Most of the climate research points to change. We can debate the cause, but agree on that.
Most of the energy companies produce big chunks of CO2 as a proportion of national (including import adjusted) CO2. CO2 generation is cited as a probably cause of climate change. And for good or bad, governments take notice of that. Agreed?
If the research is corrupt, why is it acting against the energy industry? The energy industry is one of the strongest lobbies on earth.
By my reading, no. UKIP are of course a shambles, but overall, support fossil fuels and deny climate change. As does/did the BNP at last glance.
I think there is some truth to that.
Well, yes. I also think that the extreme right (UKIP etc) are after a populist vote grab, stoked by the Mail/Express (etc) non-deferential scaremongering paper-sales tactics.
I'm not so sure. I'm no scientist, obviously, but something is clearly happening.
FWIW, I quite go with this:
formatting link
which arrives at many of the conclusions pushed for by climate change advocates, but for different reasons.
I am afraid that if you study metaphysics, the a priori shit that comes BEFORE science is, in essence, consensus.
We agree the world exists, we agree its made of stuff, we agree the time and distance are measures of it, we agree that 'things' 'happen' because 'something' 'causes' them *.
Consensus is not the problem. Its consensus that disagrees with the evidence that consensus already provides, that is the issue.
AGW is like agreeing that one and one and one is three, but then declaring that three and three make seven.
I am reminded of the early mathematicians that the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference was really 3...despite the fact it patently wasn't.
formatting link
And that is defining a 'clockwork' or 'God made' Universe before we even start, right there.
sigh ... it becomes the orthodoxy as a view (prediction/theory/model) gains consensus as the best explainer of the evidence.
You could indeed have 'instead', a sort of 'supermarket of theories', each with their own explanations, predictions, and approaches. And then you'd have a darwinian survival of the fittest, between the various views.
And ... this is indeed what we have. The current consensus is arrived at through a process of selection between alternatives.
Asserting that this happens totally according to the evidence would be silly - of course there are other selectional pressures. But the world is complex ... and just because your pet theory is mostly lying mouldering on the bottom shelf, loved and bought into by only a few, is not to cry foul on the current evidential leader or the processes that made it so.
There is a strong scientific consensus about what is known so far.
Anyone who denies Newtons laws or Einsteins Relativity these days can safely be dismissed as a crank with near certainty. Everything taught in the hard sciences up to third year undergraduate level is pretty much tested to the point where it is rare to find significant changes.
Scientists do make mistakes like the guy who famously predicted that "(classical) physics would be solved in twenty years time" a mere two years before the first quantum effects were observed.
The point about the scientific consensus is that it can always be overthrown and rewritten by experimental demonstration that the existing orthodoxy is incorrect. It only takes one counterexample!
It isn't acting against the energy industry. It is actually making huge profits for them, especially gas. Because that is what Al Gore and Enron designed it to do. smash coal and emphasise gas.
Renewable energy is no threat because by and large it doesn't actually work to reduce gas usage. And by increasing energy prices overall, it helps make gas look cheap when it isn't.
Look at what the greens do to conventional gas competition.
Coal. Spawn of the devil. Nuclear. Hell on earth forever apparently. An industrial accident in which no one is killed or will ever be killed is a 'disaster' Fracking. The coming if the Antichrist. A slightly different way of getting gas out is now the most dangerous thing since thalidomide.
UKIP are very far from a shambles, but keep on believeing that. It helps underestimate them.
Fort a true shambles, Miliband and Labour is your example.
UKIP are not the extreme right.
They are a centrist libertarian party.
Is there anything you cant make up stories about?
Something is always happening. What is happening now, is what has happened many tomes in the last few thousand years. The dynamic system of climate has done a thirty years stint of quite reasonable warming, and then stopped. Given the complexity and nature of the feedback systems within it and the time delays inherent in e.g. melting ice, warming up oceans, and affecting the velocity of ocean currents, that's exactly what you would expect it to do, all by itself. Wobble about one or more chaotic attractors.
AGW is like sacrificing a virgin every might to make sure the sun comes up tomorrow. It appears to work. But there is no reason to suppose that stopping emitting CO2 would make any difference to anything. Except certain peoples bank accounts.
Small and big are both beautiful, and that's sort of ridiculous strapline is the sort of level that the argument has descended t. Actually 'just right' is the key.
Whatever you want to optimise, either the equation runs off one end or the other, or there is a curve with one or more peaks in it. Where the highest peak is is 'about right'
E.G. it so happens that the balance between transmission costs and generating costs leads to a grid like the one we (used to) have.
Don't confuse the green propensity to reject science and technology, simply because they have no understanding of what it actually is, let alone how it works, with a rational argument to dispense with it.
They are simply, like the bearded guys with turbans and Q'rans, yearning for a simpler world with a set of clearly defined rules, that any fule can understand.
Unfortunately, in both cases this requires the majority of the worlds population, kept alive by technology, to perish miserably first.
If it can't happen according to the evidence, and only the evidence, that merely shows that the evidence is not very good. We don't believe in relativity because of some hand waving, but because the evidence - all of it, not just some - supports and demonstrates it.
But there are good reasons to know that this is not the end of the story. And do "the science is settled" is just ignorant c*ck propounded by ignorant politicos.
Its not a mistake, its trusting in the limits of what we can observe. Now that is a mistake lots of people, including scientists, make. When we go looking and develop different/better ways to observe we often change the established theories. That is what science is about.
Its not science to find different things/ways to observe and then bend the results to fit in with current theories like some climate change groups appear to do.
Like having models that can't predict 10 years into the future but still claiming they are accurate?
Surface temps have also been measured by satellites since then, but that doesn't stop climate change advocates ignoring the figures that didn't support their beliefs. "Oh you can't use those figures because they weren't calibrated and you can't calibrate them now because the satellites have gone."
When people refer to the "GW scam" they seem to have several different variants of disbelief.
1) temperatures are not rising
2) temperatures are rising but the cause is not human
3) temperatures are rising and the cause is not human and, moreover burning less fossil fuel will not make any difference
4) the published evidence doesn't agree with the claims.
5) the models don't match the observations
6) the predictions are useless as the models don't work with the observations
7) there is no good reason not to publish the data that does match the claims if it exists
8) you wouldn't believe any other scientist that kept the evidence secret so why would you believe the climate scientists rather than anyone else?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.