If energy security was the objective then nuclear, hydro and coal win out over oil or gas any day. It's generally the reverse with evironmentalists so I think we can say with reasonable confidence that it's not about energy security.Perhaps it is something as benign as energy security and self sufficiency, but I suspect more sinister motives, along with you.
I agree with your general thrust, but I must disagree with this statement. Normally the Labour party, though quaintly typical of the tax and spend mold, are fairly benign and good intentioned (and misguided).t
But don't forget UK labor is not the greens. Labour is not dangerous. Misguided yes, dangerous no.
Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/i...se_Inside_the_Global_Warming_Controversey.pdf
Could you clarify your question?“When the facts change, I change my mind? What do you do, sir?”
Until it hurts
SNIP:
After having studied this issue for a couple of years, I am convinced that this panic doesn’t have a solid ground and that it demonstrates an apparent disregard for the past experience of mankind. I know that its propagandists have been using all possible obstructions to avoid exposure to rational arguments and I know that the substance of their arguments is not science. It represents, on the contrary, an abuse of science by a non-liberal, extremely authoritarian, freedom and prosperity endangering ideology of environmentalism.
SNIP:
This shift seems to me dangerous. The new ambitions look more noble, more attractive and more appealing. They are also very shrewdly shifted towards the future and thus practically “immunized” from reality, from existing evidence, from available observations, and from standard testing of scientific hypotheses. That is the reason why they are loved by the politicians, the media and all their friends among public intellectuals. For the same reason I consider environmentalism to be the most effective and, therefore, the most dangerous vehicle for advocating large scale government intervention and unprecedented suppression of human freedom at this very moment.
SNIP:
I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians, who privately express similar views, are more or less publicly silent. We keep hearing one-sided propaganda regarding the greenhouse hypothesis, but we are not introduced to serious counter-arguments, both inside climatology, and in the field of social sciences.
I guess you will offer up some proof.It depended on what part of the world you lived in. At the time of the European middle ages most of the world's population believed the world was flat. Hence those who didn't believe were sceptics
So the skeptics public policy front funded by oil interests is presenting a "balanced read": And Lord Monckton is one of it's chief policy advisers.Here's a good balanced read on the AGW controversy.
This will add 20 years of additional data and do nothing more.But at least two more decades of satellite data are needed to establish long term climate trends.
Undoubtedly true, although it does not of itself mean that the principal relationships are not understood.Climate sensitivity is based on many complex interactions that are not fully understood.
D'Aleo and the IPCC have different views on causation.There is a high degree of correlation between these [ocean] oscillations and global temperature. According to climate specialist Joseph D’Aleo, this correlation has been known for years, but it is largely ignored by IPCC climate models.
.All climate scientists agree that the recent flattening and decline in global temperature over the last decade is due to natural variability.
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.
"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.
In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".
I guess you will offer up some proof.
The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.
So the skeptics public policy front funded by oil interests is presenting a "balanced read": And Lord Monckton is one of it's chief policy advisers.
The point of the article is to continuously sow the seeds of doubt, and quote selectively only from credentialled skeptics; hardly balanced!
Less controversial conclusions:
This will add 20 years of additional data and do nothing more.
Undoubtedly true, although it does not of itself mean that the principal relationships are not understood.
D'Aleo and the IPCC have different views on causation.
To be fair, the author makes several extremely valid points, like:
.
He omits that it's within the context of the hottest period of recorded temperature history, before going on to present further seeds of doubt.
I won't go on because it's already getting a bit too long. Suffice to say that the key issue missed by the skeptics is that the IPCC is proposing action now, based on the science. IPCC modelling takes us to 2100. Without any action, CO2 emissions in 2100 will be significantly greater and the probable impact on climate irreversible for the next century. It appears the skeptics learned nothing from the scientific debate over chlorofluorocarbons.
On the contrary-HAha, only because you don't like my opinion.
The assumption that underlies all of science is that everything in the material world is governed by scientific laws. Because even theories and laws are open to question when new evidence is found, hypotheses, theories and laws are continually re-examined. In fact, the key to scientific method is disprovability... Any theory that cannot, at least possibly, be disproved, is not scientific.
And furthermore Red Rob your belief that that somebody on the loony left could be a forward thinker is an oxymoron.
The last century threw up a lot of evil people claiming they were forward thinkers. Some who come to mind are Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong.
Their forward thinking involved the extermination of millions of their fellow citizens in a crazy attempt to rid themselves of all dissent.
Slim Pickings, who seems aware of what these people are like, has good cause to feel scared about your brand of forward thinking.
Your arguments are getting more and more pathetic.So you agree with the bits that fit your hypothesis?
Great science there mate. LOL
The Czech President has it sussed and has the balls to say it, controversy sorted as far as I'm concerned. The fight now has been exposed as a political one (always has been).
Yeh, and history will probably add, Greenspan, Cheney and the gopher Bush to that list as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?