Sunday
Mar162014
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Danny Alexander struggles to tell the truth
Mar 16, 2014 Climate: Parliament
A few days ago I quoted Nigel Lawson's stated views on whether carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, increasing concentrations of which may be expected to have (other things being equal) a warming effect, scientists disagree about how large that effect may be.
I don’t deny for a moment that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but there are so many other factors that affect climate.
Today we have the Chief Secretary to the Treasury opining on Lawson's views:
With [Lawson,] one of the leading exponents of this theory also a noted denier of climate change, it is perhaps no surprise that a cool analysis of the facts and figures clearly shows that they are completely missing the point.
Reader Comments (76)
Keep it up Bish.
Adult education at its best - and all for free.
The renewables' industry is part of property interests, run by the Mafia. The UK Green movement originates from the Soil Association, set up in 1946 by people who, pre-WWII had been propagandists for Mosely. In the 1990s, they entered the Lib Dems. Alexander is tainted by that connection. Some of his Party's views are near fascistic, including a hatred of meritocracy. Don't trust them. The renewables' industry backs them.
Most modern politicians lie through their teeth, it has become second nature to them. They suffer no consequences if found out but the immediate soundbite travels the globe as "the message". In my experience Liberal Democrats who tend to be neither LIberal or democratic are amongst the worst offenders. They have spent so many years in opposition giving voters contradictory messages that lies are now inspearable from the truth.
Post Modernism rules OK!
What do you expect from the LibDems? The truth? They do not know what that is!
I was just going to state that lying comes naturally to LibDems, but it appears I don't need to say it.
It is genuinely disturbing how many senior members of all political parties are unable to understand how deliberately offensive the term denier of climate/climate change denier is. It is patently obvious that they are being pap fed the term by conniving civil servants and regurgitating it with no idea of that its purpose is nakedly political and that it has f*** all to do with any scientific reality.
There is only one sense in which Lord Lawson might be missing the point and that is the simple fact that whether or not CO2 is a so-called "greenhouse gas", there is not even the slightest evidence that it has ever had any remotely measurable effect on climate in the real world in the past or present or will do in the future.
You might put it down to group 'think' but for the obvious absence of any cognitive capacity
Spartacusisfree
Environmentalism was closely linked to fascism from its very birth as the article below explains. Hardly surprising then if they continue in the same vein today.
Fascist Ecology:
The "Green Wing" of the
Nazi Party and its
Historical Antecedents
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPol/EcofascismGerman.pdf
Careful, mustn't lower the tone, what with Walport being an occasional reader. Or do I mean his optimism is an occasional reader ... hard to say, me not being fluent in careerist drivel.
This looks the sort of circular logic that suggests Alexander hasn't a clue.
Presumably the chain of reasoning is that Lawson is a denier therefore he doesn't believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that it warms the earth but since he says he does believe that CO2 is a greenhouse gas what he says can't make sense because he is a denier.
Talk about disappearing up his own backside!
Martin Reed
This article is another take on the origins of the Green movement and the links to Nazism.
They can't handle the truth!
Alexander can't rock the boat and has to spout the party line. Who knows if he actually believes what he says.
Again, a politician states something which is easily proven to be incorrect and yet the MSM turns a blind eye.
Today I came across this attempt to re-write the truth: Cost of carbon is at a minimum $37
Naturally, it relies on CAGW estimates of 6 K temperature rises, omits to acknowledge AR5, instead preferring AR4, and attributes maximum catastrophe to all manner of different events that it blames solely on CAGW. This was being pushed by an ex Goldman Sachs employee, now a Reuters journalist/blogger - doubtless trying to maintain the banking interest in carbon markets - in this story.
I messed up the Reuters story link above:
This should work.
DM @ 2:26
"Who knows if he actually believes what he says."
