This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new

Wow, 87% of US citizens think the IPCC is no good.
Then again 30% of US citizens think Obama is a Muslim and I think its near 50% that they never landed on the moon.
I wish Benjamin Franklin was still around but then he would be classifird as a scientific elitist in today's environment.
 
Knobby22 said:
Wow, 87% of US citizens think the IPCC is no good.
Then again 30% of US citizens think Obama is a Muslim and I think its near 50% that they never landed on the moon.
Click to expand...

Knobby,

A bit of disingenuous interpretation there.

To clarify: 83.5% of readers of Scientific American and/or scientific blogs involved in the AGW debate which pointed to the survey believe that the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda".

Of the 30% who believe Obama is a Muslim etc, I have trouble believing any but a slim minority would be readers of Scientific American etc.
 
It is one thing to say that there is corruption in the global warming debate but is that a good reason to say that there is no global warming happening. There is a lot at stake here and an obsene amount of money involved so there is bound to be corruption. Because there is corrupt operators is that a good reason to deney that there is a problem.

Face the facts. If there is we are in deep whatsit if we dont act. If there isnt and we do act then what do we have to lose. Maybe a little money. but ,hell that is made round to go round anyway. Even the flat stuff that you can stack can only be stacked so high.

So on one hand we can lose everything and on the other we lose a little cash. The answer is a nobrainer to me.

Then again there is no doubt whatsoever that we are polluting our planet. We are fouling our own nest. If we stop that then we correct both problems.
We can act or we can pay others to act for us. Maybe a carbon tax is the answer. We can act ( I have solar power, solar hot water and today I planted over 100 plants, dug in 2 tonne of mulch. that cost time and money)
or we can pay via a carbon tax.)

Anyone that doesn't agree is in my mind either mean, lazy or lives in fairy land. OR both.

That still resists Climate Hysteria but accepts Climate facts.
 
What we stand to "lose" is the entire non-CO2 environmental effects of alternative energy sources.

Prior to the emergence of the CO2 issue, environmentalists focused their opposition to energy development towards hydro and nuclear. There's a reason for that - if you exclude CO2 then nuclear has basically nothing going for it. An environmental and security hazard that costs a fortune. And I won't deny that hydro also has a pretty big impact on the landscape, though at least it shouldn't melt down.

For those who say otherwise in regards to nuclear, I will point to the aviation industry. I very much doubt that anyone believes that there will never, ever be a fatality resulting from an air crash in Australia, or involving an Australian airline. And of course crashes internationally are fairly common. It will happen, the only question is when (hopefully it never happens, but I'm being realistic here...).

Now translate that to nuclear power. The worst may well only happen once in 1000 years, but that it will happen at some point is near certain. And when it does happen, well then we've got a disaster on a rather massive scale. It might not happen very often, but it only needs to happen once...

Yes, nuclear power plants have all sorts of safety systems and are designed so as not to blow up. And modern airliners are designed so as to be virtually impossible to crash. But it happens.

And then there's the negative effects of wind, hydro, geothermal, wood etc.

And then there's wars for oil (and potentially gas) etc too. At least coal is a peaceful energy source that is reliable and plentiful. If you take out the CO2 issue, coal doesn't look too bad compared to the alternatives. At the very least, we're not likely to start fighting over the stuff and it's not a terrorism threat.

ALL power pollutes. If we cut CO2 then we will increase some other form of pollution instead, possibly with serious consequences. We'd better get this one right.

All that said, I totally agree that there are things more important than money. Agree 100% there.
 
wayneL said:
To clarify: 83.5% of readers of Scientific American and/or scientific blogs involved in the AGW debate which pointed to the survey believe that the IPCC is "a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda"
Click to expand...
I not sure how you can say that with a straight face wayneL. Seriously, I thought you of all people would be cognisant of the unscientific nature and ease of manipulation of online polls. The poll was gamed by the anti-AGW crowd and is now being touted by the same crowd as being evidence in support of their position.

Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
Take the Scientific American poll on Judith Currry
 

Sure!

I'm cognizant of the unscientific nature and ease of manipulation of all sorts of data. Apparently, so are many others.

But gamed?

1/ There was no imploration from Watts to vote a certain way.

2/ Your very own Joe Romm brought it to the blogosphere. http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/20/scientific-americans-shell-energy-poll/

3/ It was Joe Romm who explicitly encouraged his readers to "game" the survey http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/26/scientific-american-jumps-the-shark-online-polls-judith-curry/ with his opening comment - "Please click here and freep this poll..."

It seems the only overt attempt to game the poll was from the warmists.

While I have no doubt the survey is not truly representative, it still says what I say is says about the PR war.
 
wayneL said:
1/ There was no imploration from Watts to vote a certain way.
Click to expand...
He doesn't have to. He knows the bent of his followers. Merely saying 'Take this Poll' is all that is required.

