Climate change - the POLITICAL debate.

[JMGS4]

In Germany we're now paying an extra 5cents/liter on 95 octane as the almost criminal oil companies have been forced to sell the non-ecological E10 fuel and they've thus hiked the price of 95 octane to pay for it... so we're already ANOTHER 5c out of pocket, on top of the 10c that the last bunch of socialist twunts hammered us with for a so-called eco-fuel surcharge...
And we'll not talk abouit the frights they're talking about due to Lybia (which is only responsible for 3% of oil production)

Politicians and taxes (of whatever sort) should be separated.....

Eco thinking is going to cost us all thousands per year..... and it's all for the lies that the greenies have sold to the politicos..

[BJWoods]

Well

IT IS really kicking OFF inthe blogosphere.

Professor Judith Curry and another prominent warmest, have gone out against 'hide the decline'..

Stating 'Hide the decline' is basically fraud..

Realclimate (gavin) turned up and it got nasty..

This is serious development.
Professor Beddington's attack on pseduo science seems to have back fired badly..

Ie OK Professor Beddington, explain to me why 'hide the decline' isn't psuedo science...instead of attacking sceptics..

Read the commemnts as well....

Professor Judith Curry (climate etc) - remember she is/was part of the consensus....(and is almost a heretic/deniar now )

"two things this week have changed my mind, and I have decided to take on one aspect of this issue: the infamous “hide the decline.”


The first thing that contributed to my mind change was this post at Bishop Hill entitled “Will Sir John condemn hide the decline?”, related to Sir John Beddington’s statement: It is time the scientific community became proactive in challenging misuse of scientific evidence.

The second thing was this youtube clip of physicist Richard Muller (Director of the Berkeley Earth Project), where he discusses “hide the decline” and vehemently refers to this as “dishonest,” and says “you are not allowed to do this,” and further states that he intends not to read further papers by these authors (note “hide the decline” appears around minute 31 into the clip). While most of his research is in physics, Muller has also published important papers on paleoclimate, including a controversial paper that supported McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis."


read and enjoy the debate: (lots of warmist trolls turned up, after Gavin Schmidt left)

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decli...

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/21/psuedo-science-v...

[The real Apache]

Bedazzled said:

LongQ said:

I'm slightly cautious about posting this one without a warning.

This video is, in my view, quite remarkable in that it offers pathos, humour, political direction, ad hominem attack and quite reasonable statements that are assumed to support what I consider to be the wrong conclusion. And there's more. In fact it is almost sexist too!
...

I thought I'd watch that video as an introduction to the thread and it did make me cringe a bit! I'm a 'believer' of course, but from a slightly different perspective, rather than suggesting we should all stop using oil because it's evil I'm more interested in what we can do to minimise the environmental impact of consuming resources. Take the new prototype mini for example, long term someone needs to find an alternative to the combustion engine, but in the mean time if they can give us cars which are a hoot to drive and do 100mpg then that's great.

There seems to be a general conspiracy view about governments using climate change as an 'excuse' for taxes. I don't doubt there's exploitation, but personally I think it's simpler than that, politicians get elected by mirroring the views of the majority, over recent years people have become concerned about the environment so the politicians promise to do something about it. Now people are starting to feel the pinch, the money in their pocket becomes more important, the politicians see this and start back-tracking. I think that's what is happening in the USA.

What would be interesting to me is if you can assume for a moment that climate change is real, what practical steps could governments take that would be more effective?

Good question dazzle, sidestepping the obvious 'if the solution to a problem is more tax then there isn't a problem'

Rapid cash injection into Nuclear Power, this could be done by diverting the subsidies to windmill farms. Continue research into renewables but no major investment till a viable alternative exists.

Scrub VED and put tax on fuel, this will have a direct impact on fossil fuel consumption

Scrap CO2 trading as this redistributes wealth and doesn't address any real issue.

Continue with Coal Power as we have the resources here, the money saved by buying from abroad can be used to improve and develop CCS

for starters

[LongQ]

Bedazzled said:

LongQ said:

I'm slightly cautious about posting this one without a warning.

This video is, in my view, quite remarkable in that it offers pathos, humour, political direction, ad hominem attack and quite reasonable statements that are assumed to support what I consider to be the wrong conclusion. And there's more. In fact it is almost sexist too!
...

