People in Coventry have asked for more cycle lanes, better bus services and less traffic on roads.

Responding to the city council's climate and sustainability plans, they also said they wanted help to make homes more energy efficient and would like to see fewer houses being built in the city.

The authority's plan sets out more than 100 actions which could be taken.

The strategy attracted more than 1,000 comments from groups and individuals.

It is due to be discussed by councillors on Wednesday and sets out a long-term vision to achieve "net zero" carbon emissions.

A report due to go before the meeting said there was "a clear ask from individuals for more cycle lanes that are safe for use and have supporting infrastructure".

There was also demand for "more frequent and reliable public transport routes" especially around school times and to have financial incentives for the use of public transport.

Better and more accessible recycling facilities, more parks and open spaces and caring for trees in the city were also called for.

Some people who responded to the report said they either did not believe climate change was happening or that it was "too vast an issue to tackle".

But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability was "very" or "fairly" important.

A final climate strategy and 'action plan' to go with it are likely to be published in the new year.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-66856806

On 20/09/2023 08:57, Simon Mason wrote:

> People in Coventry have asked for more cycle lanes, better bus services and less traffic on roads.

No, they haven't.

It's a lie.

They haven't even been asked.

QUOTE: But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability was "very" important. ENDS

99.9% of scientists agree with them.

On 20/09/2023 10:47, Simon Mason wrote:

> QUOTE: But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability was "very" important. ENDS
>
> 99.9% of scientists agree with them.

No-one has asked the people of Coventry any such question(s).

You are complicit in a blatant lie and you are well aware of that, liar.

On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:47:43 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
> QUOTE: But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability was "very" important. ENDS
>
> 99.9% of scientists agree with them.

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.

“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.

https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE: But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about
> sustainability was "very" important. ENDS
>
> 99.9% of scientists agree with them.

Obama said so, it must be true…ROFL

--
Spike

After lawyering up and spending thousands of licence fee payer’s cash on
opposing Freedom of Information requests, the story is finally out, as the
Daily Mail reports:

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep
secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of
global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own
environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the
then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and
other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom
believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war –
lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the
executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going
to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change
laboratories might offer material for a thriller.

A lobby group with close links to green campaigners, the International
Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange government funding for both the
climate seminar and other BBC seminars run by Mr Harrabin – one of which
was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister Hilary Benn.

Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department for International Development
(DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars would influence programme
content for years to come.

The BBC began its long legal battle to keep details of the conference
secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a passing reference to it
in an official report.

Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything
about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted
struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent
more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their
legal battle is understood to be much higher.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:47:43 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
>> QUOTE: But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about
>> sustainability was "very" important. ENDS
>>
>> 99.9% of scientists agree with them.
>
> More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate
> change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125
> climate-related studies.
>
> The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies
> published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities
> are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature
> published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
>
> “We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and
> that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation
> about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a
> visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.
>
> https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change
>

--
Spike

FOLLOW THE MONEY.

Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.

In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.

“This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that very climate science.”

“We thought this was a unique opportunity to understand what Exxon knew about this issue and what level of scientific understanding they had at the time,” added co-author Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of the History of Science whose work looks at the causes and effects of climate change denial. “We found that not only were their forecasts extremely skillful, but they were also often more skillful than forecasts made by independent academic and government scientists at the exact same time.”

Allegations that oil company executives sought to mislead the public about the industry’s role in climate change have drawn increasing scrutiny in recent years, including lawsuits by several states and cities and a recent high profile U.S. House committee investigation.

Harvard’s scientists used established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statistical techniques to test the performance of Exxon’s models. They found that, depending on the metric used, 63-83 percent of the global warming projections reported by Exxon scientists were consistent with actual temperatures over time. Moreover, the corporation’s own projections had an average “skill score” of 72 percent, plus or minus 6 percent, with the highest scoring 99 percent. A skill score relates to how well a forecast compares to what happens in real life. For comparison, NASA scientist James Hansen’s global warming predictions presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988 had scores from 38 to 66 percent.