It all comes down to traffic. It's a numbers game and WUWT is a much more popular site. The traffic to the Poll generated by climateprogress would have been swamped by that from WUWT.

If you look at the traffic (see below), last month WUWT received 0.00029% of global page views. Climateprogress received 0.00005% of global page views. WUWT gets almost 6 times or 600% the views of climateprogress. When you look at the page views per user WUWT has still 340% more users visiting the site.

The poll is compromised to the point that it is meaningless.
 

Attachments

  • c.prog_graph.jpg
    35.5 KB · Views: 96
  • wuwt_graph.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 93


Some obvious questions:
  • You seem to be deliberately mixing the pollution argument with the AGW argument – why?
  • You seem to imply a carbon tax will have an impact – what is the impact to you and me – financially?
  • How long will I need to pay a “little money”?
  • Your assertion of a “little money” lacks context – for example in the US alone, $80B has been spent on the AGW PR and pseudo-science engines since the 80's. We've already paid dearly to prop up this scam.
  • How much will this “little money” actually “cool” the earth in degrees Celsius and how long will it take?
  • You also seem to imply it's ok that there is "some" corruption in the AGW “science” and we should still act - why is it ok for corrupt operators to advise on policy, and do you see the IPCC as a corrupt operator? If not, why not?

To me, your statements lack clarity and hand-wave away dissenting voices to the AGW agenda, many of which are asking legitimate questions of the AGW science, policies and objectives. Corruption IS a major issue in AGW science and it's not going away any time soon until a thorough investigation has been undertaken.

In 1975, had we followed your logic above, we would have put in place policies and taxes to prevent the world from cooling - only to realise a major mistake had been made 20 yrs later. Do you think I would recieve a refund on my "taxes"?
 

Attachments

  • newsweek_coolingworld.pdf
    293.9 KB · Views: 47
OzWaveGuy said:
Some obvious questions:
  • You seem to be deliberately mixing the pollution argument with the AGW argument – why?
Click to expand...


  • Because the real problem IS pollution. The Anti global warming brigade use the no global warming excuse to stop doing anything to reduce pollution because it may hurt their hip pocket. The jury is still out on global warming as I see it but the verdict on pollution is there awaiting a response from fair minded people that do give a damn about the future.
 
Putting the science aside can somebody explain to me how investing in carbon derivitives will safe the earth?

This is the root of this whole climate change and green movement. I can't believe anybody who is sane thinks the purpose of this is to clean the planet haha why would anybody want to clean the planet? unless of course you create the illusion of doing so and in the process make lots of money.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXRBOxU5KT5M

"Banks Moving In

Banks intend to become the intermediaries in this fledgling market. Although U.S. carbon legislation may not pass for a year or more, Wall Street has already spent hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lobbyists and making deals with companies that can supply them with “carbon offsets” to sell to clients.

JPMorgan, for instance, purchased ClimateCare in early 2008 for an undisclosed sum. This month, it paid $210 million for Eco-Securities Group Plc, the biggest developer of projects used to generate credits offsetting government-regulated carbon emissions. Financial institutions have also been investing in alternative energy, such as wind and solar power, and lending to clean-technology entrepreneurs.

The banks are preparing to do with carbon what they’ve done before: design and market derivatives contracts that will help client companies hedge their price risk over the long term. They’re also ready to sell carbon-related financial products to outside investors. "
 

Yes the problem is pollution, agreed.

But it is a separate argument and yes you are confusing the two arguments.

And this is my beef with the AGWists. By focusing BS disaster scenarios around co2, it has utterly devalued concerns on general pollution.

There is nothing fair minded about the political and financial aims of the warmist cabal. That is why fair minded people are rejecting it. Yes it is to do with the hip pocket because that is what the warmist cabal are aiming for - to fleece the plebeians for zero net environmental gain.

Fair minded people reject the warmist political agenda and are concerned about pollution as they do recognise them as separate arguments.
 

Another non-answer. It's a typical response from alarmists - save the planet by reducing "pollution". Yes, I get it and we all want a cleaner and healthier environment and since the 70's air pollution has been reduced substantially (check the US EPA and other sites on air quality as one example), yet you continue to dodge the key questions posed on the science, the corruption, the policies and the impact of those policies. In other words: "You don't know" or "You don't care"

Did you read the Newsweek article? If we were faced with "global cooling" today instead of AGW - would you have agreed to "melting the ice cap by covering it with soot" as proposed back in the 70's to avoid an ice age?

The same games are being played out once again, and even though there's more scrutiny today because of the internet - the AGW followers cannot (or will never) bring themselves to admit they have been duped by Al Gore, a broken hockey stick, a corrupt IPCC, and imo a very successful AGW PR campaign that has been running for over 20 years.

Hence the reason we have forums like this to point out to those that have been easily misled what the real "game" is about.
 
