Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

dandarez

13,246 posts

282 months

Friday 28th August 2015
quotequote all
Oh ffs!

The Independent front page tomorrow...

THE TERRIFYING TRUTH
Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say.

All completed with a photo of a raging fire and road.

Oh bloody dear...

The Terrifying BULLst!

edit to add front page:
http://www.scoopnest.com/user/SkyNews/637367089309...

edit to add, I'm just turning the heating on in late August while having a hot toddy! hehe

Edited by dandarez on Saturday 29th August 00:14

LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
Ahimoth said:
Andy Zarse said:
So have we, and you're just like the others; all piss and wind.

Why is it apparently so difficult for you to SHOW US YOUR fkING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE!
Until then you will be treated as a failed troll.
I find it interesting that there aren't 'others' really. I guess the Gish Gallop gets too much.

And with the lengthy diatribe above this last post of mine, I think I can leave having demonstrated all that there ever is to demonstrate with most internet 'sceptics'. They're really weird conspiratorial underneath it all, it is just a conspiracy theory.

I didn't even have to try to 'troll' the "follow the money" out of them. So I didn't fail.
I think you have a very warped view of your world especially if you cannot differentiate innate political psychological responses from the concept of a "conspiracy".

Still nothing added by you to any sort of discussion though. Just an empty vessel passing in the night.

Farewell.



LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
No conspiracy theory has been suggested in these pages. Bandwagoneering is another matter.
Correct, a coincindence of vested interests has been mentioned,

wc98 said:
David Dilley, NOAA Meteorologist, tells how for 15 years work on man-made climate change was pushed while work on natural cycles was actively suppressed. Grants connecting climate change to a man-made crisis were advertised, while the word went around to heads of departments that even mentioning natural cycles would threaten the flow of government funds. Speeches about natural cycles were mysteriously canceled at the last minute with bizarre excuses.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
That's not conspitacy theory, it's a form of peer pressure. Conformity bullying means that for your grants to flow and your career with it you do not put your head over the parapet (Bellamy) you toe the line. Conspiracy requires a coordinated, communicated effort across all players, and there are too many of various types for this to be realistic. All of them can realise at various points where their bread is buttered and how to retain influence. That's not conspiracy. Conspiracy is set up as a strawman so it can be knocled down. This is transparent and happens in these threads on a regular basis.

LongQ said:
Achieving and maintaining Power and Influence requires a lot of money, preferably taken from those who might otherwise oppose the leaders. In a democracy that would be "the people". The all pervasive use of "Carbon" fuels is by far the easiest target for money raising taxation AND control. Nothing else comes close. And it's a global influence to all intents and purposes.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
It's a coincidence of vested interests. Politicians seeing what they perceive as an unassailable reason to tax people abnd businesses (for our own good in 'saving the planet'); charities wanting to scare people into donating then feeling good in the process; the BBC ramping green economic and lifestyle changes favoured by the Left and, after the fact, wanting to save their pension fund; presenters and personalities wanting to keep their career on track without public vilification; researchers wanting the grant largesse to continue and their influence to remain; hippies, rebels and SJWs fighting the class war and agitating anti-corporatism; people of a certain mindset and political persuasion wanting a new cause to replace Greenham Common and to fill the vacuum left by the collapse of marxism...these people have not held, and do not hold, regular conference calls ro plot a conspiracy.

By the nature of the beast (manbearpig) as a massively publicised news item since the ice age scare morphed into the global warming scare and Rio / IPCC arrived, they can all see perfectly clearly the benefits to their own stance of adopting the climate hoax and do so via a coincidence of vested interests, each pushing for their own goals in their own way.

Meanwhile, where is that elusive visible causal human signal in global climate data? Tactical claims of conspiracy, easily refuted, can only ever b a short diversion from reality and what the data says, which is not what the IPCC / many politicians / climate campaigners say.

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
Then, deserving their own mention, are those who saw the trillion dollar climate (hoax-scam) industry as a chance to line their own pockets.

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
Its interesting dealing with strong believers of MMGW, as we see on here from time to time,
I have a good friend who holds such views, he is intelligent along with being practical and logical, but every time we get into a discussion about climate change the logic part disappears, I am sure he understands what I am saying but its as he doesn't want to believe that what I am saying could be true, its almost as if it is some kind of crusade, we can save the world, who would not want to save the world? why do you not want to save the world? appears to be his thoughts, this appears to override his normal logic.

Do we need a psychological climate change thread ? hehe

rolando

2,116 posts

154 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Tidal I have no problem with, apart from eye watering costs…
Tidal suffers from the same problem of intermittency, albeit predictable, as wind and solar. This explains the situation and shows that a number lagoons stationed around out coastline would be incapable of meeting baseload demand.

There are a number of excellent comments but I would like to quote Leo Smth:

"One of the most tricky concepts that needs to be absorbed, is the concept that a unit of electricity that you dont need right now, is a very expensive unit if you have to pay for it.