The researchers report that Exxon scientists correctly dismissed the possibility of a coming ice age, accurately predicted that human-caused global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000, plus or minus five years, and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.

The current debate about when Exxon knew about the impact on climate change carbon emissions began in 2015 following news reports of internal company documents describing the multinational’s early knowledge of climate science. Exxon disagreed with the reports, even providing a link to internal studies and memos from their own scientists and suggesting that interested parties should read them and make up their own minds.

“That’s exactly what we did,” said Supran, who is now at the University of Miami. Together, he and Oreskes spent a year researching those documents and in 2017 published a series of three papers analyzing Exxon’s 40-year history of climate communications. They were able to show there was a systematic discrepancy between what Exxon was saying internally and in academic circles versus what they were telling the public. “That led us to conclude that they had quantifiably misled the public, by essentially contributing quietly to climate science and yet loudly promoting doubt about that science,” said Supran.

In 2021, the team published a new study in One Earth using algorithmic techniques to identify ways in which ExxonMobil used increasingly subtle but systematic language to shape the way the public talks and thinks about climate change — often in misleading ways.

These findings were hardly a surprise to Oreskes, given her long history of studying climate communications from fossil fuel companies, work that drew national attention with her 2010 bestseller, “Merchants of Doubt.” In it she and co-author, Caltech researcher Erik Conway, argued that Exxon was aware of the threat of carbon emissions on climate change yet waged a disinformation campaign about the problem. Despite the book’s popularity and the peer-reviewed papers with Supran, however, some continued to wonder whether she could prove the effect these campaigns had, if they indeed made a difference.

“I think this new study is the smoking gun, the proof, because it shows the degree of understanding … this really deep, really sophisticated, really skillful understanding that was obscured by what came next,” Oreskes said. “It proves a point I’ve argued for years that ExxonMobil scientists knew about this problem to a shockingly fine degree as far back as the 1980s, but company spokesmen denied, challenged, and obscured this science, starting in the late 1980s/early 1990s.”

Added Supran: “Our analysis here I think seals the deal on that matter. We now have totally unimpeachable evidence that Exxon accurately predicted global warming years before it turned around and publicly attacked climate science and scientists.”

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> FOLLOW THE MONEY.

FOLLOW THE SCIENCE

Arrhenius’ paper, which underpins all the CO2-related climate hysteria
generated by the IPCC, is not founded on any theory.

Read his paper here:

<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

> Projections created internally by ExxonMobil starting in the late 1970s
> on the impact of fossil fuels on climate change were very accurate, even
> surpassing those of some academic and governmental scientists, according
> to an analysis published Thursday in Science by a team of Harvard-led
> researchers. Despite those forecasts, team leaders say, the multinational
> energy giant continued to sow doubt about the gathering crisis.
>
> In “Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections,” researchers from
> Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for
> the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by
> company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered
> that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and
> analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the
> coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions
> would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a
> margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate.
>
> “This paper is the first ever systematic assessment of a fossil fuel
> company’s climate projections, the first time we’ve been able to put a
> number on what they knew,” said Geoffrey Supran, lead author and former
> research fellow in the History of Science at Harvard. “What we found is
> that between 1977 and 2003, excellent scientists within Exxon modeled and
> predicted global warming with, frankly, shocking skill and accuracy only
> for the company to then spend the next couple of decades denying that
> very climate science.”
>
> “We thought this was a unique opportunity to understand what Exxon knew
> about this issue and what level of scientific understanding they had at
> the time,” added co-author Naomi Oreskes, Henry Charles Lea Professor of
> the History of Science whose work looks at the causes and effects of
> climate change denial. “We found that not only were their forecasts
> extremely skillful, but they were also often more skillful than forecasts
> made by independent academic and government scientists at the exact same time.”
>
> Allegations that oil company executives sought to mislead the public
> about the industry’s role in climate change have drawn increasing
> scrutiny in recent years, including lawsuits by several states and cities
> and a recent high profile U.S. House committee investigation.
>
> Harvard’s scientists used established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change (IPCC) statistical techniques to test the performance of Exxon’s
> models. They found that, depending on the metric used, 63-83 percent of
> the global warming projections reported by Exxon scientists were
> consistent with actual temperatures over time. Moreover, the
> corporation’s own projections had an average “skill score” of 72 percent,
> plus or minus 6 percent, with the highest scoring 99 percent. A skill
> score relates to how well a forecast compares to what happens in real
> life. For comparison, NASA scientist James Hansen’s global warming
> predictions presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988 had scores from 38 to 66 percent.
>
> The researchers report that Exxon scientists correctly dismissed the
> possibility of a coming ice age, accurately predicted that human-caused
> global warming would first be detectable in the year 2000, plus or minus
> five years, and reasonably estimated how much CO2 would lead to dangerous warming.
>
> The current debate about when Exxon knew about the impact on climate
> change carbon emissions began in 2015 following news reports of internal
> company documents describing the multinational’s early knowledge of
> climate science. Exxon disagreed with the reports, even providing a link
> to internal studies and memos from their own scientists and suggesting
> that interested parties should read them and make up their own minds.
>
> “That’s exactly what we did,” said Supran, who is now at the University
> of Miami. Together, he and Oreskes spent a year researching those
> documents and in 2017 published a series of three papers analyzing
> Exxon’s 40-year history of climate communications. They were able to show
> there was a systematic discrepancy between what Exxon was saying
> internally and in academic circles versus what they were telling the
> public. “That led us to conclude that they had quantifiably misled the
> public, by essentially contributing quietly to climate science and yet
> loudly promoting doubt about that science,” said Supran.
>
> In 2021, the team published a new study in One Earth using algorithmic
> techniques to identify ways in which ExxonMobil used increasingly subtle
> but systematic language to shape the way the public talks and thinks
> about climate change — often in misleading ways.
>
> These findings were hardly a surprise to Oreskes, given her long history
> of studying climate communications from fossil fuel companies, work that
> drew national attention with her 2010 bestseller, “Merchants of Doubt.”
> In it she and co-author, Caltech researcher Erik Conway, argued that
> Exxon was aware of the threat of carbon emissions on climate change yet
> waged a disinformation campaign about the problem. Despite the book’s
> popularity and the peer-reviewed papers with Supran, however, some
> continued to wonder whether she could prove the effect these campaigns
> had, if they indeed made a difference.
>
> “I think this new study is the smoking gun, the proof, because it shows
> the degree of understanding … this really deep, really sophisticated,
> really skillful understanding that was obscured by what came next,”
> Oreskes said. “It proves a point I’ve argued for years that ExxonMobil
> scientists knew about this problem to a shockingly fine degree as far
> back as the 1980s, but company spokesmen denied, challenged, and obscured
> this science, starting in the late 1980s/early 1990s.”
>
> Added Supran: “Our analysis here I think seals the deal on that matter.
> We now have totally unimpeachable evidence that Exxon accurately
> predicted global warming years before it turned around and publicly
> attacked climate science and scientists.”
>
> https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/

--
Spike

On 20/09/2023 12:55, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 4:47:43 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:

>> QUOTE: But 80% said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability was "very" important. ENDS
>>
>> 99.9% of scientists agree with them.
>
> More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
>
> The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
>
> “We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science and the paper’s first author.
>
> https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-agree-humans-caused-climate-change

What has any of that drivel to do with Coventry, liar?

The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in order to protect its core business, new research has found.

A trove of internal documents and research papers has previously established that Exxon knew of the dangers of global heating from at least the 1970s, with other oil industry bodies knowing of the risk even earlier, from around the 1950s. They forcefully and successfully mobilized against the science to stymie any action to reduce fossil fuel use.

A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.

Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.

Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.

“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”

The research analyzed more than 100 internal documents and peer-reviewed scientific publications either produced in-house by Exxon scientists and managers, or co-authored by Exxon scientists in independent publications between 1977 and 2014.
Exxon-modeled climate projections from 1982 with observed data overlaid
Photograph: Supran, et al., 2023, “Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections”

The analysis found that Exxon correctly rejected the idea the world was headed for an imminent ice age, which was a possibility mooted in the 1970s, instead predicting that the planet was facing a “carbon dioxide induced ‘super-interglacial’”. Company scientists also found that global heating was human-influenced and would be detected around the year 2000, and they predicted the “carbon budget” for holding the warming below 2C above pre-industrial times.

Armed with this knowledge, Exxon embarked upon a lengthy campaign to downplay or discredit what its own scientists had confirmed. As recently as 2013, Rex Tillerson, then chief executive of the oil company, said that the climate models were “not competent” and that “there are uncertainties” over the impact of burning fossil fuels.

“What they did was essentially remain silent while doing this work and only when it became strategically necessary to manage the existential threat to their business did they stand up and speak out against the science,” said Supran.

“They could have endorsed their science rather than deny it. It would have been a much harder case to deny it if the king of big oil was actually backing the science rather than attacking it.”

Climate scientists said the new study highlighted an important chapter in the struggle to address the climate crisis. “It is very unfortunate that the company not only did not heed the implied risks from this information, but rather chose to endorse non-scientific ideas instead to delay action, likely in an effort to make more money,” said Natalie Mahowald, a climate scientist at Cornell University.

Mahowald said the delays in action aided by Exxon had “profound implications” because earlier investments in wind and solar could have averted current and future climate disasters. “If we include impacts from air pollution and climate change, their actions likely impacted thousands to millions of people adversely,” she added.

Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, said the new study was a “detailed, robust analysis” and that Exxon’s misleading public comments about the climate crisis were “especially brazen” given their scientists’ involvement in work with outside researchers in assessing global heating. Shindell said it was hard to conclude that Exxon’s scientists were any better at this than outside scientists, however.

The new work provided “further amplification” of Exxon’s misinformation, said Robert Brulle, an environment policy expert at Brown University who has researched climate disinformation spread by the fossil fuel industry.

“I’m sure that the ongoing efforts to hold Exxon accountable will take note of this study,” Brulle said, a reference to the various lawsuits aimed at getting oil companies to pay for climate damages.

A spokesperson for Exxon said: “This issue has come up several times in recent years and, in each case, our answer is the same: those who talk about how “Exxon Knew” are wrong in their conclusions. In 2019, Judge Barry Ostrager of the NY State Supreme Court listened to all the facts in a related case before him and wrote: “What the evidence at trial revealed is that ExxonMobil executives and employees were uniformly committed to rigorously discharging their duties in the most comprehensive and meticulous manner possible….The testimony of these witnesses demonstrated that ExxonMobil has a culture of disciplined analysis, planning, accounting, and reporting.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> The oil giant Exxon privately “predicted global warming correctly and
> skilfully” only to then spend decades publicly rubbishing such science in
> order to protect its core business, new research has found.

It was only ‘new’ last year, not the third time of asking.

> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jan/12/exxon-climate-change-global-warming-research

Oh! The Guardian! That explains it…

--
Spike

Since the 1970s, American fossil fuel and energy corporation ExxonMobil has engaged in climate research focussing on global warming. It later began lobbying, advertising, and grant making, some of which were conducted with the purpose of delaying widespread acceptance and action on global warming.

From the late 1970s and through the 1980s, Exxon funded internal and university collaborations, broadly in line with the developing public scientific approach. From the 1980s to mid 2000s, the company was a leader in climate change denial, opposing regulations to curtail global warming. ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and sought to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition of businesses opposed to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.

