Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[BornFromTheVoid]

But it's fine to label sceptics misleaders, talk about double standards!

 

We're all sceptics. Ye need some other name.

[Methuselah]

It would be very much appreciated, if folks could stick to their own threads... 

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-34#entry2815730

 

I'd say that what's rather more 'scary', is to appreciate just how in-cahoots are governments, energy corporations, corporate stooges and denier-blogs, when it comes to burying the science under a stinking pile of obfuscation...?

 

Talk of people who control the purse-strings.

 

That would explain why interest in the 'pause' (as something from which anything useful might be learned) has all but evaporated. Some interests are, it seems, far more prepared to point-out others' 'mistakes', than to put themselves in any position to make any themselves...As they say: He who makes no mistakes makes nothing at all! 

[knocker]

I don't recollect reading any paper on the southern jet but I did read this.

 

Climate tug of war disrupting Australian atmospheric circulation patterns

http://www.csiro.au/Portals/Media/Climate-tug-of-war-disrupting-Australian-atmospheric-circulation-patterns.aspx

[knocker]

Ho Ho.

 

Talking to contrarians. Why do you do it? Or why not?

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/10/talking-to-contrarians-why-do-you-do-it.html

Edited October 26, 2013 by knocker

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-34#entry2815866

 

I may have it wrong but in the NH warmth is to the south of the jet and in the SH to the N of the jet? So if the jet in the SH moves north that means cold air moving north not warm air moving south?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Bad climate science in US schools: an open letter to Heartland & NIPCC

[BornFromTheVoid]

Scotland to block fracking on environmental grounds

 

Paul Wheelhouse, the Scottish environment and climate change minister, has said there are “no environmental permissions which would allow hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in Scotland at this timeâ€.

 

http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/scotland-to-block-fracking-on-environmental-grounds/934082?#.Umzrmfmcdnh

[4wd]

 

"In the interests of tackling climate change and delivering climate justice we urgently need to be leaving fossil fuels, including shale gas, in the ground."

 

Wow, what can you say to that attitude.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Wow, what can you say to that attitude.

 

More sense than 99.9% of the posts and comments on WUWT.

[UV-RAY]

More sense than 99.9% of the posts and comments on WUWT.

So we now have a viable back up plan to fossil fuels..........Errrr!!

[BornFromTheVoid]

So we now have a viable back up plan to fossil fuels..........Errrr!!

 

Scotland is doing incredibly well with renewable energy and off-shore oil/gas. Best they don't go destroying their beautiful landscape and clean environment with fracking.

[Fergus Brown]

Wow, what can you say to that attitude.

 

I'm guessing that Scotland is not geologically suited to cost-effective fracking. It's easy for politicians to decide not to do something that probably won't be done anyway.

 

Could be wrong, haven't checked.

[UV-RAY]

Scotland is doing incredibly well with renewable energy and off-shore oil/gas. Best they don't go destroying their beautiful landscape and clean environment with fracking.

Come off it comparing Scotland's energy demands with England's is simply not realistic, until we see a viable and profitable alternative to fossil fuels then all romantic notions of green energy should stay in the realms of fantasy, until such a time the technology can provide us with the same living standards we have come to expect.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

Come off it comparing Scotland's energy demands with England's is simply not realistic, until we see a viable and profitable alternative to fossil fuels then all romantic notions of green energy should stay in the realms of fantasy, until such a time the technology can provide us with the same living standards we have come to expect.

 

What are you on about? I didn't mention England?

Scotland gets nearly 40% of it's electricity from renewables and their standard of living seems fine to me...

[UV-RAY]

What are you on about? I didn't mention England?

Scotland gets nearly 40% of it's electricity from renewables and their standard of living seems fine to me...

Meaning what works in a sparsely populated area is like comparing apples with oranges elsewhere. Like it or not our very existence is dependent on fossil fuels and until we find the right balance between a cleaner and infinite replacement then that dependency will continue.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Meaning what works in a sparsely populated area is like comparing apples with oranges elsewhere. Like it or not our very existence is dependent on fossil fuels and until we find the right balance between a cleaner and infinite replacement then that dependency will continue.

 

I didn't mention England or give any comparison with England, so why do you keep saying I did?

 

You made the comment that

notions of green energy should stay in the realms of fantasy, until such a time the technology can provide us with the same living standards we have come to expect.

Do you think Scotland has a poor standard of living because of their renewable energy use?

 

Do you really believe our very existence depends on fossil fuels?

[UV-RAY]

I didn't mention England or give any comparison with England, so why do you keep saying I did?

