, but then failed to follow up on it during the following years pretending that it's real still?

And your explanation for how the entire rest of the world were completely fooled by this, to the extent of many countries changing their entire economy and strategy and almost all the world's countries signing up to treaties about it, and that was all caused by Margaret Thatcher because she didn't like the unions and miners, and then somehow sustained not only for decades after she left office, but after she was dead.

And none of these scientists that she bribed to create these fake models have ever come clean about it in the meantime even though many of them would be comfortably retired by now and have nothing to lose.

Alternate view - the point that Margaret Thatcher may have used this to her political advantage on one year and then the opposite later is just a typical politician's behaviour.  The two articles you link don't even back up your theory.

Still, I think you for reinforcing my decision to follow the mainstream science here because if this ludicrous theory on the motive and driving force behind the climate change action movement globally is the best you can come up with, it kind of proves my point.

[Nick]

Khabibullo Abdusamatov

And the entire world's scientists did what she asked?

Why did she want to do that?

Can you show us the evidence for this?

I also note that there was only one nuclear powerstation commissioned during her entire period as PM and even that one had been strarted long before.

Meanwhile in all the years since she was PM, everyone across the whole world just went along with it.

... more conspiracy theories.

Is it really?

https://theecologist.org/2018/aug/21/how-margaret-thatcher-came-sound-climate-alarm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22069768


She called for clean energy when she needed it against the unions then rejected when she didn't need it.

[Borg Refinery]

We are waiting for a list of these real scientists!

Here is a small sample of the REAL SCIENTISTS that state that Anthropogenic climate change is tosh, scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
    Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
    Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
    Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
    Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
    David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
    Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
    Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
    Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
    Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
    Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
    Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
    Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
    Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
    Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
    George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

Just waiting for the "They all work for BP".

https://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php

I just took your first one Khabib, says he has 0 peer reviewed papers akd talks at events sponsored by the Heartland Institute.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

Hmm tobacco policy and like, Jeremy Clarkson's wishlist, cool.

Anyway, this points back to what I was sayingvabout the corruption of science by special interests, the money comes in either from greenwashers or hysterical climate skeptics, some of whom are biased and not properly peer reviewed, or the process is distorted as the guardian article lays out.

Those who deny this happens in their respective camps are as blinkered as each other.

We have Javert doing his best Greta impression and Nick doing his best Jeremy Clarkson one. 

[Javert]

Who are the scientists that are saying climate change is attributed to CO2? Are they the ones that are getting government grands hand over fist to prove there is a problem? Most likely those scientists are from within the climatology field, the ones who will lose their jobs if people realise there isn't actually a problem.

Maggie started the ole Global Warming thing because she wanted a reason to stop coal production and move to nuclear. She gave out grants with the express message, find me a reason. They built climate models based on the premise that if you increase CO2 the temperature goes up. What a shock when the model told them exactly what it had been programmed to do.

And the entire world's scientists did what she asked?

Why did she want to do that?

Can you show us the evidence for this?

I also note that there was only one nuclear powerstation commissioned during her entire period as PM and even that one had been strarted long before.

Meanwhile in all the years since she was PM, everyone across the whole world just went along with it.

... more conspiracy theories.

[Nick]

An enhancement. Some opposing views pushed by...the guardian?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

And the correcting article -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre

I read these over a year ago thanks to being pointed at them by people much cleverer than I am so don't skip them, they're recommended by real scientists.

We are waiting for a list of these real scientists!

Here is a small sample of the REAL SCIENTISTS that state that Anthropogenic climate change is tosh, scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

    Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
    Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
    Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
    Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
    Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
    Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
    David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
    David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
    Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
    William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
    Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
    Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
    Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
    William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
    David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
    Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
    Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
    Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
    Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
    Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
    Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
    Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
    Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
    Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
    Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
    Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
    Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
    Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
    Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
    Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
    George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
    Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]

Just waiting for the "They all work for BP".

[Borg Refinery]

https://arstechnica.com/science/guides/2009/11/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings.ars/1

No one will probably read this but I feel it's worth sharing anyway.

Anyway about 84-92% of pub'd peer reviewed scientists endorse GW.

An enhancement. Some opposing views pushed by...the guardian?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/science/2011/sep/05/publish-perish-peer-review-science

And the correcting article -

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/sep/12/bad-science-peer-review-goldacre

I read these over a year ago thanks to being pointed at them by people much cleverer than I am so don't skip them, they're recommended by real scientists.

[Borg Refinery]

https://arstechnica.com/science/guides/2009/11/the-complicated-truth-behind-scientific-findings.ars/1

No one will probably read this but I feel it's worth sharing anyway.

Anyway about 84-92% of pub'd peer reviewed scientists endorse GW.