I thought I'd watch that video as an introduction to the thread and it did make me cringe a bit! I'm a 'believer' of course, but from a slightly different perspective, rather than suggesting we should all stop using oil because it's evil I'm more interested in what we can do to minimise the environmental impact of consuming resources. Take the new prototype mini for example, long term someone needs to find an alternative to the combustion engine, but in the mean time if they can give us cars which are a hoot to drive and do 100mpg then that's great.

There seems to be a general conspiracy view about governments using climate change as an 'excuse' for taxes. I don't doubt there's exploitation, but personally I think it's simpler than that, politicians get elected by mirroring the views of the majority, over recent years people have become concerned about the environment so the politicians promise to do something about it. Now people are starting to feel the pinch, the money in their pocket becomes more important, the politicians see this and start back-tracking. I think that's what is happening in the USA.

What would be interesting to me is if you can assume for a moment that climate change is real, what practical steps could governments take that would be more effective?

I have no problems with the concept of more effective use of energy sources - but you need to be pretty sure they are indeed more effective. That's where I have a problem with governments setting agendas. What are the typical success rates for government initiatives - all forms, globally?

I'll go further and ask how you can fix (or claim to be fixing) a perceived problem that you have not defined fully nor, it follows, fully understand. Moreover, given a lack of understanding, what are the possiblities of being badly wrong and harvesting a crop of unexpected consequences?

I would offer examples but have to do other things right now. I'll come back to it later if possible.

[BJWoods]

Remeber it is all unprecedented warming because the politicians were warned by graphs like this....

In pictures (tree ring data)

the decline hidden, thermometers spliced in.



The tree ring data, without the thermometers spliced in.



The video from the Judith Curry article:

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/22/hiding-the-decli...



A few people have mentioned Professor Judith Curry's article about 'Hide The Decline'. Judith has said that her blog is read by a number of staffers in congress (where she has spoken on climate science)

I wonder if this will have any impact on USA politics on the issue.

The 2 graphs perhaps describe it better, my blog, NOT the other one with a similar name.

http://www.realclimategate.org/2011/02/hide-the-de...

[The real Apache]

Did you see my reply to your post bedazzled?

[The real Apache]

Trying to become totally CO2 neutral is pointless at this stage, don't run before you can walk and the peak traffic argument is, as you say, irrelevant and a different argument.
The government have used this as an excuse for revenue generation and social engineering, if they really want to do something cronstructive they should deal with the reality rather than the fantasy. As I said I'm not entirely convinced about AGW and am even less convinced there is anything we can do to alter it but....this is where we are so lets be realistic.

[BJWoods]

cough, cough, ahem...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/25/currys-2000-...

Deano and gang have been an inspiration.....

[Northern Munkee]

Tackle Overpopulation, solves everything. Oil, other commodities,food, water, deforestation, sustainability, climate change, if it's real. Global population 1000? 1900? And by 2000?

Although stopping people having is a tough nut to crack, but sooner or later it will become thinkable.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 25th February 17:33

[LongQ]

Northern Munkee said:

Tackle Overpopulation, solves everything. Oil, other commodities,food, water, deforestation, sustainability, climate change, if it's real. Global population 1000? 1900? And by 2000?

Although stopping people having is a tough nut to crack, but sooner or later it will become thinkable.

Edited by Northern Munkee on Friday 25th February 17:33

Interesting.

Absent immigration the reckoning is that Industrialised nations are, in general, doing little more that population replenishement and some are in a slight decline even allowing for baby boomer effects and the results of power cuts on pregnancy rates.

China has, of course, for some decades thought and enforced the 'unthinkable' but seems to attract little by way of credit for doing so.

The 'Western' world might find the arguments attractive with likely fiscal developments that could make the cost of larger families unsupportably high. There may come a time when a one child per female plan becomes acceptable in developed countries depending in their religious influences.

However the large problem, if we assume that China is not currently a problem due to the stance it takes, will be the rest of the world. So the question then becomes one of whether these other countries and belief systems will buy in to the reductions or see the idea as a means to become dominant by population expansion.

That could become rather interesting. If I'm still alive when it kicks off I really hope that someone will by then have opened the door for euthenasia to those who don't wish to take part in the battles. One might suggest that, from a western perspective, the risks of action or non-action are indeed the same but with a shorter timescale for the human results of intervention compared to non-intervention.

