Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[HairyPoppins]

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

XM5ER said:

budgie smuggler said:

I'll take your word for that, as I haven't seen numbers either way. However, it was presented earlier in the thread that 'big oil' have no incentive to debunk AGW, but my point was, clearly they do.

Have you heard of a cost/benefit analysis?

I have, so please let us have yours for each of the gulf states and the Multi National Companies involved that clearly shows how the costs involved in debunking AGW would outweigh the benefits that would accrue.

Thanks.

I don't have to, I would imagine they have.

Yeah, thats convincing.

[snuffy]

glazbagun said:

Scotland to become world leader in preventing global warming?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4208...

Eat chips and save the planet !

[PRTVR]

glazbagun said:

Scotland to become world leader in preventing global warming?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4208...

Who would have thought, fried mars bars would save the world.

[HairyPoppins]

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.

Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

The reason their is different answers to your question is that we are not oil companies, we can only guess at their actions.
If GW is as serious as is claimed, why are the main counties with the highest emissions not doing anything, China India, but the UK is pointlessly shutting down coal fired power stations,
It's all about politics not science. Occam's razor applies.
Edit to add a link.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/co...

And here's your answer, it wasn't hard to find.

---

China’s daunting pollution in part reflects its population — 1.37 billion people, more than any other country. As Chinese people have become richer, buying cars, bigger homes, refrigerators and air-conditioners, their emissions have risen, although their emission per capita remains much lower than Americans’.

But more than sheer population lies behind China’s rising emissions. Although China is still relatively poor, its average emissions per person have already passed the European Union average.

Another cause is China’s galloping industrial growth, fueled by coal. China’s economic takeoff has been propelled by high-polluting factories, steel mills, cement and power plants.

“The Chinese emissions story is really a coal story,” Glen Peters, a senior researcher at Cicero, a climate and environmental research institute in Oslo, wrote recently.

China has been trying to shift away from these smokestack industries and to cleaner energy, and coal demand has cooled since 2012. But coal still provides about two-thirds of China’s total energy needs. And each unit of energy from burning coal creates more carbon dioxide than oil or gas.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/chin...

So occums razor does apply only not how you imagined.

[XM5ER]

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

[Ali G]

Oh dear.

Rainbow Warrior has to have diseasil powered backup.



http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/rainbow-wa...

Greenpeas said:

Rainbow Warrior III is a sailing ship mostly dependent on wind energy. It, however, has a back-up engine – Volvo Penta D65A MT 1850 HP – that runs on diesel-electric propulsion. The back-up engine is used during bad weather conditions and has a speed of up to 11kt.

Will no-one think of the polar bears?

[wc98]

HairyPoppins said:

What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.

Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

you just shot yourself in the foot re occams razor /climate science.
by using the word denier you mark yourself as a full on kool aid drinking basket weaving lentil knitting fkwit .

i look forward to the day i meet one of your ilk that has the balls to call me a "denier" to my face. i really do not like the implications of that term .

both you and zyggy appear to have ignored every single global data set related to climate science. no discernible trend in any "extreme weather events" as predicted by climate scientists. no hot spot in the troposphere as predicted by climate science and required for the mechanism as described to work .small increase in temperature due to increase in co2 creates big increase in water vapour that in turn creates the predicted temp increase, you both knew it isn't co2 that is the powerful atmospheric gas though, didn't you ?

arctic ice extent appears to have turned a corner bringing an end to the arctic death spiral .
unlike blowhards like yourself i have some skin in the game having a £1000 bet with a well known arctic alarmist called jim hunt regarding arctic sea ice area that ends in 2022 , jim was the only person i could find in the alarmist community that would accept that bet , even peter wadhams the king of arctic alarmism avoided it .

climate science is now an industry that sucks up huge amounts of public funding, for the science and numerous businesses , including the energy generation sector that includes "big oil". as long as the money is being distributed in the right places there will never be a serious challenge to the science. like most theories in science that turn out wrong there will either be a slow walk back of the science that allows the main protagonists to die off and retire to avoid facing ridicule ,or a new wave of different thinkers will appear and generate a paradigm shift . i doubt the latter, as the saying goes ,it is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.

[Ali G]

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

Overturning the Paris Agreement is unlikely to happen any time soon, if ever.

Better to adapt and see what happens. It would be an act of madness to attempt to overturn the decisions made by democratically elected governments let alone suffer the endless demos and adverse publicity that a certain demographic is already too eager to dish out.

[zygalski]

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

Must be pretty frustrating for you that it's not in any single organisation or nation's best interest to challenge all this AGW mumbo-jumbo in court.
A real piss-boiler for you PH AGW in-the-knows.