Spike <aero.spike@btinternet.invalid> wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> FOLLOW THE MONEY.
>
> FOLLOW THE SCIENCE
>
> Arrhenius’ paper, which underpins all the CO2-related climate hysteria
> generated by the IPCC, is not founded on any theory.
>
> Read his paper here:
>
> <https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>

Just to note that in the tabulated results in the footnote on p238, the
final column is headed ’Prob Error’.

This stands for ‘Probable Error’.

Note that it is neither probable, nor an error.

--
Spike

A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Royal Society (UK)
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
And many more.

Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence. In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).

Despite the clarity of the facts, behavioral/social science tells us that simply shoving global warming related scientific data into their face simply solidifies their existing beliefs. There's even a college offering free online classes that teaches you both the science of what is going on and how to fight denialism properly.

https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/e/ec/DenialistStaircase.png

It is standard fare for climate change deniers to blame consensus on a conspiracy. To his credit, James Delingpole has at least looked around enough to see who is behind this conspiracy. In his own words:

Heads are going to roll for this, they’ll have to. But however many heads do roll it won’t be enough. Always remember this: the Warmist faith so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition's energy spokesman in the Lords Lord Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your children's schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the University of East Anglia, your local council...[his ellipsis]

Pretty impressive list. However, after a bit of head-scratching, he found some more:

Asda, Marks & Spencer, the Co-Op, Knight Frank, Boots, Aviva, and Sky.

Oh, and Wikipedia.

Seemingly everybody in the world except Delingpole. This sort of ranting insanity and solipsism is typical of his output.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the
> scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation
> of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this
> occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the
> burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus.

In the days of phlogiston, ‘the vast majority of scientists ‘broadly
agreed’’ with it.

When scientists were struggling to form what we now know as the Periodic
Table, partly constructed on the basis of the chemical elements having
integer values of atomic weights, the issue of Chlorine split the
scientific community of the day. Chlorine behaved like an element but had
an awkward atomic weight of 35.45.

In essence, what the scientific community ‘broadly agreed’ with was an
irrelevance.

> https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/e/ec/DenialistStaircase.png
>

--
Spike

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is standard fare for climate change deniers to blame consensus on a
> conspiracy. To his credit, James Delingpole has at least looked around
> enough to see who is behind this conspiracy. In his own words:
>
> Heads are going to roll for this, they’ll have to. But however many
> heads do roll it won’t be enough. Always remember this: the Warmist faith
> so fervently held and promulgated by the Met Office is exactly the same
> faith so passionately, unswervingly followed by David Cameron, Chris
> Huhne, Greg Barker, the Coalition's energy spokesman in the Lords Lord
> Marland, and all but five members of the last parliament. And also by the
> BBC, the Prince of Wales, almost every national newspaper, the European
> Union, the Royal Society, the New York Times, CNBC, the Obama
> administration, the Australian and New Zealand governments, your
> children's schools, our major universities, our minor universities, the
> University of East Anglia, your local council...[his ellipsis]
>
> Pretty impressive list. However, after a bit of head-scratching, he found some more:
>
> Asda, Marks & Spencer, the Co-Op, Knight Frank, Boots, Aviva, and Sky.
>
> Oh, and Wikipedia.
>
> Seemingly everybody in the world except Delingpole. This sort of ranting
> insanity and solipsism is typical of his output.

After lawyering up and spending thousands of licence fee payer’s cash on
opposing Freedom of Information requests, the story is finally out, as the
Daily Mail reports:

The BBC has spent tens of thousands of pounds over six years trying to keep
secret an extraordinary ‘eco’ conference which has shaped its coverage of
global warming, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

The controversial seminar was run by a body set up by the BBC’s own
environment analyst Roger Harrabin and funded via a £67,000 grant from the
then Labour government, which hoped to see its ‘line’ on climate change and
other Third World issues promoted in BBC reporting.

