Turns out climate change is a myth- then what?
Discussion
otolith said:
It would be massively damaging to the public perception of science if it were found to have cried wolf on this - for which I would never forgive those responsible.
You are either being sarcastic or incredibly naive, I mean honestly?ETA: Sorry I can see that my reply could be construed as argumentative and dismissive, sometimes I forget that people do not have the same interests as me and it seems this was one of those occasions.
If indeed you were not being sarcastic then I'm afraid you are going to be greatly disappointed by the people of "science" who you pay to research this stuff on your behalf.
If you are completely new to this subject then I would recommend Donna Laframboise's book on why the IPCC is far from fit for purpose here http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/
Then Andrew Montford's book which is an eye opener.
Then you can visit places such as
WUWT
Bishop Hill (the same Andrew Montford mentioned above)
Climate Audit
Each can point you to other areas that will also be of interest.
Edited by DieselGriff on Sunday 1st January 22:01
Ah, I see you've expanded - I was commenting on the hypothetical situation, not commenting either way on what we have. For what it's worth, I wrote to my (Tory) MP expressing the same concerns of the impact on the credibility of science over Climategate and urging him to push for an inquiry. I got a boilerplate reply about how ACC is real and energy efficiency is a good thing in itself, with no attempt to address my actual concerns.
For MBH: woo
For MBH: woo
otolith said:
Ah, I see you've expanded - I was commenting on the hypothetical situation, not commenting either way on what we have. For what it's worth, I wrote to my (Tory) MP expressing the same concerns of the impact on the credibility of science over Climategate and urging him to push for an inquiry. I got a boilerplate reply about how ACC is real and energy efficiency is a good thing in itself, with no attempt to address my actual concerns.
I think I see, in which case my reply to otolith said:
It would be massively damaging to the public perception of science if it were found to have cried wolf on this - for which I would never forgive those responsible.
is that yes, once the general public wake up to this mass transfer of wealth then the damage to science will be massive much to the understandable chagrin of real scientists, and it will take a massively well co-ordinated climb down by politicians for that not to happen (although they will be making sure face and troughing rights are upheld first)
loafer123 said:
Not much - greater fuel economy is a laudable aim, given the finite oil supply.
I love the "finite oil supply" problem. In the 1960's the experts told us that we would run out of oil in 1985. I believed them.In the 1970's, the expert scientists told us that we would run out of oil "in twenty years time". I believed them.
In the 1980's, we were using even more oil. Howevever, we were fortunate enough to still have "twenty years worth of oil left". I was worried.
In the 1990's, things became really desperate. "Experts" and "Scientists" were both agreed that we only had enough oil to last 30 years. Disaster loomed on the horizon!
In the "Noughties", the "experts" became hysterical when they realised that we were not going to run out of oil in the near future. We had "50 days to save the Planet".
The Polar Bears were on the verge of extinction, despite the fact that there were more Polar Bears than have ever been recorded in history.
So, Yes, loafer. There is a finite oil supply.
When do you think that it is going to run out?
We have just discovered enough cheap shale gas to meet the UK's energy needs for the next 300 years. Are you really worried about the imminent shortage of oil?
Don
--
don4l said:
loafer123 said:
Not much - greater fuel economy is a laudable aim, given the finite oil supply.
I love the "finite oil supply" problem. In the 1960's the experts told us that we would run out of oil in 1985. I believed them.In the 1970's, the expert scientists told us that we would run out of oil "in twenty years time". I believed them.
In the 1980's, we were using even more oil. Howevever, we were fortunate enough to still have "twenty years worth of oil left". I was worried.
In the 1990's, things became really desperate. "Experts" and "Scientists" were both agreed that we only had enough oil to last 30 years. Disaster loomed on the horizon!
In the "Noughties", the "experts" became hysterical when they realised that we were not going to run out of oil in the near future. We had "50 days to save the Planet".
The Polar Bears were on the verge of extinction, despite the fact that there were more Polar Bears than have ever been recorded in history.
So, Yes, loafer. There is a finite oil supply.
When do you think that it is going to run out?
busta said:
Don't most emissions controls reduce the efficiency of the engine e.g. reduce MPG? So we could probably expect to see a slight rise in fuel economy.
There is a key contradiction at work with fuel taxation.If I, as the Treasury, get 80p of tax / duty per litre of fuel sold - when fuel economy doubles, there is only going to be half the fuel bought, and therefore my tax take halves. Consequently tax is going to have to double on the most economical fuel for me to maintain the tax take.
