Resisting Climate Hysteria

[trainspotter]

To your point...

Choices noco. Choices and information, or lack thereof.

India being poor, most of its people have more important thing to worry about than whether their minuscule use of electricity harm the planet.

We in the West, being richer and having more choices and options, could - if we want to.

That and Indians may not have been told about Climate Change. I mean, the Canadian still sells them asbestos and Indian factories still have its workers handling the stuff like they're cotton. Then there's some of us who's fighting the commies and greenies for their conspiracies to drive us towards cleaner and non-depleting energy source.

So for the Greens and coal hater... they don't try to stop mining so people like those in India would die or pay more for their electricity... the greens does it so that CC won't kill the crops, the livestocks, the poor.

India is a pretty sunny place. Solar could play a big part in its energy mix. Might work out to be cheaper than coal since you don't need to transport the Sun all the way there.

You should try an update yourself ...

KOLKATA: Mercom Capital Group, a global clean energy communications and research firm estimates solar installations in India to total 5 GW in 2016.

Cumulative solar installations in India crossed the 7.5 GW mark in May 2016. About 2.2 GW new capacity has been installed so far this year and it is more than total solar capacity installed in 2015. India's solar project pipeline has now surpassed 22 GW with 13 GW under construction and 9 GW in the request for proposal process.

The government has shown a strong commitment to renewables and it's push towards solar is beginning to show results, at the end of FY2015-16, solar represented 2.5% of net installed power generation capacity in India, up from 1.4 % a year ago, and was the fastest growing new energy source in the country. Solar accounted for 17.4% of all renewable energy generation in FY2015-16 compared to 10.5 percent in FY2014-15.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

So what's the problem then?

Of the estimated $8 billion (Rs.54,400 crore) collected under the Clean Environment Cess to date, only about $3 billion (Rs.20,400 crore) is expected to be transferred to the National Clean Energy Fund (NCEF). The Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) is likely to be allocated only 23% of the total amount collected so far under the Clean Environment Cess. With late tariff payment problems and rooftop subsidy delays, creation of a 'reserve backstop fund' against non-payments or delayed payments by DISCOMs using NCEF funds could have an immediate positive impact, eliminating offtaker risk, reducing interest rates and increasing lending.

 

[trainspotter]

Well some do, but they're the one's that couldn't give a phooey about their carbon footprint!

Pigs and carbon crusaders travelling cattle class!? No way!!

Is Leonardo Di Caprio the Pig or the carbon crusader?

The problem is that DiCaprio himself is one of those “big polluters,” which diminishes his moral authority to lecture others on reducing their own carbon emissions. While DiCaprio has donated a lot of his time, money, and effort into raising awareness on the issue ”” as he did in his Oscar speech ”” he unnecessarily hands ammunition to his opponents with his own wasteful consumption. For years his critics have noted his extensive usage of private jets to travel around the globe for both business and pleasure. In 2014 he famously rented the world’s fifth largest yacht, owned by a UAE oil tycoon, to watch the World Cup in Brazil. In case you are wondering, neither the jets nor the yacht run on solar power.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...t-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#e6f8d0f68a27

 

[Ves]

Howdy cynic,

You're the resident master of the logical fallacies.

Is the above Tu quoque?

 

[luutzu]

Is Leonardo Di Caprio the Pig or the carbon crusader?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...t-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#e6f8d0f68a27

Must all greenies canoe to protest, walk to raise awareness, and live off the grid?

Not sure what is more hypocritical... people who uses energy, breathe air, want to live... yet at the same time thought it's perfectly fine to pollute the air and water; and if CC were to bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives... meeehhhh.

There's a saying, don't $hit where you eat.

Climate and weather, air and water tend to go round the earth.

 

[trainspotter]

Must all greenies canoe to protest, walk to raise awareness, and live off the grid?

Not sure what is more hypocritical... people who uses energy, breathe air, want to live... yet at the same time thought it's perfectly fine to pollute the air and water; and if CC were to bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives... meeehhhh.

There's a saying, don't $hit where you eat.

Climate and weather, air and water tend to go round the earth.

No .. but he could go cattle class instead of private jet luutzu

WHERE OH WHERE has ANYONE said it is OK to pollute the air and water? PROVE where CC has "bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives"

There's a saying ... 'A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.' ”” Frank Zappa

Now you are back to basics - Don't get weather confused with Climate Change luutzu :frown:

 

[cynic]

Howdy cynic,

You're the resident master of the logical fallacies.

Is the above Tu quoque?

More like the "loaded question" or "appeal to authority" fallacies. But, best not to accuse, lest one become encapsulated in a never ending spiral of "tu quoque", "fallacy fallacy" etc.

I don't think I can provide a link to the website without committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Oh no!! I think I just committed the "special pleading" fallacy! Will it never end? Uh oh!! That was the "loaded question" fallacy and in pointing it out now there is yet another instance of the "tu quoque" fallacy!

 

[cynic]

Is Leonardo Di Caprio the Pig or the carbon crusader?



http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier...t-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#e6f8d0f68a27

Good question!

I am having trouble figuring that out myself.

Perhaps he's the hybrid result of some gene splicing experiment, by relevant scientists, in their efforts to bio engineer a master race of carbon crusaders! Just another scary example of what can happen when lunatics FTSE around with pigs!

 

[luutzu]

No .. but he could go cattle class instead of private jet luutzu

WHERE OH WHERE has ANYONE said it is OK to pollute the air and water? PROVE where CC has "bring extreme weather that kill and destroy people's lives"

There's a saying ... 'A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.' ”” Frank Zappa

Now you are back to basics - Don't get weather confused with Climate Change luutzu :frown:

DiCaprio is a very big star right? So maybe he thought about other people's safety - fans all rushing to one end of the plane - and go private jet instead.

I thought you guys are making a fuss about his "hypocrisy" about jetting around and crying over CC because the jet fuel ads to carbon footprint, it's an inefficient way to add carbon footprint.

No?

If that's NOT why Leo is hypocritical, than it must follow that those who deny CC does not care about pollution and carbon footprint.

So if jet fumes doesn't add to CC, it then mean Leo is not hypocritical for jetting around.

So why is he hypocritical? Because he's rich and he cares?

----

97% of scientific studies on CC agrees that CC is most likely to be caused by human activity - namely the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel. That is, burning of fossil fuel greatly contributes to CC.

When a person doesn't believe in CC, doesn't it mean they think that the use of fossil fuel and all the pollution are fine? Why wouldn't it be fine when it has no effect on anything? I mean, burn coal and oil doesn't do a dam thing since mother nature will just clean it up anyway.

Or are we saying fossil fuel is just as clean as Solar or Wind?

----

What is Climate if not the Weather?

Why is the onus of proof on those who believe in CC?

Research and specialist scientists, all 97% of their studies, have shown a very strong correlation between human activities (fossil fuel) and CC.

Part of what defines CC is the extreme weather. Extreme weather kills people and destroy their livelihood.

Take a farm... if the rain doesn't come in time and the drought is prolonged, the soil will dry up, crops that's been nurtured will likely die, the farmer may go bankrupt.

If the rain then comes back and floods that farmland again, well it just doesn't make up for the losses, it contributes and further destroy whatever is left.

So extreme and unpredictable weather doesn't matter?

It matter a great deal to those affected by it.

---

Anyway, it's not up to believers to prove anything. It's up to deniers to prove CC doesn't exist.

Why?

Moral obligation.

We know CC kills and costs people and countries a lot of dole. Those who think the consensus of a likely cause is all bs better come up with a good reason. And saying the weather changes all the time just doesn't do it. Not when the trend itself is also undeniable. i.e. 15 of the last 16 years have been the hottest on record.

 

[cynic]

DiCaprio is a very big star right? So maybe he thought about other people's safety - fans all rushing to one end of the plane - and go private jet instead.

I thought you guys are making a fuss about his "hypocrisy" about jetting around and crying over CC because the jet fuel ads to carbon footprint, it's an inefficient way to add carbon footprint.

No?

If that's NOT why Leo is hypocritical, than it must follow that those who deny CC does not care about pollution and carbon footprint.

So if jet fumes doesn't add to CC, it then mean Leo is not hypocritical for jetting around.

So why is he hypocritical? Because he's rich and he cares?

----

97% of scientific studies on CC agrees that CC is most likely to be caused by human activity - namely the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases from the burning of fossil fuel. That is, burning of fossil fuel greatly contributes to CC.

When a person doesn't believe in CC, doesn't it mean they think that the use of fossil fuel and all the pollution are fine? Why wouldn't it be fine when it has no effect on anything? I mean, burn coal and oil doesn't do a dam thing since mother nature will just clean it up anyway.

Or are we saying fossil fuel is just as clean as Solar or Wind?

----

What is Climate if not the Weather?

Why is the onus of proof on those who believe in CC?

Research and specialist scientists, all 97% of their studies, have shown a very strong correlation between human activities (fossil fuel) and CC.

Part of what defines CC is the extreme weather. Extreme weather kills people and destroy their livelihood.

Take a farm... if the rain doesn't come in time and the drought is prolonged, the soil will dry up, crops that's been nurtured will likely die, the farmer may go bankrupt.

If the rain then comes back and floods that farmland again, well it just doesn't make up for the losses, it contributes and further destroy whatever is left.

So extreme and unpredictable weather doesn't matter?

It matter a great deal to those affected by it.

---

Anyway, it's not up to believers to prove anything. It's up to deniers to prove CC doesn't exist.

Why?

Moral obligation.

We know CC kills and costs people and countries a lot of dole. Those who think the consensus of a likely cause is all bs better come up with a good reason. And saying the weather changes all the time just doesn't do it. Not when the trend itself is also undeniable. i.e. 15 of the last 16 years have been the hottest on record.

It sounds like you have found your personal religion.


Those calling for action have the ultimate responsibility for proving their case!

How about you prove that the fallen angel, Lucifer, doesn't exist and that all climatologists aren't damned to an eternity of torment when their souls burn in a lake of sulphur!

 

[Ves]

More like the "loaded question" or "appeal to authority" fallacies. But, best not to accuse, lest one become encapsulated in a never ending spiral of "tu quoque", "fallacy fallacy" etc.

I don't think I can provide a link to the website without committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Oh no!! I think I just committed the "special pleading" fallacy! Will it never end? Uh oh!! That was the "loaded question" fallacy and in pointing it out now there is yet another instance of the "tu quoque" fallacy!

At least you call yourself out on these fallacies!! Many don't do themselves this service!

 

[luutzu]

It sounds like you have found your personal religion.


Those calling for action have the ultimate responsibility for proving their case!

How about you prove that the fallen angel, Lucifer, doesn't exist and that all climatologists aren't damned to an eternity of torment when their souls burn in a lake of sulphur!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but science aren't supposed to "prove" anything. Science is about proposing a hypothesis with various independent and dependent factors, then test to see the probability that the effect of one factor on another is random or likely or how unlikely to be random or by chance.

With the vast majority of scientific studies on climate and its effects concluding that chances are very very likely that human activity causes CC. When 97% of scientific studies tell you their studies have point to a correlation, you might want to stop being a smart azz and take the expert's advice.

But say we're skeptical; we don't buy climate science from climate scientists just as we don't buy medicine from medical scientists... what is our alternative explanation for the notable extremes and frequencies of quite damaging weather phenomenon?

We can't seriously say... well it's the weather, it's the climate, and climate change and happen all the time.

Well, frickin specialists are saying these weather aren't "normal", that chances are human activity play a big massive part in it. And they backed that up with their scientific studies! What are the deniers backing theirs with? Gut feelings?

----

Lucifer doesn't exist because the God in the Bible/Koran/Tora doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist because all the stuff in it are about and known only by people within the region (before imperialism spread it further). If a God who created the Earth, the stars and the universe were to exist, He would at least tell it to a bigger audience than just the few ME tribes.

Done.

 

[luutzu]

More like the "loaded question" or "appeal to authority" fallacies. But, best not to accuse, lest one become encapsulated in a never ending spiral of "tu quoque", "fallacy fallacy" etc.

I don't think I can provide a link to the website without committing the "appeal to authority" fallacy, so you'll just have to take my word for it! Oh no!! I think I just committed the "special pleading" fallacy! Will it never end? Uh oh!! That was the "loaded question" fallacy and in pointing it out now there is yet another instance of the "tu quoque" fallacy!

what you call "fallacy" most would consider research and literature review.

Do you take medicine a doctor prescribed or just from anyone? Or you have to study and develop the drug yourself to believe in its efficacy?

 

[cynic]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but science aren't supposed to "prove" anything. Science is about proposing a hypothesis with various independent and dependent factors, then test to see the probability that the effect of one factor on another is random or likely or how unlikely to be random or by chance.

With the vast majority of scientific studies on climate and its effects concluding that chances are very very likely that human activity causes CC. When 97% of scientific studies tell you their studies have point to a correlation, you might want to stop being a smart azz and take the expert's advice.

But say we're skeptical; we don't buy climate science from climate scientists just as we don't buy medicine from medical scientists... what is our alternative explanation for the notable extremes and frequencies of quite damaging weather phenomenon?

We can't seriously say... well it's the weather, it's the climate, and climate change and happen all the time.

Well, frickin specialists are saying these weather aren't "normal", that chances are human activity play a big massive part in it. And they backed that up with their scientific studies! What are the deniers backing theirs with? Gut feelings?

----

Lucifer doesn't exist because the God in the Bible/Koran/Tora doesn't exist.

God doesn't exist because all the stuff in it are about and known only by people within the region (before imperialism spread it further). If a God who created the Earth, the stars and the universe were to exist, He would at least tell it to a bigger audience than just the few ME tribes.

Done.

Relevant specialists are saying that the fallen angel Lucifer exists! How is this different to your cc argument?


One of Lucifer's greatest powers is in convincing people that he doesn't exist! The fact that people disbelieve in his existence is evidence of him weilding this power! Prove it isn't so!