He's a politician - he doesn't even believe what he says he believes
greenhouse owners around the world pump up the co2 levels to 1000+ppm .
if co2 caused any significant warming somebody would have have done the tests on a similar structure, one with , one without and monitored them over a year or so.
but since this has not been done let's leave it at the following from Harvard,
http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html
extract
Another important point from the above discussion is that all greenhouse gases are not equally efficient at trapping terrestrial radiation. Consider a greenhouse gas absorbing at 11 mm, in the atmospheric window ( Figure 7-8 ). Injecting such a gas into the atmosphere would decrease the radiation emitted to space at 11 mm (since this radiation would now be emitted by the cold atmosphere rather than by the warm surface). In order to maintain a constant terrestrial blackbody emission integrated over all wavelengths, it would be necessary to increase the emission flux in other regions of the spectrum and thus warm the Earth. Contrast this situation to a greenhouse gas absorbing solely at 15 mm, in the CO2 absorption band ( Figure 7-8 ). At that wavelength the atmospheric column is already opaque ( Figure 7-13 ), and injecting an additional atmospheric absorber has no significant greenhouse effect.
The time has come to make 'lying in public office' a criminal offence, with a minimum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
As many of you demonstrate all too frequently, you can be a denier while still acknowledging CO2 as a greenhouse gas. In fact it is probably better not to dismiss CO2, as that way you can, with an almost straight face, write fatuous articles like this one to gee up the sceptics.
Chandra
You've lost me. What point were you actually trying to make? Perhaps it would help if you gave us — in simple English, preferably — your definition of a denier.
@ Chandra.
Huh?
Yes Chandra, we know a 'denier' is anyone who does not accept without question the edicts of the Church of Green Flatulence. You are preaching to the converted. You are also using a term that marks you out as someone whose opinions are not relevant in civilised society. Henceforth you are dead to me.
As well as a definition of "denier", perhaps someone would also like to give definitions of the following terms:
"the science" as in "the science is settled"
"climate change"
No doubt some of the science is settled but not very much of it as far as I can see. So when people say "the science is settled", do they mean the whole of the science relating to CAGW or just a small part of it? Of course, the phrase is just weasel wording without clarification of the settled "science" in question.
Likewise the phrase "climate change".
It's time to start seriously challenging those who deliberately bandy these terms about in order to mislead the public at large (e.g. the BBC). The public just don't realise the extent they are being fed weasel wording as a means of exaggerating the message in such a way as to provide a defence to an accusation of lying if challenged.
Mike Jackson et al, you demonstrate my point for me. With the number of times the nature of denial has been discussed, for you to claim no knowledge from such discussions is in itself perfect denial. Well done!
But here's a little test. Answer this question with the obvious answer and there is hope that you may not after all be in denial:
- Would the relative economics of conventional and renewable power generation be influenced significantly if the costs of obtaining and using fossil fuels were also considered (including pollution, damage to health, environmental damage, wars, political suppression, corruption)?
It is always extremely difficult, if not impossible, to reason with someone whose world view is too narrow to allow them to comprehend the full range of arguments presented by both sides. As CO2 levels rise and temperatures don't some believe the case for AGW grows stronger. You really can't argue with that logic.
Chandra
I would hope that you remember me as not being out to score any points with you and from the discussion thread you know both my stance and relevant history with respect to this entire arena ("the climate debate").
May I please, without artifice, request of you that you provide me with what you personally define as a "denier"?
I would like to add that you make very fair points about the costs of the use of fossil fuels when one looks at wars, pollution, corruption and the like (I served in the first Gulf War so you do not need to waste time trying to convince me about those as you would be preaching to the converted) . I would be very happy to have a long discussion with you about these aspects of the use of fossil fuels but that isn't the question.
Please?
Andy
Chandra,
All those things apply to both fossil fuels and renewables,the only difference being that while fossil fuels have brought us a standard of living and comfort undreampt of by our forebears,renewables will bring us nothing that will improve our lives, they will only impoverish us.
Difficult to know where all this particular vitriol against the libdems comes from since they obviously lie much less than the other two parties and since almost all MPs voted for the ruinous climate change act which was created by the Labour party in order to steal some greenery from Camerons pledge to do it first.
So whence comes this idea that they are liars? Is it perhaps only from tuition fees where they promised if they won the election they would abolish them (and since they didn't win they couldn't) and were then dishonestly and hypocritically condemned for this both by by the party that introduced tuition fees in the first place and the party who made them much worse. Apart from that I doubt there are any lies at all can be laid at their door that don't also fit under the dunces caps of the other two. You might at least have noticed that Vince Cable was the only politician who saw this banking crisis coming but nobody heeded his warning,
I have little truck with Alexander since he was freely handing out half-truths and lies about the capabilities of an independent Scotland in front of the Scottish select commitee just the other week. However, on this occasion he was defending tax cuts for the poor versus Lawsons barmy plan for tax cuts for the rich. Lawson I remember presiding over the de-industrialisation of the UK in favour of the illusory benefits of the banking sector and just like then he is reliably wrong-headed on pretty much everything so I think it is probably fair that he is disbelieved on climate-related issues too. Hadley centre was created on his watch. He should have said something at the time and darn well apologize to the rest of us.
Wouldn't it be lovely though if we managed to keep this raw meat politics away from the science. As Alistair Cooke used to say, there is no such thing as ideological truth.
Isn't Chandra a denier of the reality of the pause? If the null hypothesis is correct and nature is still in control of temperature of the earth - which is what the pause is telling you - then none of these grandiose expenses due to manmade climate change are relevent.
Yes. Yes they would be significantly influenced. There is hope for me - just as Chandra said.
Now can we start some nice clean safe fracking, please.
JamesG
Don't let Chandra off the hook like that.
He drops in, posts some obscure remark which includes the description of posters here as deniers probably because he knows we object to the word and when asked to define his terms follows his usual practice of obfuscating and refusing to answer.
I suspect that 'denier' means whatever he happens to want it to mean and like a teenage boy sitting in front of his computer in his bedroom he will be hugging himself with glee at having put one over on the grown-ups. But there is no point in arguing or trying to discuss with someone who refuses to define his terms.
I join with jones and ask simply what is his definition of the word 'denier' in the context of climate discussions?
I could also ask how his post is in any way relevant to this thread but one thing at a time.
Chandra
"- Would the relative economics of conventional and renewable power generation be influenced significantly if the costs of obtaining and using fossil fuels were also considered (including pollution, damage to health, environmental damage, wars, political suppression, corruption)?"
Now that's a very, very interesting question. And the way it's posed suggests that you have thought this through with some degree of detail, research and experience and know what conclusion we should sensibly reach. So, if it's not too much trouble, what have you concluded and why? Here is an opportunity for you to enlighten us! I'm sure Andrew will grant you space. I will be particularly interested in your assessment of the negative consequences of green technologies - if you see any.
Many thanks, in anticipation.+
At what actual pressure and concentration does one ton of CO2 actually trap heat and exactly how many cubic meters is that.
More to the point how much heat does on ton of general fresh air actually trap CO2 Oxygen Nitrogen Water Vapour etc.
In industry CO2 is used as a coolent at high pressure so is the CO2 itself that traps the heat or is it the CO2 diluting the air that traps the heat.
Nigel Lawson conceding that CO2 is a green house gas is a tactical error rather like the warmist conceding 97 percent of Scientices etc conceed tiny pieces of ground to make both sides appear reasonable.
Rather call it Climate Science it's more like Climate Mechanics.
Jamspid
I assume you're actually questioning how much heat does air, mostly oxygen and nitrogen, create the greenhouse effect.
Well, according to the IPCC, ALMOST NOTHING AT ALL:
"The two most abundant gases in the atmosphere, nitrogen (comprising 78% of the dry atmosphere) and oxygen (comprising 21%), exert almost no greenhouse effect. "
http://uk.yhs4.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=ironsource&hsimp=yhs-fullyhosted_003&type=dsites0101&p=ipcc+greehouse+gases
The fact that all of the atmospheric gases follow (I hope) the gas laws seems to escape them. So then, the greenhouse gases are only those with the gimic of a touch of quantum mechanics and have energy traps? OK, what do they do? Well, they can trap quanta of energy! Great! But if they do that, they don't get hot (i.e. vibrate more) because all they've done is some boring trick like exciting a molecular bond into a different covalent state. But then they release the energy back into the atmsophere (as photons). But so what? All that's happened is that the original quanta of energy reemerges, and continues its escape/return to earth as before.
Or have I missed something?
Chandra
I kindly request some answer to the question of your definition of "denier" posed. Please?
You would gain a degree of respect by at least attempting to explain your position. If shown to be wrong in a manner that you would be prepared to accept then you will be the stronger for it. you do see that I hope. It may also be that I will shift from my position also. That is part of the nature of debate.
I realise that this may seem to be off-thread but to my own mind would seem to be central to the post.
You have not been placed in the "trolling" category. Not by me anyhow. I think I have used the word "strident" to describe you in the past but that is not a criticism especially where youthful enthusiasm for a subject matter is concerned.
Not everyone here is out to score cheap points against you.
I am interested because the phrase directly contradicts what I see of myself (anyway) but your position would seem to include me in such a category.
Please kindly respond as if there is no audience to this. Just talk to me Chandra, please. I am quite certain you do not feel threatened by me in any way.
Ta muchly
Andy
Hi Andy Jones, thanks for confirming what I said about fossil fuels. I think you are the first to do so, which says a lot about the posters here, don't you think?
Climate science denial is opposition to climate science (and action relating to AGW if one wants to broaden the definition) using dishonest arguments - motivated dishonesty, as I called it elsewhere. The key is that the arguments are or should be known to be false, or at least not the whole truth, by those using them. This is no different from much political argument, which often relies on half truths and even outright lies. And my "side" is not immune to lying - it is sadly part of the human condition.
An argument such as that from Roger Tolson below your post is not necessarily denial - he might just be ignorant. He may honestly think that the externalities associated with fossil fuels are comparable to those of renewables (yes, there are externalities there too). He may honestly think that wars have been fought, governments overthrown and societies corrupted to ensure supplies of windmill blades and PV fixtures. What would make him dishonest would be if once it had been explained to him that this was not so he continued to use the same argument. That would be denial.
JamesG, I enjoyed your defence of liberalism. Thanks. On a "pause", how do you define it and what is your best evidence for it? If the "pause" relies on starting measuring in 1998 and it disappears if the start is moved a few years either way, I'm not really interested.
Alan Reed
> Now can we start some nice clean safe
fracking, please.
Okay by me if the companies do the necessary audits beforehand, pay for all road repairs and get private insurance for any eventuality (spills, subsidence, contamination etc), conditions which should apply to all companies including those installing renewables.
Capell, see above. When there is a war to ensure supplies of components for solar panels I will change my mind.
Jamspid:
> In industry CO2 is used as a coolent at
high pressure
So what?
> Nigel Lawson conceding that CO2 is a green
house gas is a tactical error
No it is an admission of fact. It shows that he is not entirely devoid of commonsense or of an understanding of the subject. Anything less and he would be dismissed as an idiot way before he got to being denounced as a climate science denier.
The duty troll has all the skills of someone that just keeps shouting 'arse ' and then claims a great victory because people get feed up with this and walk away from them . Ignore
The fun part will be if Lawson gets to call Alexander out on his claims , bluster and BS will be much present but honesty very much missing .
Right Chandra.
Thank you very much indeed for that. Very fair and broadly relevant responses. I liked your answers to the comparative damage of "renewables" etc compared to fossil fuels. Some, in fact, genuinely made me chuckle...apologies if that wasn't the intent. Was still funny though. Very shortly following the scorched earth policy of (former best friend) Saddam I flew fairly near Kuwait....What a scene from hell....the burning went on for months....No need to convince me of the damage fossil fuels cause (CO2 production aside....but lets not fight just yet Chandra).
There are, however, significant environmental impacts from renewables but you do allude to just that in your comment.
I personally find very little indeed to fault your response to Alan. In fact, with this "off the cuff" reply, nothing at all! (I might try to find some fault later though...cos I'm like that once I've cogitated...Don't make me a bad man!).
Very much liked your correction of the commentator with respect to Nigel Lawson. He indeed would look silly if he denied that CO2 was a greenhouse gas...As anyone rightly would. I certainly don't deny that any more than you Chandra.
Yes, a large part of the geopolitical structure is predicated on control of energy with fossil fuel being prime among them. People die as a result of these machinations. I'm not taking a moral stance here by the way, I just acknowledge the fact. It does leave me open to the charge of being amoral but I'll take that on the chin.
To pull the focus, however, more sharply onto the "climate" debate our chat is about the premise that fossil fuels are going to roast the earth or whatever hyperbole comes conveniently to mind.?
I'm no climate scientist (like you, lets be completely honest please) but I no longer buy the narrative and that narrative leads to policy decisions (and others..ref Drax power plant comment below...) that lead to the most vulnerable having to make a decision as to whether go hungry or cold?. Many are dying accordingly. I have over a lengthy period of time gone from full on vocal "AGW is happening" to a stance not very far removed at all from that of Patrick Moore.
The current climate narrative is now, I believe, simply a mechanism to facilitate a power grab/taxation etc etc....don't want to go into the full fine print...Too tired right now and about to go to bed.........
Emissions targets/controls are only leading to energy intensive industries going elsewhere.
What I am beginning to learn about Drax and woodchip environmental damage is driving me to a stroke....So I'll stop that line of thinking immediately...
Don't get me started on biofuels....
You see Chandra, I also can go well off on one and almost derail myself let alone anyone else.
Look, time is going to tell as with all things and people like you and me are going to fly whatever banner suits our paradigm in the meantime....
It just means in ten years or so one of us is going to look rather sheepish.....
That's OK though.
Thanks Chandra, you stimulated my neurone (which might be stuck in a negative feedback loop...I don't care).
Some very good points though.
See yer.
Andy
Anyone who relies on calling skeptics 'deniers' is a self-admitted liar and deceiver, not to mention an intellectual coward.
As an addit Chandra and with respect to Tolson's comment I would have to agree that fossil fuels have certainly had a most profoundly beneficial effect especially since the advent of modern chemistry (whilst very clearly noting that there will always be a "downside") but lets not pull each others hair out over the pro's and cons...
However, the future is always in motion (to quote Yoda.......) and it would be brave to state "never" in any argument. Who knows what fundamental scientific breakthroughs might occur in the future in any field (1MW output per cm2 solar panels?....I dunno?....but what about night-time?...similar technological breakthroughs in batteries perhaps?). I just don't know and nor does anyone else frankly.
Now, because I'm a conciliatory fence-sitter by nature I am going to assume you meant he was "ignorant" in the pure dictionary sense of just not knowing rather than using the term pejoratively?
Anyhoo, Cheers an all that.
Andy
Andy, I'm with you in disliking woodchips. And I think nobody is disputing the benefits of fossils. And my use of 'ignorant' was not pejorative.
Beyond that, it is not really clear to me where your objection to climate science lies. What is it that makes you hang out here rather than, say, ATTP? Objecting to the science is differs entirely from objecting to the policy implications or actions that stem from the science (although they tend to be conflated, which is where a lot of the problems arise). Do you object to the science (and which parts) or to the resulting policy?
Chandra,
I might be ignorant,but I am aware of the environmental damage,health problems,criminality,political corruption and deaths caused by "renewables" The fact that these things happen in the palm oil plantations in Indonesia, the rare earth mines in China, the food price riots in North Africa or the Mafia running the wind farms in Southern Italy does not diminish them.
If you apply a cost/benefit analysis to " renewables" they are probably having more deleterious effect than fossil fuels ever will.
Yours in ignorance
Roger Tolson
You really are keeping me from my bed! Assuming you are in the UK time zone then I am also keeping you from yours but your sleep patterns are your affair!
The following is random and unstructured so apologies if some makes you go "huh"?. I am too tired to formulate a structured essay of my stance with a precise bibliography. I could if I didn't have other matters to attend to.
Oh Lordy, it is almost impossible to explain a deeper facets of ones philosophy in less than three thousand chapters. My background is aircraft engineering and biological sciences to masters and don't ever try to get me to explain my field in anything less than a year or two (may I kindly know what your background education/training is in?..Just tell me to mind my own business if you'd rather not...That honestly would be a fair enough response). There are far too many facets to ones knowledge base to clarify within the confines of fora such as this. If you like I am a relatively well educated and interested bystander but will never be more that that. The real fight is taken up by others.
But I do have a sense of whether a scientific stance is suspect or not...usually.
OK. I'll try. I have no problem with any branch of science as such but this particular one has been politicised and corrupted to a grotesque degree with levels of almost hate towards anyone who expresses any doubts that the prognostications are differing with observation. I have never seen any area of scientific debate where this has occurred before. Why the extreme polarisation of view with the vitriol?
Besides, I'll believe there's a crisis when those who tell me there's a crisis start acting like there's a crisis. Pachauri's two million first class air miles do not inspire confidence that HE believes what he is telling us to believe. Al Gore has the carbon footprint of a small city with no evidence of a curtailing of HIS lifestyle. I get peeved when the likes of Harrison Ford pontificate on how we must all reduce our carbon footprint when he owns multiple private aircraft and even waxed lyrical about how he likes to fly up the Californian coast to buy his favourite hamburger from a joint a couple of hundred kays away....James Cameron is another.....I will use the word hypocrisy. Now, this may very easily be thrown back as "the politics of envy"...not at all..I say good luck to their wealth but it does occur to me that if our lords and masters truly TRULY believed what they say then the internal combustion engine would have been banned a long time ago.
If the Maldives truly was sinking into the ocean then why are they building so many new airports? (eleven isn't it to absorb the expected increase in tourist traffic). That isn't consistent with their underwater stunt to draw attention to them being a special case for lots of taxpayer lolly in compensation (corruption here with the payments?..I dunno..just looks suspect to me.)
As has been mentioned many many times there is now a clear divergence between observed and modeled temperature trends. No, at this moment in time I do not have immediate access to the necessary papers demonstrating this as I am not, in any event, a climate scientist or even in a vaguely climate related field. I work full time and try to keep up as I go along.
Global ice coverage is not undergoing any kind of catastrophic decline.
Hurricanes have also markedly diverged from the modeled predictions.
Along with tornadoes.
There is bias within the MSM with any matter that might tend to contradict the narrative either being shouted down or not even reported on at all.
I want to know what the falsifiability criteria are for (now called) climate change which brings me to why the language changes in a manner to adopt the chnanging narrative requirements. First it was clearly "global warming" then "anthropogenic global warming" now " climate change" etc etc.
The 97% consensus paper is highly suspect at the very least with a marked selective use of the feedback data to produce the published outcomes (no Chandra, I'm not going into specifics for reasons I gave above....Just take too long at this time...I'm sure you can do that by yourself anyhoo..).
Are polar bears dying off? I've looked into that one and there really does not seem to be any danger at all to the population. This was a poster child for the global warming paradigm. Yet another prediction not reconciled by observation.
Look Chandra, I honestly no longer worry there is a problem with CO2 emissions and are bemused by the slanging matches I see around the issue.
I have the cynical view that it's all a politically useful scare issue...There will be others already formulated on the shelf just waiting to be dusted down when this particular one has run out of steam....But that is just the cynic in me talking...No evidence to back that up.
I am perfectly happy with the view that all this will play out in the next few years either way. If I'm wrong I'll gladly offer my profound apology and regret and would expect the same respect of the "other side".
Ah well, cheers for the talk Chandra old girl...doubtless see you around again.
Now go to bed....The ice caps will still be there tomorrow morning.....That was just a cheap joke not an attack of any kind...Please do see it as such.
Lets both agree to meet up somewhere in ten years time and then I'm sure we can both agree there will be a much greater clarity as to what's happening. There's no rush.
Goodnight.
Andy
P.S. In previewing my comment (in case I put rude words in by mistake in my fatigue stupor!) I notice Mr Tolson's last comment.......Very good points about the damage from renewables that hadn't occurred (to me)..I await other peoples work in exposing such practices with great interest.
Pros and cons with everything.
Chandra (Mar 16, 2014 at 9:35 PM):
What did you say about fossil fuels? Nothing that I can find on this thread, other than an implication that you do not like them (though have no qualms about using them or their associated products, such as your computer); please correct me.No-one on here is in any opposition to science; what many do contend is that there is any science in many of the claims being made about climate. To disagree in science is not necessarily to be in denial; disagreement is what science is all about, as it is often the only way that the facts can be determined. Perhaps you are convinced that the Nobel Prize-winning discoverer of graphene was in denial, as he bucked the trend of all his colleagues?
What on earth do you mean by “externalities”?
Roger Tolson made no claim about war of any kind, so that is just a straw man argument; he merely pointed out that the world we live in, with all its attendant luxuries (like long, healthy, comfortable lives) has been predicated by the use of fossil fuels. Bizarrely, NONE of the “renewables” would be possible without fossil fuels, either; and none of the “renewables” are actually, erm, renewable.
Naturally, I fully expect you to deny all this, much as you deny the “pause”, even though most of the climate authorities (NASA, NOAA, UKMO, even the IPCC) acknowledge it. Moving the origin of any measurement will change factors of the measurement; move your measurement of the landing of your home to halfway down the stairs, and you will be alarmed to find that the average measurement means that the upper floor is seriously sloped! I am sure that even you can see the ludicrousness in that argument.
Finally, should your dream of a solar world come true, there WILL be wars over PV panels. You do know that some important components are rare earth metals? A misleading nomenclature, true, as they are not that rare, but the sources are not widely scattered, and extraction is highly contentious, as it is incredibly polluting (not that you would mind, as it is in another country…). If PV panels and wind-farms (oh, another misleading name!) become our main source of power, there will be wars.
The fracking companies DO do the necessary audits beforehand (there is a clue in that phrase – necessary), as well as getting sure that they are insured – again, sound commercial sense. Though, why would the roads need repairing? Anyhoo… on the basis that all your parameters have been met, you can have no objection to fracking for gas.
Another fatuous round of wasted bandwidth by a reactionary troll:
Full of lies and deception as always, Chandra.
Fracking companies should pay no more than anyone else for their sue of the roads.
Your calling skeptics "ni**er" is a nice inflammatory way for you to feel less ignorant and more arrogant, but it sheds no light or shares any knowledge.
But you really have none to share, apparently.
You make up your definition of "ni**er" as you go, and lie by pretending that to disagree with your extremist poorly defined position on climate is to be "against science".
Sleep tight, slack jawed yokel.
Stop feeding the troll!
Mailman
On several occasions I have asked commenters on CiF to define the word "denier" after they have described me as such, and have also put the same question to article authors - typically where they have argued that "Deniers" should be refused airtime (or worse).
The answers that come back are typically of two types.
(a) You KNOW what a Denier is - the implication presumably being that I am being willfully disingenuous in posing the question.
(b) People who deny climate science.
Any probing on the latter definition (e.g. "Which aspects of climate science?") inevitably ends up with a reversion to answer (a).
Clearly, a number of people have special education on the subject, and believe that all of the rest of us went on the same courses. The only rational conclusion is that all sceptics really do know what a Denier is, but we just don't like to admit it. Lewis Carrol, meet Danny Alexander.
Thank you for the reply, Chandra, though I fear I'm pretty much with Paul_K. Simply saying "people who deny climate science" doesn't really get us any further forward, does it? I doubt there is anyone here who "denies climate science" so you would need to explain what you mean by that term.
On past form I shan't hold my breath but it would be nice to get a clear answer from you for a change.
What I am pleased to see is your admission, long overdue, that all forms of energy generation have what you call "externality" costs so perhaps we can move away at last from your implication that it is only fossil fuels that carry such costs. The reason why most people tend not to make a big thing about these costs (unlike you) is that they are factored into all energy supply and unless we are going to stop using energy then at the point of consumption these costs are not relevant since they exist as part of the overall costs.
Chandra,
I'm still waiting for you to provide your economic assessment of the economic assessment of the damage caused by using fossil fuels contratsed with the benefits
Pointing out the desirability of determing total system costs is, however, a step in the right direction. Would that this were applied to things such as windmills! Then we'd have to aggregate the costs of construction, maintenance, grid connection, transmission losses, reserve provision, frequency control, intermittancy mitigation, alternative firm capacity build . . .And that doesn't even start on whatever environmental impact they cause.
But if you follow these pages, which you seem to do, you'll have noticed that this is one of the few message pages where such measures have ever been mentioned or debated.