Or to look at it another way, just because generator X can generate so many TWh per year, doesn’t mean that the impact of its generation pattern is cost free elsewhere, or indeed always positive.

It is customary to ignore externalised costs when dealing with renewable energy and play them up when dealing with non renewable energy, so that the costs of transmissions lines and co-operation plant are ignored when talking about levelised costs of renewables, whereas the lack of taxation for CO2 emitters is portrayed as a giant subsidy…

In essence the externalised costs of intermittent renewables fall into several broad categories, each of which is inherent to the generating technology itself, and is therefore unavoidable. Solar wind and tidal all suffer from these effects.

(a) Low energy density leads to large structures. That means high environmental impact of one sort or another and a lot of scarce land (or sea) used up generating not very much. The reason the land area is needed is simply the low energy density of the source itself – wind wave tide or solar.

(b) Low capacity factors lead to inefficient use of resources. A low capacity factor means that most of the time your generator isn’t generating nearly as much as it can do. However, it has to be sized for the worst (or best?) case when it is generating that much. So wind turbines need to have gearboxes and structures capable of standing the peak output, even though this is seldom realised in practice. Likewise transmission lines connecting such devices to where the demand is (and in the case of Scotland, a lot of the demand is in England) must be sized for peak flows, not average.

What we see instantly is that capital cost not just of the generator structure, but its connectivity, relates to peak output capacity, whereas income relates to average output… What that means is that the lower the capacity factor the more expensive the power so generated.

(c) Low capacity factors necessitate co-operation with storage or a dispatchable technology, whose fixed costs should be borne by the renewable operators when the renewable plant is in operation and the dispatchable plant is idle. Of course those costs are not. They are thrown back in the teeth of the (usually gas) operators who then have to raise prices, leading to the call that ‘renewables are now competitive’.

Is tidal in some way different? No. Tidal output is still low energy density, still intermittent, still low capacity factor, still expensive and still – as this excellent analysis shows – not sufficiently distributed in its output potential to in anyway reduce the need for dispatch elsewhere on the grid.

Which is why it probably will get built at enormous cost to be yet another white elephant and environmental disaster…"


Edited by rolando on Saturday 29th August 08:53

Diderot

7,263 posts

191 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Its interesting dealing with strong believers of MMGW, as we see on here from time to time,
I have a good friend who holds such views, he is intelligent along with being practical and logical, but every time we get into a discussion about climate change the logic part disappears, I am sure he understands what I am saying but its as he doesn't want to believe that what I am saying could be true, its almost as if it is some kind of crusade, we can save the world, who would not want to save the world? why do you not want to save the world? appears to be his thoughts, this appears to override his normal logic.

Do we need a psychological climate change thread ? hehe
I'm sorry but your friend is not intelligent hehe


robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
dandarez said:
Oh ffs!

The Independent front page tomorrow...

THE TERRIFYING TRUTH
Climate change: 2015 will be the hottest year on record 'by a mile', experts say.

All completed with a photo of a raging fire and road.

Oh bloody dear...

The Terrifying BULLst!

edit to add front page:
http://www.scoopnest.com/user/SkyNews/637367089309...

edit to add, I'm just turning the heating on in late August while having a hot toddy! hehe

Edited by dandarez on Saturday 29th August 00:14
Before publishing this complete bks, shouldn't the author (Steve A Connor, Science Editor) do some basic checks to see if it's true? A read of this PH thread alone should raise sufficient doubt ?

Edited by robinessex on Saturday 29th August 09:47

robinessex

11,046 posts

180 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
Steve A Connor is the Science editor of the independent. I don’t have a Twitter or Facebook account, so can an obliging PH’er via the afore mentioned tell him he’s bloody disgrace to the scientific community (along with many more of course), and invite him to read this PH forum, and then comment. Or better still, join PH, and contribute.

Crush

15,077 posts

168 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
Diderot said:
PRTVR said:
Its interesting dealing with strong believers of MMGW, as we see on here from time to time,
I have a good friend who holds such views, he is intelligent along with being practical and logical, but every time we get into a discussion about climate change the logic part disappears, I am sure he understands what I am saying but its as he doesn't want to believe that what I am saying could be true, its almost as if it is some kind of crusade, we can save the world, who would not want to save the world? why do you not want to save the world? appears to be his thoughts, this appears to override his normal logic.

Do we need a psychological climate change thread ? hehe
I'm sorry but your friend is not intelligent hehe
Could be an academic. Intelligence is often confused with that hehe

PRTVR

7,073 posts

220 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
Crush said:
Diderot said:
PRTVR said:
Its interesting dealing with strong believers of MMGW, as we see on here from time to time,
I have a good friend who holds such views, he is intelligent along with being practical and logical, but every time we get into a discussion about climate change the logic part disappears, I am sure he understands what I am saying but its as he doesn't want to believe that what I am saying could be true, its almost as if it is some kind of crusade, we can save the world, who would not want to save the world? why do you not want to save the world? appears to be his thoughts, this appears to override his normal logic.

