Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[convert]

Two new power plants for Yorkshire.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-15519272

 

Whilst 2 new power plants for the region is a step forward, I wish they'd have gone the nuclear route.

 

 

Having said that, if the shalegas comes on line soon enough, at least we won't have to pay a premium to run the new gas fired plant.

 

 

Mind you we could use the hot air coming out of the warmist / alarmist camps...although that does seem to have decreased somewhat.

[convert]

True, also this guys credentials can be called into question as it seems who ever backs his research gets the answer they want.

 

So are you calling Muller or Curry's credentials into question?

[truman]

And I'm sure there are no MPs with investments in alternative fuel energy suppliers...

.

 

Like Tim Yeo, a director of 3 renewable energy companies yet he sits on the energy and climate change select committee? No conflict there then..

[MrSmith]

I don't think that population and gas prices are directly linked.

Supply and demand are important. Supply has just taken a huge jump, demand will probably continue to grow in a linear way.

I know it's not inexhaustible, but it's not an immediate crisis.

Hmmm, it wouldn't be anything to do with the short term goal of winning votes would it?

And I'm sure there are no MPs with investments in alternative fuel energy suppliers...

A question people have been asking since governments have existed.

 

The higher the population the more power we need, developing countries are also using more power which will continue to increase, so population size and the cost of non renewable power must be linked.

How would increasing the cost of energy win them votes?

[MrSmith]

Whilst 2 new power plants for the region is a step forward, I wish they'd have gone the nuclear route.

 

 

Having said that, if the shalegas comes on line soon enough, at least we won't have to pay a premium to run the new gas fired plant.

 

 

Mind you we could use the hot air coming out of the warmist / alarmist camps...although that does seem to have decreased somewhat.

 

I agree nuclear would have been better but I wouldn't have a major problem if they were being built to replace coal power stations.

[convert]

A good article over @ Bishop Hill, reproducing the text from the Angus Millar lecture at RSA @ Edindburgh...

 

Source http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html

 

 

 

...So what’s the problem? The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.

 

I also think the climate debate is a massive distraction from much more urgent environmental problems like invasive species and overfishing.

 

I was not always such a “lukewarmer”. In the mid 2000s one image in particular played a big role in making me abandon my doubts about dangerous man-made climate change: the hockey stick*. It clearly showed that something unprecedented was happening. I can remember where I first saw it at a conference and how I thought: aha, now there at last is some really clear data showing that today’s temperatures are unprecedented in both magnitude and rate of change – and it has been published in Nature magazine.

 

Yet it has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montford’s careful and highly readable book The Hockey Stick Illusion*. Here is not the place to go into detail, but briefly the problem is both mathematical and empirical. The graph relies heavily on some flawed data – strip-bark tree rings from bristlecone pines -- and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other sample. When I say heavily – I mean 390 times.

 

This had a big impact on me. This was the moment somebody told me they had made the crop circle the night before....

 

 

...Like all the other errors in the IPCC report, including the infamous suggestion that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone by 2035 rather than 2350, this mistake exaggerates the potential warming. It is beyond coincidence that all these errors should be in the same direction. The source for the Himalayan glacier mistake was a non-peer reviewed WWF report and it occurred in a chapter, two of whose coordinating lead authors and a review editor were on WWF’s climate witness scientific advisory panel. Remember too that the glacier error was pointed out by reviewers, who were ignored, and that Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, dismissed the objectors as practitioners of “voodoo science”.

 

Journalists are fond of saying that the IPCC report is based solely on the peer-reviewed literature. Rajendra Pachauri himself made that claim in 2008, saying*:

 

“we carry out an assessment of climate change based on peer-reviewed literature, so everything that we look at and take into account in our assessments has to carry [the] credibility of peer-reviewed publications, we don't settle for anything less than that.”

 

That’s a voodoo claim. The glacier claim was not peer reviewed; nor was the alteration to the sensitivity function Lewis spotted. The journalist Donna Laframboise got volunteers all over the world to help her count the times the IPCC used non-peer reviewed literature. Her conclusion is that*: “Of the 18,531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 - a full 30% - to be non peer-reviewed.” ...

 

 

[Cyclone]

The higher the population the more power we need, developing countries are also using more power which will continue to increase, so population size and the cost of non renewable power must be linked.

How would increasing the cost of energy win them votes?

 

Because increasing the cost is kept quiet whilst being green is trumpeted along with a large helping of FUD about how not doing it would doom us all.

Votes aren't won by reality, they're won by convincing people of an alternate reality.

[kingspan23]

I honestly don't understand how people can't believe in global warming. I think it's pretty obvious that the planet is heating up as we can see that glaciers are retreating and the polar ice caps are slowly melting. There is far too much evidence showing that global warming is a current world problem and not something we should be skeptical about. We need to act now, and stop hacking into websites telling lies to make sure the planet can survive.

[truman]

I honestly don't understand how people can't believe in global warming. I think it's pretty obvious that the planet is heating up as we can see that glaciers are retreating and the polar ice caps are slowly melting. There is far too much evidence showing that global warming is a current world problem and not something we should be skeptical about. We need to act now, and stop hacking into websites telling lies to make sure the planet can survive.

 

Yep the world has always warmed up and cooled down..it's a natural occurrence..at the moment we're just in an inter-glacial period..there have been warmer times with less CO2 in the atmosphere than now and colder times with more...the planet will survive...

[convert]

I honestly don't understand how people can't believe in global warming. I think it's pretty obvious that the planet is heating up as we can see that glaciers are retreating and the polar ice caps are slowly melting. There is far too much evidence showing that global warming is a current world problem and not something we should be skeptical about. We need to act now, and stop hacking into websites telling lies to make sure the planet can survive.

 

Oh dear, the wheels are coming off the green gravy train, FIT being cut. Don't have a vested interest in prolonging the myth do you ?