[Jasandjules]

Political debate? The simple fact that the final say on IPCC reports appears to be given to politicians and not scientists is all the evidence you need.

[newestie]

Apologies a few people have asked questions relating to a couple of my previous posts in the ‘other’ thread. A number were reasonable questions and well deserving of answers. I shall reply asap.

It would be really useful if someone could point me in the direction of any material/ links of those who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change propose ‘society’ do differently as a result of this stance?

In transport, assuming GHG emissions are not an issue, what do we do with this information?
Do EVs/ hybrids/ other attempts to increase efficiency still have a role?
Do we return to ‘predict and providing’ infrastructure to ease congestion for personal cars? (I.e. can we overlook other issues/ green space/ air pollution/ natural resources).
The end of RUC?
How do we mange alternative energy differently to avoid dependency on ‘oil’?

Sorry this is a bit off topic; I hope it’s still interesting to someone. If human green house gas emissions cause a negligible warming affect, what lessons can be learnt from our attempts to limit them? How does this affect the problem of conservation of remaining resources/ sustainable development– what does an agenda devoid of GHG emission reduction mean for the future?

[Jasandjules]

newestie said:

It would be really useful if someone could point me in the direction of any material/ links of those who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change propose ‘society’ do differently as a result of this stance?

Sorry, I don't understand the question, why would we need to do anything differently? There is no problem, therefore no changes need to be made. Plants eat Co2. That's why it's political you see.

However, the money which is being p***ed away based upon a lie, and lining the pockets of those who advocate it (as Blackadder would say, "the owner of the largest leech farm in all of Europe") could be used to tackle actual environmental issues - deforestation, protecting sharks, all sorts of things.

And of course we would have less birds/bats killed due to removing windfarms, and less environmental damage caused by the batteries the eco liars want us to use....

[The real Apache]

Guam said:

Bedazzled said:

A spiraling population might be part of the problem, but I think we have to find practical solutions which are achievable within the limitations of our political systems. Barring a natural disaster or war, any Western politician who suggested population control would never get elected, unless things get a lot worse.

Energy requirements per person increase as more countries industrialise and develop consumer societies and I think this is more significant than population growth in third world countries. Anyhow the supply of fossil fuels is finite so future generations are still going to go to war when the oil starts running out.

The population is what it is, but one thing we're good at in the UK is developing new technology and I think we should focus on developing greener alternatives to oil supplies from unstable states. At the moment that probably means nuclear power and improved CCS technologies, eventually we'll need to find an alternative to the combustion engine.

According to the UN and the OPT it isnt just part of the problem, it is Basically the vast majority of it.


The UN seem to infer its not just the industrial emmissions (hence the discussion on the other thread) if they truly believe what I have posted from them on no carbon neutrality, then they have to believe that even someone living at a subsistence level is Carbon Positive. If that is the case then we are already stuffed! (assuming CO2 IS doing what is claimed).

Cheers

We are carbon capture units, we are carbon based, the only way a human can be carbon neutral is, well, there isn't.

[IainT]

newestie said:

It would be really useful if someone could point me in the direction of any material/ links of those who don’t believe in anthropogenic climate change propose ‘society’ do differently as a result of this stance?

Change should be as a result, and the driver, of progress. From my point of view we shouldn't be forcing change to combat AGw but change is inevitable.

newestie said:

In transport, assuming GHG emissions are not an issue, what do we do with this information?

We continue to progress - to improve our standards of living and allow the rest of the world to catch up.

newestie said:

Do EVs/ hybrids/ other attempts to increase efficiency still have a role?

They have an increasingly important role. Localised pollution is still an issue, increased eficiency cannot be a bad thing. The improvements in emissions levels we've seen driven by flawed policy are actually good but the costs imposed and by misfortune (fuel crops causing starvation for example).

newestie said:

Do we return to ‘predict and providing’ infrastructure to ease congestion for personal cars? (I.e. can we overlook other issues/ green space/ air pollution/ natural resources).

No, I think that we need to continue to improve our technology and out of this will come less polluting transportation and other energy production.

newestie said:

The end of RUC?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_Update_Cycle

This? Stuggling to see it's relevance if that's what you're referring to.

newestie said:

How do we mange alternative energy differently to avoid dependency on ‘oil’?

IMO this is an issue for political and economic stability rather than related to AGW. The only sensible thing is to diversify and save oil fo more important things than making electricity.

Powering V8s for example.



While I do not, from my interpretation of the evidence, think there's a real case beyond political for AGW I do think that we need to be good stewards of the planet, our environment and the resources around us. While some areas of the policy making driven by AGW are positive I have a feeling that they're going to lead to such big negaatives that the positives will be meaningless.

[LongQ]

If you accept that a nation's energy policy is, primarily, a result of political decisions this Christopher Booker article about Wind Turbines fits in here.

Co-incidentally I have been re-visiting some analysis I've played with over the past few years that relates to wind farm generation and it looks as though, as the number of installations inreases, things are worse than I thought. But then for some reason making the comparisons over time is not as easy as it should be. I wonder why?

[chris watton]

Bedazzled said:

Is that the same guy from the Telegraph who believes in intelligent design and argued that passive smoking isn't dangerous?

I am quite sure that if I had the time and inclination (which I don't..) I too could find a plethora of negatives for the standard bearers who push the MMGW/CC theory..Or anyone, for that matter.

Edited by chris watton on Monday 28th February 14:25

[hairykrishna]

He is a bit of a nutter but he's got a point about wind turbines. The places it makes sense to build them in are few and far between and without subsidies nobody would bother. They are pretty much the 'least useless' renewable source but that says more about the alternatives than it does about wind...

[s2art]

Bedazzled said:

LongQ said:

If you accept that a nation's energy policy is, primarily, a result of political decisions this Christopher Booker article about Wind Turbines fits in here.

Is that the same guy from the Telegraph who believes in intelligent design and argued that passive smoking isn't dangerous?

He is probably right about passive smoking;

Contrast two very different pieces of research on the same subject – smoking.

The first, by Bradford-Hill and Doll, found a link between smoking and lung cancer, with a RR of >20, at the 99% level (P < 0.01)
This was a very strong result, but did not result in a ban on smoking, as influential people knew that even though the risk of a smoker contracting lung cancer is more than twenty times greater than a non-smoker, the absolute risk is still tiny (twenty times a very small number is still a very small number), and therefore probably not sufficient to deny people whatever small pleasure they may have from smoking. But it did allow governments to put swingeing taxes on tobacco products.

The second was a meta-study by the EPA into the risks of ETS ('second-hand' smoke). This study found a tiny RR of 0.19, and that only after reducing the significance level to 90% and excluding studies which showed the opposite effect. In fact, in the words of Dr James LeFanu, the link between ETS and lung cancer is both "statistically improbable and biologically implausible".
But this pitiful piece of 'research' was considered sufficient for a ban on smoking in public places to be enacted.

[BJWoods]

s2art said:

He is probably right about passive smoking;

Contrast two very different pieces of research on the same subject – smoking.

The first, by Bradford-Hill and Doll, found a link between smoking and lung cancer, with a RR of >20, at the 99% level (P < 0.01)
This was a very strong result, but did not result in a ban on smoking, as influential people knew that even though the risk of a smoker contracting lung cancer is more than twenty times greater than a non-smoker, the absolute risk is still tiny (twenty times a very small number is still a very small number), and therefore probably not sufficient to deny people whatever small pleasure they may have from smoking. But it did allow governments to put swingeing taxes on tobacco products.

The second was a meta-study by the EPA into the risks of ETS ('second-hand' smoke). This study found a tiny RR of 0.19, and that only after reducing the significance level to 90% and excluding studies which showed the opposite effect. In fact, in the words of Dr James LeFanu, the link between ETS and lung cancer is both "statistically improbable and biologically implausible".
But this pitiful piece of 'research' was considered sufficient for a ban on smoking in public places to be enacted.

the issue with passive smoking was about a misues of statitics to get a result.. ie lindzen.

ie if you are standing at a bus stop next to a smoker in central Londom. Far better to be worried by the Bus/taxi emmisson than the smokers..

This is a typical smear technic, ususally stating that Lindzen doesn't believe smoking is dangerous, where he merely said the statistics used to justify secondar/passive smoking had been exagerated..

They probably were.. BUT I don't care, as I can now go to a pub, with out smelling like a ashtray.
The science/statitics is righ though

A AGW Alarmist smear tectic.