Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 2
Discussion
Would everyone agree we should stop funding any further deployment of renewable energy technology and concentrate on insulation first. Specifically as that is unlikely to get cheaper to install over time.
Im about 50% committed to starting an OU degree in Economics and statistics with that statement as my final year thesis.
I don't think renewable energy is a waste of time, but it's been deployed too fast when there are better ways to reduce energy and or make carbon and cost savings.
Im about 50% committed to starting an OU degree in Economics and statistics with that statement as my final year thesis.
I don't think renewable energy is a waste of time, but it's been deployed too fast when there are better ways to reduce energy and or make carbon and cost savings.
TransverseTight said:
I don't think renewable energy is a waste of time, but it's been deployed too fast when there are better ways to reduce energy and or make carbon and cost savings.
Why do we need to save carbon? Perhaps we could plant a s**tload of trees, I heard a rumour that they eat CO2 and sh*t oxygen.. Can't be bad eh?
mybrainhurts said:
Boom!"“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”"
TX.
Terminator X said:
mybrainhurts said:
Boom!"“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”"
TX.
TransverseTight said:
Terminator X said:
mybrainhurts said:
Boom!"“There’s nothing we can do to stop it (climate change). Scientifically, it is sheer absurdity to think we can get a nice climate by turning a CO2 adjustment knob.”"
TX.
TX.
mybrainhurts said:
Two degrees of Bob and fifty shades of bullshine.He's just following advice offered long ago by a coolist-turned-warmist.
Stephen Schneider said:
We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.
Having tried to save that Bishop Hill webpage with the filename 'Bob Ward b
ks it turns out I have two such files on disk already so that's now BWB3.
An interesting look by the BBC at the human consequences of Energiewende and the expansion of lignite mining.
Noble Cause Corruption
It was inevitable that, in its role as one of our leading warmist pressure
groups, the once-revered Royal Society would join the propaganda campaign
lobbying for a new global climate treaty in Paris next year. As the
scientific case for the belief that the world is in the grip of runaway
global warming continues to fall apart, it was equally predictable that the
Society would fasten on to the one issue they have all been clutching at to
keep the scare going. This is the claim that rising CO2 levels are
responsible for all those dreadful "extreme weather events" we keep hearing
about - floods, droughts, hurricanes, killer heatwaves and the rest.
Introducing the Society's new report, Resilience to Extreme Weather,
part-funded by the warmist billionaire Jeremy Grantham and assembled by
like-minded academics and green lobby groups, its president, the geneticist
Sir Paul Nurse, hopes that its "evidence of trends in extreme weather" will
help to "galvanise" worldwide "action".
The only problem is that its 128 pages produce virtually no evidence to
support the belief that "extreme weather events" are becoming more frequent
and intense - for the reason that virtually no such evidence exists, as even
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems to accept.
Almost the only graph in the report is one co-authored in 2004 by the US
climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr, which showed a rising trend line in the
cost of damage from extreme weather. But as Pielke again shows in his new
book Disasters and Climate Change, this increase is due to factors such as
where vulnerable properties have been built.
He includes an excoriatory passage on what he calls "the mystery graph",
published by the IPCC in 2007, purporting to show a link between the rising
cost of weather damage andrising temperatures. The only citation given for
this was that it was allegedly derived from another of Pielke's own graphs,
which he explains had shown nothing of the kind. As he argues, "the issue of
disasters and climate change is a canonical example of 'noble cause'
corruption in science".
This might well serve as an epitaph on the whole of the Royal Society's new
report. Fortunately, thanks to China, India and others, the chances of
agreement on the global treaty they are all lobbying for are non-existent.
Christopher Booker, Saturday Telegraph, 29 November 2014
IPCC Wrongly Linked Global Warming to Natural Disasters
It was inevitable that, in its role as one of our leading warmist pressure
groups, the once-revered Royal Society would join the propaganda campaign
lobbying for a new global climate treaty in Paris next year. As the
scientific case for the belief that the world is in the grip of runaway
global warming continues to fall apart, it was equally predictable that the
Society would fasten on to the one issue they have all been clutching at to
keep the scare going. This is the claim that rising CO2 levels are
responsible for all those dreadful "extreme weather events" we keep hearing
about - floods, droughts, hurricanes, killer heatwaves and the rest.
Introducing the Society's new report, Resilience to Extreme Weather,
part-funded by the warmist billionaire Jeremy Grantham and assembled by
like-minded academics and green lobby groups, its president, the geneticist
Sir Paul Nurse, hopes that its "evidence of trends in extreme weather" will
help to "galvanise" worldwide "action".
The only problem is that its 128 pages produce virtually no evidence to
support the belief that "extreme weather events" are becoming more frequent
and intense - for the reason that virtually no such evidence exists, as even
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) seems to accept.
Almost the only graph in the report is one co-authored in 2004 by the US
climate scientist Roger Pielke Jr, which showed a rising trend line in the
cost of damage from extreme weather. But as Pielke again shows in his new
book Disasters and Climate Change, this increase is due to factors such as
where vulnerable properties have been built.
He includes an excoriatory passage on what he calls "the mystery graph",
published by the IPCC in 2007, purporting to show a link between the rising
cost of weather damage andrising temperatures. The only citation given for
this was that it was allegedly derived from another of Pielke's own graphs,
which he explains had shown nothing of the kind. As he argues, "the issue of
disasters and climate change is a canonical example of 'noble cause'
corruption in science".
This might well serve as an epitaph on the whole of the Royal Society's new
report. Fortunately, thanks to China, India and others, the chances of
agreement on the global treaty they are all lobbying for are non-existent.
Christopher Booker, Saturday Telegraph, 29 November 2014
IPCC Wrongly Linked Global Warming to Natural Disasters
GWPF said:
The new controversy also goes back to the IPCC’s 2007 report in which a separate section warned that the world had “suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s”.
It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”
It suggested a part of this increase was due to global warming and cited the unpublished report, saying: “One study has found that while the dominant signal remains that of the significant increases in the values of exposure at risk, once losses are normalised for exposure, there still remains an underlying rising trend.”
The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.
When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: “We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”
motco said:
Ed Davey says we have only a year to save the planet! 
article said:
Mr Davey said that “momentum is building” towards a deal following an emissions-reduction agreement among EU leaders in October and a deal between China and the US this month
Ah yes, the "deal" whereby China agreed to do absolutely nothing whatsoever. 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff