New York State suffers 6 feet and counting of global warming
Discussion
Diderot said:
Breadvan I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question. Since it probably isn't here are a few answers: it's about tax, redistribution of wealth, keeping the developing world undeveloped, undermining the influence of the Middle East, moving away from relying on unsavoury regimes for oil and gas, massive money making scam for politicians and their mates (and fathers in law), and it's about control exerted by the left. Did I mention tax? It's never been about science - the scientific basis for the myth has more perforations that a Tetley's tea bag, and the philosophical basis for some of the underpinning ideas is laughable.
You have been duped.
It is not a rhetorical question but a real one, to which the denialists have no answer unless they allege that every major national academy is party to a conspiracy. That allegation is frankly ludicrous. You have been duped.
Even if it is alleged that every major national academy is incompetent and has made blunders which clever internet car enthusiasts can spot, the allegation is highly implausible.
Breadvan72 said:
It is not a rhetorical question but a real one, to which the denialists have no answer unless they allege that every major national academy is party to a conspiracy. That allegation is frankly ludicrous.
Even if it is alleged that every major national academy is incompetent and has made blunders which clever internet car enthusiasts can spot, the allegation is highly implausible.
Another strawman.Even if it is alleged that every major national academy is incompetent and has made blunders which clever internet car enthusiasts can spot, the allegation is highly implausible.
Groupthink does not require a conspiracy.
don4l said:
Breadvan72 said:
It is not a rhetorical question but a real one, to which the denialists have no answer unless they allege that every major national academy is party to a conspiracy. That allegation is frankly ludicrous.
Even if it is alleged that every major national academy is incompetent and has made blunders which clever internet car enthusiasts can spot, the allegation is highly implausible.
Another strawman.Even if it is alleged that every major national academy is incompetent and has made blunders which clever internet car enthusiasts can spot, the allegation is highly implausible.
Groupthink does not require a conspiracy.
And another use of denialists. Says it all.
The only people dealing in conspiracy are those who want it mentioned purely to argue against it.
turbobloke said:
And another use of denialists. Says it all.
The only people dealing in conspiracy are those who want it mentioned purely to argue against it.
A deliberate attempt to surruptiously shift global power and wealth via fraud and misdirection sounds exactly like a conspiracy to me.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
And another use of denialists. Says it all.
The only people dealing in conspiracy are those who want it mentioned purely to argue against it.
With politicians being a self-serving and arrogant lot, their idea of saving the planet via tax and lifestyle control represents the ultimate embodiment of the climate change green religion's ability to distort policy to the detriment of the majority and particularly the lower earners in society. Lots of people have tied themselves to the planet-saving meme and there is political support and PR benefit from politicians and celebs doing the same.
With the collapse of traditional religious observance in the west, the climate change green religion has helped to fill a void. This was commented upon by Prof Deepak Lal and others.
With the collapse of the Berlin Wall and Marxism, the climate change green religion provided left-wing groups with a lifebelt for their philosophy, this has been commented upon by Lord Donoghue (of the left), Peter Tatchell for the Green Party and Dr Patrick Moore co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace.
With the top universities attracting the most funding, the climate change green religion provided a lifeline in terms of grant funding for also-ran institutions, one player secured 13 mil in grant funding.
With times as hard as they've been over recent decades with recession and crunches and crashes and more recession, the climate change green religion has fired charities and environmental activists into action as a means if increasing support and donations.
With bad news selling newspapers, the climate change green religion has been good to hacks and editors with doom-mongering available on tap as long as no penetrating questions are asked and rentapapers make headlines with no critical review.
With career advancement (multiply cited publication) from keeping to the faith and rejecting heresy against the doctrine of the climate change green religion, the echelons of many organisations have become dominated by those wedded to the climate change green religion who then speak out for the faith but not in accordance with the membership's views.
With stalled careers in politics threatening income streams and hangers-on always ready to step up, people have found acquisition of more wealth deliberately (Gore), through accidental nepotism (CMD's father in law) and via cronyism (Blair's windymill chap).
With anyone speaking out against the climate change green religion seeing themselves publicly vilified and their careers cut off at the knees (Bellamy, Ball) there has been a reticence to put heads above the parapet.
It's a coincidence of vested interests that has gained significant momentum, but for reasons associated with reality (data) and Lord Donoghue's points relating to the politics side, the times they are a-changin'.
And so on.
There is no conspiracy so nothing to argue against on that score.
durbster said:
How are they preventing emerging nations from burning fossil fuels?
We no longer lend money to third world nations to build coal power stations.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-world...
To give a little perspective on what this means for the people on the ground this is what Bjorn Lomborg had to say at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing.
Bjorn Lomborg said:
A recent analysis from the Center for Global Development shows that $10 billion invested in renewables will help lift 20 million people in Africa out of poverty. But the same $10 billion spent on gas electrification will lift 90 million people out of poverty. $10 billion can help just 20 million people. Using renewables, we deliberately end up choosing to leave more than 70 million people – more than 3 out of 4 – in darkness and poverty.
jurbie said:
durbster said:
How are they preventing emerging nations from burning fossil fuels?
We no longer lend money to third world nations to build coal power stations.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-world...
To give a little perspective on what this means for the people on the ground this is what Bjorn Lomborg had to say at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing.
Bjorn Lomborg said:
A recent analysis from the Center for Global Development shows that $10 billion invested in renewables will help lift 20 million people in Africa out of poverty. But the same $10 billion spent on gas electrification will lift 90 million people out of poverty. $10 billion can help just 20 million people. Using renewables, we deliberately end up choosing to leave more than 70 million people – more than 3 out of 4 – in darkness and poverty.
jurbie said:
durbster said:
How are they preventing emerging nations from burning fossil fuels?
We no longer lend money to third world nations to build coal power stations.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-world...
To give a little perspective on what this means for the people on the ground this is what Bjorn Lomborg had to say at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing.
Bjorn Lomborg said:
A recent analysis from the Center for Global Development shows that $10 billion invested in renewables will help lift 20 million people in Africa out of poverty. But the same $10 billion spent on gas electrification will lift 90 million people out of poverty. $10 billion can help just 20 million people. Using renewables, we deliberately end up choosing to leave more than 70 million people – more than 3 out of 4 – in darkness and poverty.
I know Bjorn Lomborg. I'd forgotten about him until I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago. If I recall he's now running an organisation that does data analysis to apply a numerical approach to policy. It's quite interesting but they don't even consider feasibility. They just run the numbers.
durbster said:
jurbie said:
durbster said:
How are they preventing emerging nations from burning fossil fuels?
We no longer lend money to third world nations to build coal power stations.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/16/us-world...
To give a little perspective on what this means for the people on the ground this is what Bjorn Lomborg had to say at a U.S. Senate Committee hearing.
Bjorn Lomborg said:
A recent analysis from the Center for Global Development shows that $10 billion invested in renewables will help lift 20 million people in Africa out of poverty. But the same $10 billion spent on gas electrification will lift 90 million people out of poverty. $10 billion can help just 20 million people. Using renewables, we deliberately end up choosing to leave more than 70 million people – more than 3 out of 4 – in darkness and poverty.
I know Bjorn Lomborg. I'd forgotten about him until I heard an interview with him a few weeks ago. If I recall he's now running an organisation that does data analysis to apply a numerical approach to policy. It's quite interesting but they don't even consider feasibility. They just run the numbers.
For numbers and feasibility considerations, see under renewable energy then: UK turbine erection rate / target requirement rate (pause for ironic laughter) intermittency problem / IEEE article, the latter as below.
IEEE article linked on PH recently by another PHer said:
Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Good job there's no problem for it to be needed to fix Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
Going back and taking your semantics approach, there was no mention of preventing all burning of any fossil fuels, so the original point still stands.
As does six feet of global warming in New York State
turbobloke said:
Yet another character assassination / organisation hit job lacking supporting evidence. Did you read that assertion on an advocacy blog by any chance?
Er no. I listened to an interview with Bjorn Lomborg in which he said that's they did.I don't read advocacy blogs. In fact I don't really give this topic much thought at all, which may be surprising given it's apparently my religion now (which, by the way, is the most amusingly ridiculous thing I've ever read on this topic).
I don't disagree about wind turbines.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Yet another character assassination / organisation hit job lacking supporting evidence. Did you read that assertion on an advocacy blog by any chance?
Er no. I listened to an interview with Bjorn Lomborg in which he said that's they did.It's not just turbines, the entire renewables edifice was broken from the off.
turbobloke said:
Well OK I may take your word for it but others might expect something more substantial
Go for your life: http://freakonomics.com/2014/10/02/108967/And incidentally, there's a man who is making/has made an absolute mint out of opposing AGW (and, interesting, now apparently accepting it).
As always, people find ways to make money on all sides of a political debate so posting things like the pig-in-trough picture is disingenuous. Unless you're going to suggest nobody's ever got rich from oil, of course.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
Well OK I may take your word for it but others might expect something more substantial
Go for your life: http://freakonomics.com/2014/10/02/108967/durbster said:
And incidentally, there's a man who is making/has made an absolute mint out of opposing AGW (and, interesting, now apparently accepting it).
If only the early phase had been more successful 
durbster said:
As always, people find ways to make money on all sides of a political debate so posting things like the pig-in-trough picture is disingenuous. Unless you're going to suggest nobody's ever got rich from oil, of course.