[Ali G]

I suspect that China really does not give a stuff about Western courts, or AGW either.

[TTwiggy]

Ali G said:

Oh dear.

Rainbow Warrior has to have diseasil powered backup.



http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/rainbow-wa...

Greenpeas said:

Rainbow Warrior III is a sailing ship mostly dependent on wind energy. It, however, has a back-up engine – Volvo Penta D65A MT 1850 HP – that runs on diesel-electric propulsion. The back-up engine is used during bad weather conditions and has a speed of up to 11kt.

Will no-one think of the polar bears?

Almost every single ocean-going sailing vessel since about 1830 has had some form of engine 'back-up'.

[Ali G]

TTwiggy said:

Ali G said:

Oh dear.

Rainbow Warrior has to have diseasil powered backup.



http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/rainbow-wa...

Greenpeas said:

Rainbow Warrior III is a sailing ship mostly dependent on wind energy. It, however, has a back-up engine – Volvo Penta D65A MT 1850 HP – that runs on diesel-electric propulsion. The back-up engine is used during bad weather conditions and has a speed of up to 11kt.

Will no-one think of the polar bears?

Almost every single ocean-going sailing vessel since about 1830 has had some form of engine 'back-up'.

Quite probably - ironic isn't it.

Where's this Musk chap when you need him?

[PRTVR]

HairyPoppins said:

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.

Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

The reason their is different answers to your question is that we are not oil companies, we can only guess at their actions.
If GW is as serious as is claimed, why are the main counties with the highest emissions not doing anything, China India, but the UK is pointlessly shutting down coal fired power stations,
It's all about politics not science. Occam's razor applies.
Edit to add a link.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/co...

And here's your answer, it wasn't hard to find.

---

China’s daunting pollution in part reflects its population — 1.37 billion people, more than any other country. As Chinese people have become richer, buying cars, bigger homes, refrigerators and air-conditioners, their emissions have risen, although their emission per capita remains much lower than Americans’.

But more than sheer population lies behind China’s rising emissions. Although China is still relatively poor, its average emissions per person have already passed the European Union average.

Another cause is China’s galloping industrial growth, fueled by coal. China’s economic takeoff has been propelled by high-polluting factories, steel mills, cement and power plants.

“The Chinese emissions story is really a coal story,” Glen Peters, a senior researcher at Cicero, a climate and environmental research institute in Oslo, wrote recently.

China has been trying to shift away from these smokestack industries and to cleaner energy, and coal demand has cooled since 2012. But coal still provides about two-thirds of China’s total energy needs. And each unit of energy from burning coal creates more carbon dioxide than oil or gas.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/chin...

So occums razor does apply only not how you imagined.

It depends on your metric for "poor" China has a lot of people who are happy to be subsistence farmers, the government has chosen to have a space program over helping it's poor, how they choose to spend money must have an effect on how a country is defined in the wealth table, so are we saying that CO2 output from China is irrelevant due to the wealth of the country ? I thought it was global warming, look at coal fired power stations in Asia and the number of new ones planned and building, it's all about politics.

[zygalski]

Ali G said:

I suspect that China really does not give a stuff about Western courts, or AGW either.

The point is, it's not just China... apparently there isn't an organisation or nation on the planet who is willing to test the credibility of AGW in a court of law.

Next obvious question....
If it's in everybody's best interest to accept the current situation re AGW, then what the hell are you lot so worried about?
Seems to me from what you're saying, everyone's a winner

[TTwiggy]

Ali G said:

TTwiggy said:

Ali G said:

Oh dear.

Rainbow Warrior has to have diseasil powered backup.



http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/rainbow-wa...

Greenpeas said:

Rainbow Warrior III is a sailing ship mostly dependent on wind energy. It, however, has a back-up engine – Volvo Penta D65A MT 1850 HP – that runs on diesel-electric propulsion. The back-up engine is used during bad weather conditions and has a speed of up to 11kt.

Will no-one think of the polar bears?

Almost every single ocean-going sailing vessel since about 1830 has had some form of engine 'back-up'.

Quite probably - ironic isn't it.

Where's this Musk chap when you need him?

It would be a bugger to berth it under sail...

[HairyPoppins]

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

I know how the world works and can learn nothing from you except perhaps how to see everything as some kind of cover-up. Profits DO matter - which is why they'd take action if they could.

Saying "I would imagine they have" just don't cut it on any level.

[XM5ER]

HairyPoppins said:

XM5ER said:

HairyPoppins said:

Yeah, thats convincing.

You are not convincable right now. You need to do your own research and form your own conclusions.

As has been pointed out many times in the previous few pages, global sales are up, they've diversified and don't care. Profits matter, not becoming a target for multiple green loon groups that will attempt to destroy their brand. I think you need to grow up a bit and try to understand how the world actually works.

I know how the world works and can learn nothing from you except perhaps how to see everything as some kind of cover-up. Profits DO matter - which is why they'd take action if they could.

Where have I talked about a cover up in this discussion about big oil debunking stuff, you're delusional.

[Ali G]

TTwiggy said:

Ali G said:

TTwiggy said:

Ali G said:

Oh dear.

Rainbow Warrior has to have diseasil powered backup.



http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/rainbow-wa...

Greenpeas said:

Rainbow Warrior III is a sailing ship mostly dependent on wind energy. It, however, has a back-up engine – Volvo Penta D65A MT 1850 HP – that runs on diesel-electric propulsion. The back-up engine is used during bad weather conditions and has a speed of up to 11kt.

Will no-one think of the polar bears?

Almost every single ocean-going sailing vessel since about 1830 has had some form of engine 'back-up'.

Quite probably - ironic isn't it.

Where's this Musk chap when you need him?

It would be a bugger to berth it under sail...

Agreed - also a potential deathtrap when too little or too much wind without supplementary power available on demand.

[HairyPoppins]

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

PRTVR said:

HairyPoppins said:

What becomes obvious reading this thread is that deniers come up with all sorts of reasons for why Big Oil and the States dependent upon it won't challenge the prevailing consensus (some of which conflict with each other) but all the time they ignore the obvious one - they know its true and know that they can't disprove it to any degree that would be acceptable to any court.

Occums Razor..(from Wiki) the simplest answer is often correct, the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

The reason their is different answers to your question is that we are not oil companies, we can only guess at their actions.
If GW is as serious as is claimed, why are the main counties with the highest emissions not doing anything, China India, but the UK is pointlessly shutting down coal fired power stations,
It's all about politics not science. Occam's razor applies.
Edit to add a link.
https://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/co...

And here's your answer, it wasn't hard to find.

---

China’s daunting pollution in part reflects its population — 1.37 billion people, more than any other country. As Chinese people have become richer, buying cars, bigger homes, refrigerators and air-conditioners, their emissions have risen, although their emission per capita remains much lower than Americans’.

But more than sheer population lies behind China’s rising emissions. Although China is still relatively poor, its average emissions per person have already passed the European Union average.

Another cause is China’s galloping industrial growth, fueled by coal. China’s economic takeoff has been propelled by high-polluting factories, steel mills, cement and power plants.

“The Chinese emissions story is really a coal story,” Glen Peters, a senior researcher at Cicero, a climate and environmental research institute in Oslo, wrote recently.

China has been trying to shift away from these smokestack industries and to cleaner energy, and coal demand has cooled since 2012. But coal still provides about two-thirds of China’s total energy needs. And each unit of energy from burning coal creates more carbon dioxide than oil or gas.

---

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/world/asia/chin...

So occums razor does apply only not how you imagined.

It depends on your metric for "poor" China has a lot of people who are happy to be subsistence farmers, the government has chosen to have a space program over helping it's poor, how they choose to spend money must have an effect on how a country is defined in the wealth table, so are we saying that CO2 output from China is irrelevant due to the wealth of the country ? I thought it was global warming, look at coal fired power stations in Asia and the number of new ones planned and building, it's all about politics.

You make lots of statements there - can I have your proof for just the first one and we'll move on or else your whole comment can be disregarded.

"China has a lot of people who are happy to be subsistence farmers".

Thats opinion unless you have something to back it up.

In fact that's all there is on this thread to be honest. Opinions built on opinions.

Did you also miss the part that says "China has been trying to shift away from these smokestack industries and to cleaner energy"?

I don't know how the the regular CC believers do this stuff with you lot on a day-to-day basis

Thank god all your 'opinions' counts for nothing in the real world.

[Ali G]

zygalski said:

Ali G said:

I suspect that China really does not give a stuff about Western courts, or AGW either.

The point is, it's not just China... apparently there isn't an organisation or nation on the planet who is willing to test the credibility of AGW in a court of law.

Next obvious question....
If it's in everybody's best interest to accept the current situation re AGW, then what the hell are you lot so worried about?
Seems to me from what you're saying, everyone's a winner

Those who will suffer will be those least able to look out for themselves - I suspect that will include many of the poor/poorest in Western society unable to afford the cost of energy (which we are begining to see with additional costs of renewables being pushed down onto bills)

Your constant bellyaching regarding confirmation of AGW 'coz not challenged in courts innit' is possibly the dumbest argument yet put forwards.