Cheap Zero Heat House

[dennis]

That cr@p reduces the Earths temperature and hence, the global warming produced by man.

[The Medway Handyman]

That would appear to be bollox.

I'm afraid is isn't, only in your deluded mind.

Once again you use the perjorative term 'denier' which translated into normal English means "anyone who doesn't agree with my whacko view."

Anyone who believes that climate change is man made is denying that climate change is a natural phenominom.

"Tactics"? Are you having a laugh? The Green tossers are experts at 'tactics'. No evidence, just spin.

What you tree hugging, wholewheat dungaree wearing fuckwits can't explain is that freak weather has always been there - its just 'freak' and doesn't depend on man.

New puritans springs to mind.

[The Natural Philosopher]

This is indicative of a very real problem.

I've been following the climate change debate for many many years.

Prior to it being a political issue, the effects of anthropogenic CO2 were not questioned, and even the USA accepted them.

Then the great unwashed got hold of it, and the Green movement picked up on it. And scare mongering and politics got hold of one end, and big Oil and Big business got hold of the other, and a war started.

And the first casualty of war, is, as we all know, the truth..

And its now reached the point where the average intelligent man in the street, doesn't know what the truth is any more. See above.

Well Medway, here's my take.

Man made global warming is a fact. Along with 'natural' global warming and cooling too. at the moment its not the *dominant* factor in climate

*change* but it will be soon.

That's fact one.

Fact two is that everything politicians say about climate change and what they are doing about it is at the very best, a simplification, usually totally misinformed, and at the very worst a downright cynical lie.

Fact Three is that EVERYTHING the Greens say about climate change is wrong and dangerous, apart from the fact of its existence.

Fact four is that those who do know, and who do politics, have realised that, like global recession, the short term un-educated drive towards short term wealth and profit against a future scenario that isn't actually totally predictable, is unstoppable. Hungry people will eat next years seed corn. In other words we are not going to change our ways

*even if we believed the Greens to be completely right*, and, as with the financial crisis, stopping it by proactive government action raises the ire of the electorate: Letting it happen and dealing with the consequences is actually politically less damaging. And may actually be cheaper.And in any case is the next generation's problem and we can die fat happy and carbon profligate.

There is only one way to deal with man made CO2 politically, and that is to tax carbon, and keep on taxing it, and if another country doesn't tax it, tax their imports.

That is all the EU needs to do. Then people will find cheaper alternatives to carbon fuel, like not travelling and commuting, and nuclear power stations and heat pumps and electric cars. These are things that actually work and are, with a modest uplift in carbon prices, cost competitive in enough areas to make a real difference..

Naturally the biggest global industry in the world - oil - is not very happy about that. Remember it's bigger than any government or nation.It is awash with cash too.

It can afford to buy a lot of 'scientists', journalists and politicians. And it has, and you are basically the successful result of that. So much FUD exists that people no longer know what to believe.

Which is why we have the situation we have. Big oil has blocked any real reduction in carbon use.

But in order to placate the Greens and the 'concerned citizens' the EU has done a bunch of crap like windmills, lightbulbs and so on, that makes them look like they are tackling the problem, when in fact they are not.

The building regulations are in fact one area where things have been done well. Insulation standards are not expensive to meet on a new build and reduce heating requirements by up to 5 times compared with - say - an uninsulated house. Of course a lot of oil is used in making the plastic insulants, but overall its a saving.

It's less clear that the building regs do favours to refurbished houses: here they insist on any change being up to the full standard, which sometimes is not economic.

So, that is the actual situation as I see it. On balance the world will get much warmer over the next 100 years driven largely by the release of fossil CO2. Politically this is more or less unstoppable. However the fact is that oil and coal are running out in the west, and the East is not someone we want to be beholden too, so that, combined with the fact that we are anyway running into limits on population growth, and an (associated) global economic crisis, may yet do what politicians have failed to do. Start to (more) heavily tax carbon fuels and stop dictating alternatives, and let the actual market decide.

Meanwhile, expect more weather. A LOT more weather. More floods, more droughts, more snow, more sun, hotter summers, colder summers, hotter winters, colder winters. If enough ice melts in the Arctic, more earthquakes and volcanoes as the weight shifts..

The global climate system is very very complicated, and in any given area, its hard to say exactly what more energy in the atmosphere will lead to.

If we get a methane hydrate release on a massive scale, it could be appallingly bad. Maybe we wont. Maybe we will.

However, it may not matter anyway. Other factors will come into play that limit human population. I would say that not only are there more people alive today than have ever lived on the planet before, but that there are more people alive today than will ever live on the planet again.