Nobody in oil has been self-righteously and hypocritically claiming to do a Brown and save the world. That said, Oil Barons have done more for the people than any Green Baron.Did you think the money-making aspect was what people find objectionable? It's the glib geronticide that pays landowners, the sanctimonious ecoclaptrap that hangs off the momumental folly that is renewables.
If people say that they're in it to make big bucks then that would at least be honest, being either stupid or culpable enough to think it's for the greater good requires the level of thinking normally associated with an averagely deluded Green voter.
durbster said:
OK, let's think about this left-wing conspiracy idea for a moment.
You're suggesting there was a deliberate, long-term plan in which The Left™ conspired to redirect global wealth, deliberately harm developing countries (for some reason) and upset the balance of global power.
This implies there was a meeting, 20, 30 years in which a small group of people sat down and thought the best way to disrupt global politics was to invent a scientific theory about the climate. This plan would be based on easily dismissed "junk science" and yet would convince the world's Governments, scientists, political parties, pretty much all the science media and much of the mainstream media. Unfortunately, the only people they hadn't counted on were members of a car forum casually reading stuff they don't really understand in their lunch break. (note: me ).
And the tax, of course. This enormously complex and convoluted plan that has taken decades to come to fruition and persisted through several changes of Governments across multiple nations was a scam to invent new taxes. Because it's so difficult for a Government to raise a bit of extra tax cash any other way. They certainly couldn't just add 2p on petrol or something.
It gets stranger. Very few of the Governments leading the charge have been what I would regard left-wing, meaning the people who devised and executed this incredible plan have done it despite having little political power, and for an end result that means they're making their political enemies wealthier.
As plans go, this one sounds something of a long shot. At best I think it might be just about plausible for a James Bond film.
Left wing right wing it's all the same to me!You're suggesting there was a deliberate, long-term plan in which The Left™ conspired to redirect global wealth, deliberately harm developing countries (for some reason) and upset the balance of global power.
This implies there was a meeting, 20, 30 years in which a small group of people sat down and thought the best way to disrupt global politics was to invent a scientific theory about the climate. This plan would be based on easily dismissed "junk science" and yet would convince the world's Governments, scientists, political parties, pretty much all the science media and much of the mainstream media. Unfortunately, the only people they hadn't counted on were members of a car forum casually reading stuff they don't really understand in their lunch break. (note: me
).And the tax, of course. This enormously complex and convoluted plan that has taken decades to come to fruition and persisted through several changes of Governments across multiple nations was a scam to invent new taxes. Because it's so difficult for a Government to raise a bit of extra tax cash any other way. They certainly couldn't just add 2p on petrol or something.
It gets stranger. Very few of the Governments leading the charge have been what I would regard left-wing, meaning the people who devised and executed this incredible plan have done it despite having little political power, and for an end result that means they're making their political enemies wealthier.
As plans go, this one sounds something of a long shot. At best I think it might be just about plausible for a James Bond film.
Have you never heard about 'Agenda 21'? No it's not some Da Vinci code secret cult it's fact, in place and happening! Even at your local council level.
Have you ever heard of it? Not one of my mates had!
Please feel free do some research on this "incredible plan"
Breadvan72 said:
It is not a rhetorical question but a real one, to which the denialists have no answer unless they allege that every major national academy is party to a conspiracy. .
Ok, some quick questions which will be available on google, so you'll be able to find them quickly.The world is warming, this is catastrophic. This is fact for you yes? So, what temperature should the planet be at, why, and when was it last at this temperature and for how long?
Same question re: CO2.
Let's get the basics out of the way first, as clearly we need a baseline.
I don't believe proof exists that humans have significant impact on climate.
I don't believe in some shady global conspiracy (though I know some scientists have fudged data).
I do think there's some kind of weird belief system thing going on and that somehow the science behind the whole issue has become very politicised, which is never a good thing.
I find it odd that so many people are able to ignore the fact that so much of what the 'Green Lobby' has told us has proved to be incorrect.
It's bloody cold.
Anything which has the support of Richard Bacon must be suspect.
I don't believe in some shady global conspiracy (though I know some scientists have fudged data).
I do think there's some kind of weird belief system thing going on and that somehow the science behind the whole issue has become very politicised, which is never a good thing.
I find it odd that so many people are able to ignore the fact that so much of what the 'Green Lobby' has told us has proved to be incorrect.
It's bloody cold.
Anything which has the support of Richard Bacon must be suspect.
It's not hard to disprove the models.
They've been projecting for a decade by now to a fair enough degree of precision to be expected to have determined today's outcome accurately. But they haven't.
If there had been correlation I'm sure we'd all be feeling a bit worried, but these models may as well be random number generators.
Dave
They've been projecting for a decade by now to a fair enough degree of precision to be expected to have determined today's outcome accurately. But they haven't.
If there had been correlation I'm sure we'd all be feeling a bit worried, but these models may as well be random number generators.
Dave
RealityGassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff