Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[Otispunkmeyer]

durbster said:

XJ40 said:

Thanks for the replies TB, I shall give the links a squint.

A word of caution if you're new to the thread: you have to read this thread like a tabloid newspaper. A lot of stuff posted is designed to influence you with outrageous sounding soundbites but there's often little substance to them when you care to look.

For example, you'll see this posted a lot as above:

turbobloke said:

Engineers Say Renewable Energy ‘Simply won’t work’:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-...

The actual quote is:

Google said:

Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

It's almost as if some people only post here to obfuscate and muddy the debate... like they're being paid to do so...

Edited by durbster on Wednesday 2nd December 14:31

Well of course its today's renewables. Nobody knows what tomorrows are and so it would be foolish to extrapolate (doesn't stop the model brigade). If you read the report, they gave today's renewables the best fighting chance by including technological advancements that are not quite here yet, just peeping onto the horizon. Wind and Solar are not the answer and they never will be for the way we currently demand electricity. They do not provide stable, dependable base load.

for me nuclear is the medium-long term option. but everyone bricks their knickers at that and we have to call the chinese in to sort us out.

[bodhi]

Just a quick note to say I'm actually in Paris at the moment seeing a customer - COP21 and climate billboards everywhere.

However talking to a few locals, none of them seem to care too much, as they have more important things to be considering at the moment.

I did love the irony of the COP21 welcome desk at Charles De Gaulle however.

[Mr GrimNasty]

The warmist doom mongers have lost the public relations war, outside their groupthink safespace, every public opinion poll shows them losing ground and credibility.

They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.

Russia and China know it's BS, they also know the West will do anything to save face and present some sort of agreement from Paris, they have no intention of curbing emissions or harming their own growth, but if they can get the West to commit commercial suicide and pay them hard cash too, they are happy to oblige.

[Halb]

THis Week! Now!!

[Weary of internet morons]

He knows his stuff, and speaks sense, so it's a pity he's dressed like a clown as some will use that to demean or ignore him.

[Halb]

Weary of internet morons said:

He knows his stuff, and speaks sense, so it's a pity he's dressed like a clown as some will use that to demean or ignore him.

Yeah, using the 'Corbyn' attack on him.

[Weary of internet morons]

Oh God, Johnson actually quoting the '97% of scientists think' carp. Shows how gullible, badly informed and stupid so many 'authoritative' voices are.

[Northern Munkee]

Totally agree about exporting our emissions and (consequently) cost us our own jobs, while still consuming and generating emissions. Interesting tack to call green taxes on energy bills is a unfair poll tax on the poor.

[Weary of internet morons]

Oh God, Johnson actually quoting the '97% of scientists think' carp. Shows how gullible, badly informed and stupid so many 'authoritative' voices are.

[Murph7355]

Northern Munkee said:

Totally agree about exporting our emissions and (consequently) cost us our own jobs, while still consuming and generating emissions. Interesting tack to call green taxes on energy bills is a unfair poll tax on the poor.

That doesn't matter as that carbon is over China. And India.

[LongQ]

It seems that Charlie and Charlotte might be on to something when they spout about Climate Change causing the problems in Syria.

Or, rather, they might have been if their briefing notes had not missed out one word.

Climate Change POLICIES (for mitigation) creating the problems in Syria.

This is a rather fascinating analysis. It even uses official UN figures.

http://euanmearns.com/food-population-energy-and-c...


Very worthy of a read.

[Beati Dogu]

Did I read somewhere that the reason the US hadn't been nailing the oil tankers (which fund Izal) in Syria was for environmental reasons?

[turbobloke]

Beati Dogu said:

Did I read somewhere that the reason the US hadn't been nailing the oil tankers (which fund Izal) in Syria was for environmental reasons?

Hadn't heard that and it may just be a rumour but it wouldn't surprise me if Obama asked for the carbon bombprint. He's lost the plot on this one.

[The Don of Croy]

R4 Today programme - introducing us to the upcoming performance of 'The Lorax' (no, me neither) at the Old Vic.

An adaptation of a Dr. Seuss book (running time 15 minutes) spun out to 2hr+ and explained by the creative bod in the studio as a piece about Climate Change (but in a fun and amusing way) - because it's the biggest challenge...

So that's OK then.

[durbster]

Mr GrimNasty said:

They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.

That's probably a fair summary. But think about it for a moment.

What you're saying is the people who study and research it and the vast majority of other scientists including all the scientific institutions around the world (afaik), the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media etc. who all have access to the best information on the matter do not contest the science.

The public - who get their information from the mainstream media, blog posts and car forums - are still arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.

But seriously, take a step back and consider if you were a jury presented with information from both sides, which would you trust more?

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.

That's probably a fair summary. But think about it for a moment.

What you're saying is the people who study and research it and the vast majority of other scientists including all the scientific institutions around the world (afaik), the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media etc. who all have access to the best information on the matter do not contest the science.

Yes they do.

The claim is that the science is not contested, the debate is over etc but that's totally unscientific so not how any independently non-AGW grant-funded scientist would behave.

http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.p...

[turbobloke]

Also, any claimed consensus remains irrelevant.

Institution backing comes from a few activists who push themselves on committees, they don't speak for the membership in terms of opinion.

[robinessex]

And Durbster STILL hasn't answered my last question. Is that a surprise?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

Mr GrimNasty said:

They have all the 'power', money, societal and scientific institutions infiltrated and co-opted, and the majority of the public still think it's BS. A declaration that climate change is a problem caused by man that needs urgent action, would lose a referendum hands down.

That's probably a fair summary. But think about it for a moment.

What you're saying is the people who study and research it and the vast majority of other scientists including all the scientific institutions around the world (afaik), the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media etc. who all have access to the best information on the matter do not contest the science.

The public - who get their information from the mainstream media, blog posts and car forums - are still arguing about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or not.

But seriously, take a step back and consider if you were a jury presented with information from both sides, which would you trust more?

Well, in this hypothetical scenario, I'm gessing the evidence would soon be ripped apart when subjected to critical cross examination and proof. And the politicians, policy makers, the economists, the media don't count at all. No knowledge, only a sheep like tendency to follow.

[rovermorris999]

I don't think anyone disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What is disputed is the hypothesised but not demonstrated feedback mechanisms that don't seem to be working.