Do we need a psychological climate change thread ? hehe
I'm sorry but your friend is not intelligent hehe
Could be an academic. Intelligence is often confused with that hehe
hehe to be honest the intelligence part of my friend is not the part that bugs me, its the logic, we both worked on our own cars when we were younger, his fault finding skills were great, this requires a level of problem solving abilities, something I hoped would allow him to work out the problems with climate change when provided with the facts, but no, it really is a belief problem, detached from logic and common sense.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
As I said, I find it hilarious when blind believers turn up oozing intellectual superiority such that they can only mock, not lower themselves to engage, under the pretence of trying to understand why we are so dumb and obsessed with conspiracy theories.

All Ahimoth et al do is lay their own psychopathology wide open for all to see.

Anyway, lest we forget just how opportunistic, devious and just wrong, AGW proponents are:-

'Ten Years After Katrina: Lessons From False Predictions & Climate Alarmism'

http://www.thegwpf.com/ten-years-after-katrina-les...

turbobloke

103,742 posts

259 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
After all the haughty cheek there's still no visible causal human signal in global climate data, but as this is the politics thread we should also note that the amateur politicians kicking off are at least being true to The Cause and living up to expectation. The fact that their true belief in baseless refuted junkscience has such a hold is remarkable, daft but remarkable, and without recourse to computer models the increased presence of faith statements was predicted some time ago as we approach Paris. It will get worse (modelled).

hidetheelephants

23,762 posts

192 months

mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Crush said:
Diderot said:
PRTVR said:
Its interesting dealing with strong believers of MMGW, as we see on here from time to time,
I have a good friend who holds such views, he is intelligent along with being practical and logical, but every time we get into a discussion about climate change the logic part disappears, I am sure he understands what I am saying but its as he doesn't want to believe that what I am saying could be true, its almost as if it is some kind of crusade, we can save the world, who would not want to save the world? why do you not want to save the world? appears to be his thoughts, this appears to override his normal logic.

Do we need a psychological climate change thread ? hehe
I'm sorry but your friend is not intelligent hehe
Could be an academic. Intelligence is often confused with that hehe
hehe to be honest the intelligence part of my friend is not the part that bugs me, its the logic, we both worked on our own cars when we were younger, his fault finding skills were great, this requires a level of problem solving abilities, something I hoped would allow him to work out the problems with climate change when provided with the facts, but no, it really is a belief problem, detached from logic and common sense.
I have a customer who's a retired doctor. Same problem. I think he believes the BMA is right in all things.

See here ----> http://bma.org.uk/working-for-change/international...

Can't get through to the silly sod.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Saturday 29th August 2015
quotequote all
mybrainhurts said:
I have a customer who's a retired doctor. Same problem. I think he believes the BMA is right in all things.
Too many professionals with too much arrogance to accept that anything other than what they say or think is right.


LongQ

13,864 posts

232 months

Sunday 30th August 2015
quotequote all
Jasandjules said:
mybrainhurts said:
I have a customer who's a retired doctor. Same problem. I think he believes the BMA is right in all things.
Too many professionals with too much arrogance to accept that anything other than what they say or think is right.
I suspect we may all be somewhat guilty in that respect. What we 'learn' in the formative years of our careers/working life/what have you tends to stick with us. It's largely the same in taste in music, "art", literature. Some exceptions but early influences last longest.

It seems to me that there is a 20 to 30 years cycle in business with new "discoveries" of business principles appearing as something fresh and innovative when older hands have seen them appear in a very similar form at least once, maybe twice in their working lives.

The medical profession, because it seems at least half of the population of the "Western" world is Health focused and avidly reads anything and everything vaguely related to "healthiness" , is especially prone to sudden changes of understanding and, eventually, of policy as the old guard retire (or in some cases die of old age before they retire).

It is more than likely that none of it is entirely correct and sometimes can be entirely wrong for a career or two until alternative research finds a way to advance a project. But at least there does seem to be some alternative research in the area of medicine and someone will fund it.

In part, of course, the rationale is the same as for "Climate Change".

The pharma companies only survive and make money if they keep creating new and apparently successful products to sell. They also need a market ... so the very last thing that they would want to discover, develop and promote to the world would be the product that that cures everything (or even something) if it requires just a one-off treatment.

Encouraging perpetual inwards cash flow is a solid incentive to operate in a certain way. That approach may work quite well for quite some time but eventually things will move on and the business model fails. It may take some time for that to happen. Old habits die hard.



mybrainhurts

90,809 posts

254 months

Sunday 30th August 2015
quotequote all
anonymous said:
[redacted]
yes...MEC doesn't seem to know the difference between conspiracy fact and conspiracy theory.

Mr GrimNasty

8,172 posts

169 months

Sunday 30th August 2015
quotequote all
I'm really liking the Real Science site at the moment.

It's just one lie after another shot down in flames with real statistics and old newspaper articles showing that the weather (climate!) has always done what it does.

e.g. NASA has 'adjusted' 0.8C of warming into the 'data', yet declares records by hundredths of a degree!

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/08/29/a-s...
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED