Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[LongQ]

zygalski said:

LongQ said:

zygalski said:

robinessex said:

If you totally remove house draughts, you will get condensation! I know, lets install a condensation system that, er, needs extra electricity to run it!!

PS. Read the comments on this article. Seems a lot have got the CC bullst message !!

Dunno about you mate, but if I've got condensation I open a window for a few minutes. All gone!
Rather cheaper than spending £1000's on the PH climate change skeptic patented electrical anti-condensation system.

My wife does that. In fact she insists on keeping windows open all the time and then turns the heating up or puts another fire on claiming she is cold. Except on those cold days when she is feeling hot and opens the windows saying the house is too hot.

I would remonstrate with her about warming the planet but she would take no notice.

On the other hand you, zygalski, seem to be a keen planet saver. So what's your excuse for wasting energy and adding to Global Warming by opening your windows just to get rid of a little moisture? And what would be the point of all the attempted energy saving costs if the claimed benefits were to be negated by opening windows to inefficiently eliminate a little water, a powerful greenhouse effect material, to the atmosphere where it will cause overheating havoc and worse? Apparently.

Have you got data to prove that opening a window for 5 minutes in a 24 hour period negates energy saving costs related to insulating say the average 3 bed semi. I'd be interested to see any such proof. Or is it just more hot air from you?

I thought all of the hot air was coming from you, hence the condensation.

However since you are the one transferring the heat and moisture from your insulated home to the great outdoors why don't you tell us how little it costs you and how effective, on balance, it is to dissipate damp when you feel a need to rather than have a structure that is intended to avoid such a problem, so far as is possible, all of the time?

You may need to differentiate between a little evident condensation on windows and the like compared to chronic damp of the sort that my neighbour, in his fully insulated house, seems to be stuck with.

[dickymint]

Bring back the window tax....keep em shut or brick em up.

Oh and turn that bloody light off

[vournikas]

turbobloke said:

Diversionary blame transfer.

Having not heard of that phrase before, I will endeavour to use it as often as possible when the situation arises. It reeks of awesome.

As a daily lurker on this thread, I'm ashamed to say that the above will possibly be my only and least worthwhile contribution to it. But there you go

[wc98]

durbster said:

The point being, a series of events (natural or not) could make the planet inhospitable to life

i have to ask the question here. so what ?

[zygalski]

turbobloke said:

Diversionary blame transfer. It's been going on for some time.

The gov't or rather gov'ts have known for years that this country's energy security is in a desperate state precisely due to the lunacy of successive parliaments failing to grasp reality in terms of a workable energy policy. Daft, pointless, expensive and unachievable EU targets add to the folly.

Rather than admit this they claim domestic electricity and gas use are "out of control" ho ho ho and engage in various nudge tactics to reduce demand so that, touch wood, the precarious supply side will be able to keep up.

As long as it's not freezing cold for several cloudy days with no wind, there's a slight chance it will work for now.

Inasmuch as it saves on energy bills then OK, but with our energy supply in a desperately bad position there are other motives higher up the list.

You seem to be a self-proclaimed expert in all things AGW. What peer reviewed work did you have published?

[turbobloke]

zygalski said:

turbobloke said:

Diversionary blame transfer. It's been going on for some time.

The gov't or rather gov'ts have known for years that this country's energy security is in a desperate state precisely due to the lunacy of successive parliaments failing to grasp reality in terms of a workable energy policy. Daft, pointless, expensive and unachievable EU targets add to the folly.

Rather than admit this they claim domestic electricity and gas use are "out of control" ho ho ho and engage in various nudge tactics to reduce demand so that, touch wood, the precarious supply side will be able to keep up.

As long as it's not freezing cold for several cloudy days with no wind, there's a slight chance it will work for now.

Inasmuch as it saves on energy bills then OK, but with our energy supply in a desperately bad position there are other motives higher up the list.

You seem to be a self-proclaimed expert in all things AGW. What peer reviewed work did you have published?

Details already sent to an independent PHer on the previous occasion that this type of request was made when I decided to go custard to shut the stalker-weirdo up. Qualifications and fellowships/memberships were also sent. Don't tell me you're secretly wanting to appeal to my authority as per the habits of believership? How flattering! My advice is don't bother as appeals to authority represent a logical fallacy. If you appeal to credible unmolested data instead, while getting a grip on the basic concept of causality, you can join us climate realists.

The above comment, which drew your fire, was nothing to do with AGW science, it was (obviously) all about politics and the failure of successive governments to achieve energy security, due to their foolish belief in junkscience and gigo climate models. When mentioning foolish belief, mention / exception should be made of those MPs who had the sense to vote against the nonsensical, costly and pointless Climate Change Act, including Peter Lilley, Christopher Chope and Andrew Tyrie.

[zygalski]

turbobloke said:

zygalski said:

turbobloke said:

Diversionary blame transfer. It's been going on for some time.

The gov't or rather gov'ts have known for years that this country's energy security is in a desperate state precisely due to the lunacy of successive parliaments failing to grasp reality in terms of a workable energy policy. Daft, pointless, expensive and unachievable EU targets add to the folly.

Rather than admit this they claim domestic electricity and gas use are "out of control" ho ho ho and engage in various nudge tactics to reduce demand so that, touch wood, the precarious supply side will be able to keep up.

As long as it's not freezing cold for several cloudy days with no wind, there's a slight chance it will work for now.

Inasmuch as it saves on energy bills then OK, but with our energy supply in a desperately bad position there are other motives higher up the list.

You seem to be a self-proclaimed expert in all things AGW. What peer reviewed work did you have published?

Details already sent to an independent PHer on the previous occasion that this type of request was made when I decided to go custard to shut the stalker-weirdo up. Qualifications and fellowships/memberships were also sent. Don't tell me you're secretly wanting to appeal to my authority as per the habits of believership? How flattering! My advice is don't bother as appeals to authority represent a logical fallacy. If you appeal to credible unmolested data instead, while getting a grip on the basic concept of causality, you can join us climate realists.

The above comment, which drew your fire, was nothing to do with AGW science, it was (obviously) all about politics and the failure of successive governments to achieve energy security, due to their foolish belief in junkscience and gigo climate models. When mentioning foolish belief, mention / exception should be made of those MPs who had the sense to vote against the nonsensical, costly and pointless Climate Change Act, including Peter Lilley, Christopher Chope and Andrew Tyrie.

So you have had your own work published in a peer reviewed journal?
Would it not just be easier to reference it? I'd hate to think you're just a glorified copy/paster.

[mybrainhurts]

zygalski said:

So you have had your own work published in a peer reviewed journal?
Would it not just be easier to reference it? I'd hate to think you're just a glorified copy/paster.

You appear to be struggling with the English language. Must try harder.

[robinessex]

zygalski said:

turbobloke said:

Diversionary blame transfer. It's been going on for some time.

The gov't or rather gov'ts have known for years that this country's energy security is in a desperate state precisely due to the lunacy of successive parliaments failing to grasp reality in terms of a workable energy policy. Daft, pointless, expensive and unachievable EU targets add to the folly.

Rather than admit this they claim domestic electricity and gas use are "out of control" ho ho ho and engage in various nudge tactics to reduce demand so that, touch wood, the precarious supply side will be able to keep up.

As long as it's not freezing cold for several cloudy days with no wind, there's a slight chance it will work for now.

Inasmuch as it saves on energy bills then OK, but with our energy supply in a desperately bad position there are other motives higher up the list.

You seem to be a self-proclaimed expert in all things AGW. What peer reviewed work did you have published?

Since when has that meant anything ? Lots of complete bks had been peer reviewed.

[turbobloke]

mybrainhurts said:

zygalski said:

So you have had your own work published in a peer reviewed journal?
Would it not just be easier to reference it? I'd hate to think you're just a glorified copy/paster.

You appear to be struggling with the English language. Must try harder.

Given the flattering levels of personal attention I'm getting from certain quarters you'd think young z would have spotted the posts in this - and other climate topics - in which I indicate clearly that due to past experience I won't be exposing people with whom I've worked to the gaze of believers and the kind of stalker-nutter attention that can regrettably be a feature of these threads, as per the example I cited which led to the first and only custard moment (btw zygalski, it's not about me; if anything take a look at your own position).

Nor will I reveal the peer-reviewed publications that I've reviewed...these reviews were conducted anonymously in confidence, something that was once normal in all branches of science.

One consolation from the persistence with which true belief is trying and failing to discredit me is the positive sign that I'm on the right track and doing a reasonable job of putting junkscience (and related political ineptitude) under scrutiny and in its place.

The good offices of a neutral PHer have served their purpose in discreetly providing ezternal scrutiny / verification and no amount of mewling and puking will change that.

Back on-topic, and from one of the faithful's facourite secondary sources...stand by for incoming shots at the messenger - here are 20 recent, peer-reviewed, published papers which verify the obvious: natural forcings are at work.

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/27/20-new-papers-a...

"20 New Papers Affirm Modern Climate Is In Phase With Natural Variability"

Poor old tax gas.

Edited by turbobloke on Wednesday 1st March 09:48

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Back on-topic, and from one of the faithful's facourite secondary sources...stand by for incoming shots at the messenger - here are 20 recent, peer-reviewed, published papers which verify the obvious: natural forcings are at work.

robinessex said:

Since when has that meant anything ? Lots of complete bks had been peer reviewed.

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Back on-topic, and from one of the faithful's facourite secondary sources...stand by for incoming shots at the messenger - here are 20 recent, peer-reviewed, published papers which verify the obvious: natural forcings are at work.

robinessex said:

Since when has that meant anything ? Lots of complete bks had been peer reviewed.

Which is why it's so good to have the necessary credentials to distinguish the real deal from the dross.

Which of the papers do you disagree with and why?

Incidentally, watch out for zygalski who might challenge your own creds. Then again, as a fellow believer, maybe not.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Back on-topic, and from one of the faithful's facourite secondary sources...stand by for incoming shots at the messenger - here are 20 recent, peer-reviewed, published papers which verify the obvious: natural forcings are at work.

robinessex said:

Since when has that meant anything ? Lots of complete bks had been peer reviewed.

Proves my point. Peer reviewed MAY be good, MAY be bad. I guess TB was quoting them because you seem to need them as a prerequisite to believing anything. Unless you happen not to agree with it of course.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Back on-topic, and from one of the faithful's facourite secondary sources...stand by for incoming shots at the messenger - here are 20 recent, peer-reviewed, published papers which verify the obvious: natural forcings are at work.

robinessex said:

Since when has that meant anything ? Lots of complete bks had been peer reviewed.

Proves my point. Peer reviewed MAY be good, MAY be bad. I guess TB was quoting them because you seem to need them as a prerequisite to believing anything. Unless you happen not to agree with it of course.

Yes it's a delicious irony to see believers (in particular) slating peer-reviewed papers for being peer-reviewed, hundreds of which are now appearing and putting the lie to agw. In the days of gatekeeping and pal review, it was a standard taunt to ask where the peer reviewed papers were - now there are too many to keep pace with, believers do a u-turn and dismiss peer-reviewed publications for any convenient but specious reason.

Climate realists, such as you and I, adopt and maintain the integrity of a skeptical position, which is the natural position a scientist would adopt. Not so with religion and politics of course

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Which is why it's so good to have the necessary credentials to distinguish the real deal from the dross.

Which of the papers do you disagree with and why?

Incidentally, watch out for zygalski who might challenge your own creds. Then again, as a fellow believer, maybe not.

turbobloke said:

The above comment is simply another form of expression for an appeal to consensus (so many scientists) mixed with an appeal to authority... Both are logical fallacies and offer nothing.[.quote]

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Which is why it's so good to have the necessary credentials to distinguish the real deal from the dross.

Which of the papers do you disagree with and why?

Incidentally, watch out for zygalski who might challenge your own creds. Then again, as a fellow believer, maybe not.

turbobloke said:

The above comment is simply another form of expression for an appeal to consensus (so many scientists) mixed with an appeal to authority... Both are logical fallacies and offer nothing.

You're using irony to address irony? How ironic! With irrelevancy thrown in too, lucky us.

Believers are the ones citing X organisations backing agw junkscience via a tiny number of activists on committees issuing statements on behalf of others that aren't subject to any wider agreement than the activist committee.

Believers are the ones asking about qualifications in climate terms when their idols, heroes and high priests lack such qualifications as they didn't exist when those people were just out of short trousers or navy blues.

Believers are those making appeals to consensus and committing other logical fails.

My position and that of other climate realists is based on 'appeal to data and sound science' as there's no other way and no amount of irony and hypocrisy will change that.

Also, back on-topic, Joe B'stardi goes in for a spot of believer-mimicry by means of vituperous epithet, this from the political blog Climate Depot. I bet he enjoyed going all believer on the believers

http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/02/28/meteorologi...

[robinessex]

The best and only way to check on a scientific hypothesis, is for a totally impendent repeat of it, and see if you get the same answer/conclusion. It’s no good getting your scientific mates to just agree with you.

[turbobloke]

robinessex said:

The best and only way to check on a scientific hypothesis, is for a totally impendent repeat of it, and see if you get the same answer/conclusion. It’s no good getting your scientific mates to just agree with you.

Then, when the hypothesis fails and nature doesn't replicate modelled bunk, never mind input from other scientists, get political patronage and suborn science to keep the gravy train on the tracks.

Hang on, no, that last bit is pure climatewang.

[robinessex]

Reform of EU carbon trading scheme agreed

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/2...

Member states approve changes, including €12bn innovation fund, to emissions plan for cleaner technology and pollution cuts

Heathrow aims to make third runway carbon neutral

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/2...

The huge growth in flights from Heathrow’s planned new runway could be carbon neutral, according to an ambition revealed by the airport.

[turbobloke]

Have they reformed the carbon frauds too?