[Archived] Climate Change

[Steve Moss]

Forbes is a neo-liberal right wing magazine aimed at the elite fewer than 1 per cent, most of whom have earned their wealth through exploiting people or the planet, and probably both.

Its views should be ignored.

Typical. Why is it that liberals attempt to disqualify competing views without analysis?

The problem with your off hand disqualification is that Forbes actually cited the study it was relying upon. This is the study: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

I have no idea if the study is right, wrong or indifferent. What it does stand for, however, is that the alleged 97% consensus is a make believe fantasy number propagated by those who want the public to shut off their brains.

[AlanK]

A good read from the met office today

http://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2015/12/31/whats-been-happening-to-our-weather/

[Paul]

This article is almost two years old.

The study was a survey of largely industry engineers and geoloscientists in Alberta, home of the tar sands.

Typical. Why is it that liberals attempt to disqualify competing views without analysis?

The problem with your off hand disqualification is that Forbes actually cited the study it was relying upon. This is the study: http://oss.sagepub.com/content/33/11/1477.full

I have no idea if the study is right, wrong or indifferent. What it does stand for, however, is that the alleged 97% consensus is a make believe fantasy number propagated by those who want the public to shut off their brains.

Steve if you have no idea if the study is accurate or not have a look at the article below:

http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/

In it there is a long quote from the authors:

First and foremost, our study is not a representative survey. Although our data set is large and diverse enough for our research questions, it cannot be used for generalizations such as respondents believe or scientists dont believe Our research reconstructs the frames the members of a professional association hold about the issue and the argumentative patterns and legitimation strategies these professionals use when articulating their assumptions. Our research does not investigate the distribution of these frames and, thus, does not allow for any conclusions in this direction. We do point this out several times in the paper, and it is important to highlight it again.

In addition, even within the confines of our non-representative data set, the interpretation that a majority of the respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of global warming is simply not correct. To the contrary: the majority believes that humans do have their hands in climate change, even if many of them believe that humans are not the only cause. What is striking is how little support that the Kyoto Protocol had among our respondents. However, it is also not the case that all frames except Support Kyoto are against regulation the Regulation Activists mobilize for a more encompassing and more strongly enforced regulation. Correct interpretations would be, for instance, that among our respondents more geoscientists are critical towards regulation (and especially the Kyoto Protocol) than non-geoscientists, or that more people in higher hierarchical positions in the industry oppose regulation than people in lower hierarchical positions.

[Steve Moss]

^ That's a proper response.

Thanks, Paul. I'm out of likes for the day, otherwise I'd be sending one your way.

[roverandout]

I blame Paul Lambert and his team. We have all been sunbathing if Bowyer had still been here

I blame Gary bowyer, the sun shines out of his arse to some people

[Steve Moss]

2015 is the "hottest" year ever, because they fiddled with 1997's data.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/361151.php

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

^ That's a proper response.

Thanks, Paul. I'm out of likes for the day, otherwise I'd be sending one your way.

I said exactly the same to you about 7 months ago Steve when you quoted the comical source of a 6 year old article by Monte Hieb, an employee of a mining company with zero qualifications in any climate-related science.

[Steve Moss]

I said exactly the same to you about 7 months ago Steve when you quoted the comical source of a 6 year old article by Monte Hieb, an employee of a mining company with zero qualifications in any climate-related science.

Sort of like the IPCC putting a railroad engineer in charge?

[Steve Moss]

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/28/300-scientists-want-noaa-to-stop-hiding-its-global-warming-data/

[Steve Moss]

Professor Hal Lewis's resignation letter is damning. Too bad he's now deceased. It seems like he was a true scientist.

http://yournewswire.com/top-scientist-resigns-admitting-global-warming-is-a-big-scam/

[dave birch]

No scientific claims, just Mother Earth saying she can't handle somethings.

If you want to see one of the wonders of the world, go soon.

The Great Barrier Reef is "bleaching", That is, the colourfull coral is turning white.

It's getting worse, year by year.

Our Earth, telling us, something is wrong.

[Al]

Nobody disputes that the planet is getting warmer Dave. It's the cause that is the subject of dispute.

[dave birch]

Al, I made sure I didn't apportion the blame.

Even so, I can't help but think that we, us, have something to do with it.

We must try and do something, even if it's not us that's causing the problem.

We can't just say, it's not us so let it be, we have to try......

[Steve Moss]

Al, I made sure I didn't apportion the blame.

Even so, I can't help but think that we, us, have something to do with it.

We must try and do something, even if it's not us that's causing the problem.

We can't just say, it's not us so let it be, we have to try......

Then tell these climate groups to release all raw data, including all underlying assumptions and adjustments.

It isn't science when it isn't subject to testing and re-testing by many different groups.

[Steve Moss]

This doesn't surprise me one bit. It's obvious that climate policy has always been about wealth redistribution,

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

[pg]

Rapid anthropogenic climate change is the biggest investment opportunity in the human history.

You can ignore it if you like, but you'll be worse off.

Disruptive energy and transporation technology is coming more rapdily than anyone has predicted. Petroleum cars will be obsolete by 2030 (why do you think that the Saudi Arabian government has committed to selling all its oil infrastructure?).

[MCMC1875]

Rapid anthropogenic climate change is the biggest investment opportunity in the human history.

You can ignore it if you like, but you'll be worse off.

Disruptive energy and transporation technology is coming more rapdily than anyone has predicted. Petroleum cars will be obsolete by 2030 (why do you think that the Saudi Arabian government has committed to selling all its oil infrastructure?).

Great news if true! No need to intervene in the Middle East anymore. We can leave the Arabs to carry on scrapping with each other.

[Steve Moss]

Arctic expedition blocked by ice.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

[Steve Moss]

Yes, the government is entirely trust worthy on climate change. Not.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

[philipl]

There are two facts I am sure we can all agree on:

1) Coal powered electricity production costs twice as much as natural gas powered. (advanced nuclear is even more expensive which is bad news for British consumers with Hinckley C)

2) Costs of solar power are falling dramatically

Thankfully, we are in an era when the technology of solar and batteries is advancing along exponential curves so the market will kill US coal regardless of popular vote loser Trump and most other hydrocarbons are going to be out competed by renewables by 2025.

[MCMC1875]

There are two facts I am sure we can all agree on:

1) Coal powered electricity production costs twice as much as natural gas powered. (advanced nuclear is even more expensive which is bad news for British consumers with Hinckley C)

2) Costs of solar power are falling dramatically

Thankfully, we are in an era when the technology of solar and batteries is advancing along exponential curves so the market will kill US coal regardless of popular vote loser Trump and most other hydrocarbons are going to be out competed by renewables by 2025.

...and the bonus is, no more oil needed, so no more intervention in the Middle East needed and we can let the Arab tribes scrap amongst themselves like they used to.

[Paul]

Oil free would be wonderful in many respects. I've looked seriously at the Nissan Leaf but can't help feel there is a long way to go before oil free electric cars are an everyday model. Battery range of 155 miles could be quite limiting.

[philipl]

Oil free would be wonderful in many respects. I've looked seriously at the Nissan Leaf but can't help feel there is a long way to go before oil free electric cars are an everyday model. Battery range of 155 miles could be quite limiting.

The key to solar is battery technology.

This is beginning to advance at the speed photo voltaic technology did ten years ago.

Obviously everyone is looking at Elon Musk's factory in the desert but there are fascinating developments emerging in China in particular.

Seeing as America might be withdrawing from the rest of the world, the Chinese could astonishingly emerge as climate change champions- it is going to be a matter of existential survival for the Chinese Communist Party given the fogs they are currently experiencing.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

Yes, the government is entirely trust worthy on climate change. Not.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/

That article isn’t about the Obama administration lying about climate change. It’s, in the words of congress, about it attempting to “terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president’s Climate Action Plan”.

The dishonest way in which the administration went about it is obviously reprehensible. But to be honest I don’t really understand why it resorted to those tactics to begin with. Doesn’t the government have the power to just cancel research programs, however long-running? New governments seem to cancel or reverse policies or projects started by previous governments all the time.

In any case I do disagree with the directional change they were going for anyway. Terminating research to make non-renewables safer in order to fund renewables really lacks balance in my opinion. I’m a big believer that we’re destroying the planet and should be trying whenever practical to reduce emissions. But a headlong rush to renewables at the expense of all else just won’t work in my opinion. Energy demand will continue to sky rocket alongside global population, we need to be realistic about meeting that demand.

[dave birch]

The key to solar is battery technology.

This is beginning to advance at the speed photo voltaic technology did ten years ago.

Obviously everyone is looking at Elon Musk's factory in the desert but there are fascinating developments emerging in China in particular.

Seeing as America might be withdrawing from the rest of the world, the Chinese could astonishingly emerge as climate change champions- it is going to be a matter of existential survival for the Chinese Communist Party given the fogs they are currently experiencing.

Doing my bit down under.

Just installed a 5Kw system, currently evaluating it prior to putting in a 10Kw battery system.

Tesla batteries are not the most efficient at the moment, LG Chem is the best I'm led to believe, but advances are being made as we speak,