At the event, in 2006, green activists and scientists – one of whom
believes climate change is a bigger danger than global nuclear war –
lectured 28 of the Corporation’s most senior executives.

Then director of television Jana Bennett opened the seminar by telling the
executives to ask themselves: ‘How do you plan and run a city that is going
to be submerged?’ And she asked them to consider if climate change
laboratories might offer material for a thriller.

A lobby group with close links to green campaigners, the International
Broadcasting Trust (IBT), helped to arrange government funding for both the
climate seminar and other BBC seminars run by Mr Harrabin – one of which
was attended by then Labour Cabinet Minister Hilary Benn.

Applying for money from Mr Benn’s Department for International Development
(DFID), the IBT promised Ministers the seminars would influence programme
content for years to come.

The BBC began its long legal battle to keep details of the conference
secret after an amateur climate blogger spotted a passing reference to it
in an official report.

Tony Newbery, 69, from North Wales, asked for further disclosure under the
Freedom of Information Act. The BBC’s resistance to revealing anything
about its funding and the names of those present led to a protracted
struggle in the Information Tribunal. The BBC has admitted it has spent
more than £20,000 on barristers’ fees. However, the full cost of their
legal battle is understood to be much higher.

--
Spike

Since his departure from Greenpeace, Patrick Moore and the organisation have engaged in a sometimes vicious war of words. A Greenpeace statement claimed that he turned his back on the organisation for money, calling him a "paid representative of corporate polluters" and saying he "exploits long-gone ties with Greenpeace to sell himself as a speaker and pro-corporate spokesperson, usually taking positions that Greenpeace opposes". Moore openly admits that he is funded by the Nuclear Energy Institute via the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(Greenpeace)

On 21/09/2023 06:43, Simon Mason wrote:

> A scientific consensus is reached when the vast majority of the scientists involved in a discipline broadly agree on the interpretation of the evidence pertaining to a specific scientific question. When this occurs the case can be considered to have been demonstrated and the burden of proof then falls on those who would dispute the consensus. The following national and international organizations are part of the consensus that global warming is a real phenomenon for which humans are responsible:
>
> National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
> National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
> NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
> Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
> Royal Society (UK)
> Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
> UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> And many more.
>
> Though some have taken non-committal stances, the vast majority of scientific bodies are convinced by the evidence. In addition, those pinko tree-huggers at the Pentagon now rank global warming as a "destabilizing force" (damn enviro-weenies).
>
> Despite the clarity of the facts, behavioral/social science tells us that simply shoving global warming related scientific data into their face simply solidifies their existing beliefs. There's even a college offering free online classes that teaches you both the science of what is going on and how to fight denialism properly.
>
> https://rationalwiki.org/w/images/e/ec/DenialistStaircase.png

What does that have to do with your repetition of the blatant LIE that
the people of Coventry have been consulted about something?

If [discussing renewable energy with conservatives] you deliver the message of energy freedom, energy choice, competition, national security, innovation, all of a sudden, you will have a receptive audience and they will listen to you. If you lead off with climate change, they’re not going to pay a bit of attention to anything else you say. They’ve been brainwashed for decades into believing, oh, we’re not damaging the environment…

As you can see above, fact-based debate on this is as one-sided as bringing an 8-inch atomic artillery piece to a knife fight. So climate denial inevitably involves a barrage of bad-faith misdirection tactics that do nothing to rebut the scientific consensus at issue.

Coventry residents have called for more cycle lanes, better bus services and less traffic on roads in response to council climate and sustainability plans. They also want help to make homes more energy efficient and would like to see fewer houses being built in the city, especially on green spaces.

People have been responding to the council's 'draft climate change strategy' setting out how it will tackle climate change and improve sustainability in the city. The document lays out 103 possible areas of activity but has been criticized by campaigners for lacking a "long-term vision" or clear road map to net zero.

More than 1,000 people and groups took part in a consultation on the strategy, according to papers for a council meeting on Wednesday, September 20. More details on what people think the council should be doing were revealed in hundreds of comments on different areas of the strategy from people and groups.

Some of the most popular calls were for the council to have more communication with residents and to work with local groups and government. On transport, there was "a clear ask from individuals for more cycle lanes that are safe for use and have supporting infrastructure" the report said.

"There was also demand from individuals for more frequent and reliable public transport routes (especially around school times) and to have financial incentives for the use of public transport. "Individuals also wanted to see reduced traffic across some roads, including arterial roads, but again highlighting traffic currently around schools."

Housing was another key issue for Coventrians, according to the analysis. People said they wanted support to retrofit houses - which makes them more energy efficient - especially for people in fuel poverty.

Residents also "wanted the council to reduce the number of houses being built, and where required to not be built on green belt land," it said. "There were many comments that centred around this idea that too many houses are being built on green belt / countryside and should be targeted elsewhere.

"Individuals also wanted to ensure those houses being built should be as sustainable and energy efficient as possible." Better and more accessible recycling facilities, more parks and open spaces and caring for trees in the city are other things people want.

Looking at the strategy as a whole, the report added, a "clear theme" of feedback is for it to be more ambitious with clearer targets and actions. Educational campaigns, community involvement and oversight of the plans with a dedicated committee were other things people suggested.

But "another popular theme" was those who either don't believe climate change is happening or that humans lack control over it, including some who think it's "too vast an issue to tackle." For these people, "the council will need to look at ways to identify opportunities that will benefit people, regardless of if they consider climate change an issue or not and work in a transparent way to build trust and buy-in to projects," the report said.

The report said the number of responses, over a 1,000, is typical for this kind of work - but "far more effective engagement" is needed given the issue's importance. Older people and those who identify as 'white British' were also overrepresented among the 375 people who took part in the council's survey on the plans, compared to the Coventry population.

Four-fifths of people who took part in the survey said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability is "very" or "fairly" important. They also said giving the next generation a positive future is the most important part of dealing with climate change, over other aspects.

Following the feedback, the council is now looking at how to involve more people in projects including work with faith groups and schools, and potentially a Citizens Assembly. They will also "consider the need to establish a clear and meaningful set of targets for 2030 and 2050" which could include emissions targets in line with the city's net zero route map - something which has been called for by green campaigners.

A final climate strategy and 'action plan' to go with it are likely to be published in the new year, the report said. The full consultation report and feedback, including a more detailed summary, are also due to be published on the council's website.

Councillors on the scrutiny committee will discuss the report at Wednesday's meeting.

https://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/calls-more-cycle-lanes-coventry-27746389

On 21/09/2023 10:32, Simon Mason wrote:

> Coventry residents have called for more cycle lanes,

That is another of your soul-blackening LIES, liar.

The people of Coventry have been asked no such question.

> better bus services and less traffic on roads in response to council climate and sustainability plans.

More of your LIES.

QUOTE: Four-fifths of people who took part in the survey said tackling climate change and thinking about sustainability is "very" or "fairly" important. They also said giving the next generation a positive future is the most important part of dealing with climate change, over other aspect. ENDS

Obviously as the racist gammons are dying off day by day.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> If [discussing renewable energy with conservatives] you deliver the
> message of energy freedom, energy choice, competition, national security,
> innovation, all of a sudden, you will have a receptive audience and they
> will listen to you. If you lead off with climate change, they’re not
> going to pay a bit of attention to anything else you say. They’ve been
> brainwashed for decades into believing, oh, we’re not damaging the environment…
>
> As you can see above, fact-based debate on this is as one-sided as
> bringing an 8-inch atomic artillery piece to a knife fight. So climate
> denial inevitably involves a barrage of bad-faith misdirection tactics
> that do nothing to rebut the scientific consensus at issue.

‘Consensus’ does not mean ‘correct’.

--
Spike