 

[luutzu]

Relevant specialists are saying that the fallen angel Lucifer exists! How is this different to your cc argument?


One of Lucifers greatest powers is in convincing people that he doesn't exist! The fact that people disbelieve in his existence is evidence of him weilding this power! Prove it isn't so!

Are you now comparing scientists to priest and religious leaders? They went to the same schools, follow the same scientific methods and principles?

Doesn't the fact that I, and most others, believe climate scientist and their findings yet does not believe the 100% of priests and other religious leaders and practitioners - that'll be around 90% of people on earth... .Doesn't the fact that we don't believe what most people believe, what all religious "expert" believe... prove that we don't just take authority at face value?

Anyway...

 

[cynic]

Are you now comparing scientists to priest and religious leaders? They went to the same schools, follow the same scientific methods and principles?

Doesn't the fact that I, and most others, believe climate scientist and their findings yet does not believe the 100% of priests and other religious leaders and practitioners - that'll be around 90% of people on earth... .Doesn't the fact that we don't believe what most people believe, what all religious "expert" believe... prove that we don't just take authority at face value?

Anyway...

I used to think that too, until one day I met the climate brigade!

 

[luutzu]

I used to think that too, until one day I met the climate brigade!

Yes, Climate Scientists are like the high Priesthood serving Power and themselves with all these "beliefs".

We all know the real money is not working for the fossil energy giants, it's at university and research labs that's well funded by the government.

 

[cynic]

Yes, Climate Scientists are like the high Priesthood serving Power and themselves with all these "beliefs".

We all know the real money is not working for the fossil energy giants, it's at university and research labs that's well funded by the government.

Ahhh! So you do recognise that the whole thing is indeed very much a powerplay!

Guess who loses power when their role within society is unreasonably demonised by the Carbon Cardinals?

And guess who's ready to pick up the reins when an emotive (and scientifically illiterate) lynch mob succeed in toppling the incumbent?

What particular species of political activist, unconcerned about the means used to achieve their fantasised ends, does this behaviour remind you of?

 

[luutzu]

Ahhh! So you do recognise that the whole thing is indeed very much a powerplay!

Guess who loses power when their role within society is unreasonably demonised by the Carbon Cardinals?

And guess who's ready to pick up the reins when an emotive (and scientifically illiterate) lynch mob succeed in toppling the incumbent?

What particular species of political activist, unconcerned about the means used to achieve their fantasised ends, does this behaviour remind you of?

I didn't say that. It was in response to you grouping climate scientists ("climate brigade") with religious zealots.

And my point was that if climate scientists care for power and money (powerplay as you say), then won't be saying the stuff they're saying. i.e. they won't be going up against the established corporate and political power that's feeding us "skepticism" against scientific findings on one hand; with the other gut funding and greenlight more "growth" and "jobs" to add fuel to the fire.

Ya, people go into climate science because it's popular, have plenty of money for research, and politicians and media takes them seriously.

Sometime people might just want to do good and have integrity and stuff.

 

[orr]

Ahhh! So you do recognise that the whole thing is indeed very much a powerplay!

Guess who loses power when their role within society is unreasonably demonised by the Carbon Cardinals?

And guess who's ready to pick up the reins when an emotive (and scientifically illiterate) lynch mob succeed in toppling the incumbent?

What particular species of political activist, unconcerned about the means used to achieve their fantasised ends, does this behaviour remind you of?

The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, good catholic boys. And about as enlightened as a few bods here ...

But that aside How do you reconcile the ' Unreasonably Demonised' when they hang themselves on their own petard of their own in house research?

I'll answer that for you with your own style of inquisitive metric.... You wont you can't and you don't.

 

[cynic]

I didn't say that. It was in response to you grouping climate scientists ("climate brigade") with religious zealots.

All climate activists are members of the climate brigade!

As is evidenced by the dearth of applied logic in their professed beliefs, precious few are scientifically literate.

A few claim to be scientists and climatologists and yet somehow manage to behave more like apacolyptic fantasists than would be seemly for true practitioners of science.

Just to clarify, anyone voicing support for reform, conversion and/or prosecution of heretics (a.k.a deniers) is most assuredly a member of the climate brigade!

And my point was that if climate scientists care for power and money (powerplay as you say), then won't be saying the stuff they're saying. i.e. they won't be going up against the established corporate and political power that's feeding us "skepticism" against scientific findings on one hand; with the other gut funding and greenlight more "growth" and "jobs" to add fuel to the fire.

Ya, people go into climate science because it's popular, have plenty of money for research, and politicians and media takes them seriously.

Sometime people might just want to do good and have integrity and stuff.

Scepticism isn't limited to the questioning of others beliefs and agendas! It can also be used to question your own!


By the way, have you found a way to disprove the existence of Lucifer?