That is precisely the problem I have with the whole ETS concept. It may well reduce CO2 emissions, but that is absolutely a sideline to its primary outcome of establishing yet another market on which to trade and speculate. For every Dollar spent, very little of it will end up actually reducing emissions.

In contrast to that, we could just go ahead and build a predominantly renewable power system without the need for middlemen skimming off most of the money. Far cheaper and it actually fixes the CO2 issue.

If my car breaks down tomorrow then I'll get it towed to a mechanic who can fix it. There's no point paying an army of middlemen to argue about what the mechanic should be paid and what might be wrong with the car. Just fixing the thing will be a lot cheaper and a lot quicker. Same with any problem.

If your household hot water bills are too high then do you employ an accountant to set up a shower trading system amongst family members? A system which can only work through either forcing the purchase of a more economical hot water system or by rationing consumption to some level below what would otherwise be preferred? Or do you just get a solar water heater and fix the problem simply and relatively cheaply? I think most would choose the latter and there's a reason for that. Trading the problem is not fixing it, all it does is waste money on middlemen.

Trading and markets certainly have a place. But the concept that bankers are the best people to fix an engineering and ecological problem worries me greatly. Keep the bankers well away at least until they can get their core business, the financial system, running sustainably (noting that failure on this point is the root cause of the CO2 issue in the first place - attempting constant growth on a finite planet).
 

Bankers are the last people we need to get involved but I still see the need to hit the hip pocket nerve. I have just received a subsidy for both my solar hot water and my solar power. By installing these at considerable cost (after subsidies) I paid a price for reducing my carbon footprint. The subsidy I received had to come from taxation. I believe that it should come from a charge levied on those that choose not to reduce their carbon footprint, via a carbon tax.
 
OzWaveGuy said:
[*]How much will this “little money” actually “cool” the earth in degrees Celsius and how long will it take?
Click to expand...
All good questions OzWave, but this one in particular is what I'd like you to answer, Nioka.
How do you know that putting a price on carbon is going to make any difference to anything, other than making the organisers of the derivatives related to such a price very rich, and ordinary householders (already suffering massive increases in electricity hikes) even poorer?

If there is some demonstrable proof that these costs will actually effect a clear change, you might like to provide it here.

To me, your statements lack clarity and hand-wave away dissenting voices to the AGW agenda, many of which are asking legitimate questions of the AGW science, policies and objectives.
Click to expand...
So true. It is as though the pro-AGW brigade have a monopoly on moral righteousness, imparting to them the apparent obligation to condescendingly dismiss any reasonable dissent or questioning as coming from those too ignorant to have found the true religion.

So, again, how is putting a price on carbon going to reduce general pollution?
How will you measure the success of this?

Don't you need to have an identifiable and clear measure of 'pollution" in the first place?

What actually comes under the term 'pollution'?


Exactly right, nukz.
How the idealists/carbon zealots aren't seeing this is beyond me.


Well, that's nice for you, Nioka. You can obviously afford to instal these solar facilities. But maybe spare a thought for people on very low incomes, who simply have no choices in life, and who are presently having their electricity disconnected because they can't pay the bill with rising prices, and explain how they're going to feel good about carbon trading when they get a doubling or more of their electricity bill.

And that's just for starters. Everything will go up. Even those companies who are able to claim back their costs for paying for carbon credits (eg BHP) will still probably take the opportunity to gouge their customers with price rises, simply because they will be able to get away with it.

There is just a huge divide between the fuzzy wuzzy feel good environmental stuff, and the reality of people's lives.
 

Nioka, you shared the expense with tax payers for your installations. It was a price shared by taxpayers. Such is the nature of subsidies as you have said.

Direct action and the free market are the way to attack the alarmist's problem - not tax.
 
I might have already posted this.

What if we scrapped the NBN, and invested $43 billion into renewable energy.

The government then uses this revenue (because it would be profitable) to pay for an unprofitable NBN.

This would be in joint venture with current energy suppliers so that they would be duly compensated over a long time period.

This would decrease our reliance on oil, decrease our cost of power, reduce our emmissions (and give those of us who actually believe in dangerous AGW, a warm (pun intended) fuzzy feeling)

Problem is that the governments are determined to sell (or have sold) energy infrastructure as they are incompetent fools (as is also shown from the fact that they 1. selectively ignore good science, 2. represent us on the subject of science, and have not got a clue)

/end rant
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Direct action and the free market are the way to attack the alarmist's problem .
Click to expand...

If you have a close look at our so called "free market" system you will find that is loaded with more cost and inefficiencies than the so called inefficient bureacuacy. There are more snouts in the trough there than there are in Canberra. If you want to see free market in action scroll back a year or two to the GFC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
20K
ducati916
February 2025
2 3 4
Replies
64
Views
6K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
12K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...