 

You made the comment that

notions of green energy should stay in the realms of fantasy, until such a time the technology can provide us with the same living standards we have come to expect.

Do you think Scotland has a poor standard of living because of their renewable energy use?

 

Do you really believe our very existence depends on fossil fuels?

I simply mentioned England as  Scotland's green policy wouldn't work here due to the  demand our far more numerous population would place on such a scheme. It's about being realistic and fossils fuels are still our only solution, that is unless we are willing to invest in nuclear but it appears that ship has long gone due to no investment over the last 20+ years.

Edited October 27, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

I simply mentioned England as  Scotland's green policy wouldn't work here due to the  demand our far more numerous population would place on such a scheme. It's about being realistic and fossils fuels are still our only solution, that is unless we are willing to invest in nuclear but it appears that ship has long gone due to no investment over the last 20+ years.

 

That articles was about Scotland. I never made any comparison with England, yet you said

Come off it comparing Scotland's energy demands with England's is simply not realistic

even though I never made any comparison with England or claimed that Scotlands energy policy would work for England. 

 

I agree, it would be much tougher for England to follow Scotlands energy path, which is why I never made the comparison. But for Scotland, the renewable are doing great and they already have off-shore oil and gas. They simply have no need for fracking!

[UV-RAY]

That articles was about Scotland. I never made any comparison with England, yet you said

Come off it comparing Scotland's energy demands with England's is simply not realistic

even though I never made any comparison with England or claimed that Scotlands energy policy would work for England. 

 

I agree, it would be much tougher for England to follow Scotlands energy path, which is why I never made the comparison. But for Scotland, the renewable are doing great and they already have off-shore oil and gas. They simply have no need for fracking!

Apologies then BFTV, maybe I should have read your post from beginning to end.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Apologies then BFTV, maybe I should have read your post from beginning to end.

 

No worries SI. These things tend to happen online!

[Gray-Wolf]

It would appear SI is turning into a doom-sayer before our very eyes??? No more humanity once fossil fuels are spent! Is it me or do you try and find viable alternatives for a commodity that you rely upon yet know is finite? Do you just try and wring out every last drop of the commodity or do you look ahead and try and break your , and societies, dependence on it?

 

I cannot remove myself from seeing such attitudes as being indicative of addictive behaviour. Do not think of tomorrow as long as today's fix has you where you 'need' to be. Mention removal of the 'fix' and all hell breaks lose!!!

 

We need face our fossil fuel methadone or face cold turkey ( and possibly death from withdrawal) or else SI's bleak world view is all we have to look forward to.

 

The fact that fossil fuel comes with other issues need not rear it's head here either. What we need face is the need for change.

[Gray-Wolf]

Oddly I do not find myself surprised at the lack of comment on the latest study concerning the Arctic and the last time temps were this high there? The other place resounds to the gleeful cries of 'recovery' but is this as a counter to this worrying paper or merely a reaction to the temporary global sea ice levels?

 

Am I right in feeling this is a mark of the differing levels of personal maturity across the divide? That we do not see this as an adversarial competition but as a deadly serious situation? That when we take issue to the postings of the misleaders it is because of erroneous claims and not merely a wish to say "does not!" at every turn?

Edited October 28, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Nice explainer on the Interglacial mosses on Baffin Island: And quite amusing.

 

Watts and commentators at WUWT are already attacking the paper with the accuracy and precision of a blind sniper using reindeer droppings for ammunition.

 

 

Anyway

 

More on Mosses (Miller et al 2013)

Since I discussed the presumed Eemian mosses being exposed on Baffin Island discovered by Miller et al (2013) and the clueless response from WUWT, I’ve seen that others are discussing this paper, including Steve McIntyre, Judith Curry, and Jim Bouldin.

 

[UV-RAY]

It would appear SI is turning into a doom-sayer before our very eyes??? No more humanity once fossil fuels are spent! Is it me or do you try and find viable alternatives for a commodity that you rely upon yet know is finite? Do you just try and wring out every last drop of the commodity or do you look ahead and try and break your , and societies, dependence on it?

 

I cannot remove myself from seeing such attitudes as being indicative of addictive behaviour. Do not think of tomorrow as long as today's fix has you where you 'need' to be. Mention removal of the 'fix' and all hell breaks lose!!!

 

We need face our fossil fuel methadone or face cold turkey ( and possibly death from withdrawal) or else SI's bleak world view is all we have to look forward to.

 

The fact that fossil fuel comes with other issues need not rear it's head here either. What we need face is the need for change.

I think you misunderstood my post GW as I'm saying our reliance on fossil fuels is in the here and now and until we have the technology in introducing a viable and profitable alternative then that reliance will remain.