People - especially uneducated people - breed to a starvation, war or disease limit. Or die in childbirth. By exploiting natural resources and technology we have raised that limit. We have also, by dint of socialism, undermined education. Now seen as a useless thing to have. Look at e.g. Drivel. The net result is that we have an urbanized society that is incapable of survival without massive per capita energy inputs, and which depends on a complex infrastructure that fewer and fewer people understand or are competent to maintain. And whose women are incapable of giving birth without a caesarian section either.

All of whom, however, have a vote.

Which means that actually democracy will also be a casualty of the events that are likely to unfold.

Because the alternative to an elite grabbing power and running things, an elite that understands the value of education, and can think for itself and do sums, is democracy by Drivel. The rule of the most stupid and opinionated. As we see today.

You cant argue with stupidity. The only way to deal with it traditionally, is while stupidity faffs around putting on airs and graces, you go back to the workshop, put your thinking cap on, and build a better cannon and warship. Or engineer a financial crisis that bankrupts a few nations?

Socialism says the world belongs to the working man, because it is built on his labours. Actually, it isn't any more. Briefly, in the 19th century, it was. Fascism says that the world belongs to the strongest, because only he can grab power and keep order. Maybe that was true once. Capitalism says it belongs to the most cunning financially, because only he can finance the infrastructure on which civilization depends.

But actually, it really depends on technically smart people and a surplus of energy. Currently the Oil industry maybe, or the Chinese nation?

Go figure.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

Appearances can be deceptive, particularly to such closed minds as the Handyman's.

The delusion is all yours. If you think there are serious flaws explain in detail. Put the nonsense you espouse to out in the open.

Deniers deny. Their basic tenets vary which is why they are at odds with each other as well as the scientific establishment but chief among them are the notions that the Greenhouse Effort isn't real or has no real effect on climate change or that average temperatures haven't risen and the records that prove they have are unreliable or deliberately falsified.

Now that is bollocks.

The scientific community accepts that the climate consists of variable phenomena but man's actions have had and are having a significant effect on the global climate, most, but not all, by additional warming.

Leave the greenwashers out of it. By and large they have no more scientific nous than you do. The scientific establishment is firmly convinced of the evidence for GW. Of course not all scientists agree to all of it and there are some aspects where theory and records don't match but by and large the case for GW hangs together and the case against it doesn't.

Some of the deniers for instance blame the heat island effect (which the climate scientists say they correct for) for an apparent rise in average temperatures. Now that could be proved simply by taking out any possible heat islands and seeing what the rest of the temperature data shows. If that has been attempted the deniers have kept very quiet about it but it is doubtful they would even try. Approximately three fifths of the world's surface is ocean and there are no heat islands out to sea.

I see. Another nutter who doesn't understand the difference between weather and climate.

Puritans have closed minds, just like you. And you are a smoker so you are already in the grip of one delusion. Adding another doesn't face the same battle between reality and illusion as the first delusion should have. You are not old enough to have started smoking before the dangers of the habit were widely recognised.

[Bruce]

Sure sounds like denial to me! ;-)

[The Medway Handyman]

"Your argument seems to consist of one long ad hominem attack with not a real fact to be seen"

Are you familiar with the expression 'kettle calling the pot black'?

What exactly is your problem with anyone who dares to disagree with your rabid fanatical born again greenie opinion?

Creative snipping, ignoring anything inconvenient & continued use of terms like denial & delusion don't really help your case do they?

You are starting to make Drivel sound rational.

[Roger Chapman]

All previous argument snipped since TMH just ignores what I say.

You should try answering the argument rather than building strawmen.

You should try answering the argument rather than building strawmen.

You should try answering the argument rather than building strawmen.

You should try answering the argument rather than building strawmen.

You should try answering the argument rather than building strawmen.

[The Medway Handyman]

Possibly because you spout complete bollox.

Pretty clear that you don't have a rational argument I'd say.

Why don't you tell everyone how this irrational and fanatical belief system developed?

[Roger Chapman]

snip

Only me?

Another strawman. You don't half convict yourself by you own statements.

There is nothing either irrational or fanatical about science in general or that part of it pertaining to climate change in particular.

I could I suppose try and summarise the present state of play but even to deal with it briefly would take several hundred lines of text. And for what? Another bout of insults from someone who probably thinks 'feedback' is him choking on his Big Mac.

[The Medway Handyman]

When it comes to strawmen you could play the lead in the Wizard of Oz.

There is a whole lot thats irrational & fanatical about you pal. You are raving half the time.

So, no answer other than abuse? How dare someone hold an opinion that differs from yours?

Have you thought of getting help to overcome this problem of yours?

Dave - The Medway Handyman

[Roger Chapman]

snip

So you say but where is your proof. You have nothing in your deniers armoury but blanket denial. So come on quote a few concrete examples. According to your lies I am raving half the time.

No, read what I wrote. If I thought I could say anything that would get you to look at things rationally I would try.

You mean hire a hitman to save me the trouble of arguing with you and Dribble?