As I see it, greater economy means the reserves will last longer, but at the same time it will force up fuel duty.
I would not just be Big Oil which doesn't want renewable or hydrogen fuel cells. Imagine being a taxman and knowing that peopel to get away with not paying tax at all on fuel and it would not be scarce. This must be a fiscal doomsday scenario.
XJ40 said:
Limited natural resources is the real issue going forward, the whole engineering industry seems to be gearing up to maximise efficiency wherever it can.
Or they would if CO2-based taxes were uniformly levied on the fuel/energy source. Now they are mainly engineering for the best possible results in a bogus fuel economy/emissions test. don4l said:
loafer123 said:
Not much - greater fuel economy is a laudable aim, given the finite oil supply.
I love the "finite oil supply" problem. In the 1960's the experts told us that we would run out of oil in 1985. I believed them.In the 1970's, the expert scientists told us that we would run out of oil "in twenty years time". I believed them.
In the 1980's, we were using even more oil. Howevever, we were fortunate enough to still have "twenty years worth of oil left". I was worried.
In the 1990's, things became really desperate. "Experts" and "Scientists" were both agreed that we only had enough oil to last 30 years. Disaster loomed on the horizon!
In the "Noughties", the "experts" became hysterical when they realised that we were not going to run out of oil in the near future. We had "50 days to save the Planet".
The Polar Bears were on the verge of extinction, despite the fact that there were more Polar Bears than have ever been recorded in history.
So, Yes, loafer. There is a finite oil supply.
When do you think that it is going to run out?
We have just discovered enough cheap shale gas to meet the UK's energy needs for the next 300 years. Are you really worried about the imminent shortage of oil?
Don
--
Skywalker said:
As I see it, greater economy means the reserves will last longer, but at the same time it will force up fuel duty.
And here was I thinking that taxes are to compensate for societal costs & damages incurred by the use of a good/service for personal duties and/or gain (i.e. less harm done = less tax needed), not to fill the Treasury's coffers for completely unrelated purposes...Personally I don't think you can have anything resembling a market economy when taxes and subsidies are based on anything but calculable/forseeable external effects (both positive and negative)...
Edited by 900T-R on Monday 2nd January 10:51
don4l said:
We have just discovered enough cheap shale gas to meet the UK's energy needs for the next 300 years. Are you really worried about the imminent shortage of oil?
Don
--
Trouble is Don, if we were to realise that potential it would destroy any green industry in the UK and far too many people have their pensions and livelihoods locked in to it. I can see us procrastinate over Fracking and shale oil production for years to comeDon
--
Apache said:
Trouble is Don, if we were to realise that potential it would destroy any green industry in the UK and far too many people have their pensions and livelihoods locked in to it. I can see us procrastinate over Fracking and shale oil production for years to come
Especially the impartial Beeb..."BBC PENSION FUND HIRES GREEN ADVISERS"
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2011/12/bbc-pension...
"The greening of the BBC accelerates unchecked. I hope the 18,000 BBC staff who are in the pension fund are happy how their £9bn of funds are being managed; during the course of the past year, the trustees - who incude eco-nut head of news Helen Boaden - decided to entrust a major strand of the fund management to an outfit called Hermes EOS. This is what the fund annual report says (p15):
Hermes EOS is expected to develop policies on socially,ethically and environmentally responsible investing and to encourage these practices in the course of engagementswhere these will enhance or protect companies’ long-term prospects.
Now I do not claim to be an expert on pension funds, but that strikes me as a declaration that henceforward, management of the trust will be dominated by green principles. The impression is reinforced by the fact that Hermes EOS is listed as a member affiliate of an outfit called Eurosif, which desrcribes itself as 'a pan-European network and think-tank whose mission is to Develop Sustainability through European Financial Markets'. In my book, that's corporate speak for EU-related eco-loonery. The boss in the UK is Will Oulton......."
loafer123 said:
...given the finite oil supply.
We are not running out of oil.We are simply using the easy to get at sources of oil faster than they are being replenished. The harder to get at sources of oil will become economically viable as the price of the east stuff goes up.
Even then, oil will never run out completely.
Regardless of which theory you believe as to where it all comes from (google abiotic oil if you've only ever heard of it being something to do with fossils) it is, and always has been, produced continuously in the Earth's crust.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff