Stephen commented on peter's question: “Mark Horner: left-wing idelologue-hater par excellence. If only we had a parallel universe in which you could live out your naive dystopian socialist fantasies and not do any harm to rational, decent people. Unfortunately, we only have one world so here you must stay; but fear not, we will fight totalitarians like you until our last breath.”
Stephen commented on Daniel's question: “Bob L, don't forget that the 'carbon tax' is really an oxygen tax. CO2 has two oxygen molecules for every carbon molecule, The pro-AGW believers don't have the balls to call it what it really is - the 'oxygen tax' becaue they are afraid that the 'dumb' silent majority might wake up and smell a rat. The dishonesty is palpable. I wonder about Popper's principle of falsifiability. How many years of flat-ling or declining temperatures (whilst atmospheric CO2 is still rising - 'exponentially' if you're Geoff Pain) will it take for them to admit...”
Stephen commented on Daniel's question: “Adam, I haven't looked on for a couple of days. I see that you have labelled all (all!) of my posts as "100%" subjective and also labelled me as a 'spinner' (whatever that particular insult may denote). I find it all rather dispiriting and pointless. I made several concessions to your perspective (because we disagree far less than you imagine) but you are wilful in your insistence to see this discussion in good versus evil/moralistic terms. I see that there is nothing I can say that you will consider in good faith. Your comment on the 'crisis...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Geoff, we all know what an exponential increase means. You were speaking to yourself in your so-called 'lesson'. It is the observation which counts. Atmospheric CO2 IS NOT increasing exponentially, at the moment. It is increasing in a linear fashion, more or less. I gave you link to the graph. Look at it again and try harder this time.”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “To get the flavour of how corrupted the media have become in reporting weather events - all in the 'noble cause corruption' goal of saving the planet from the effects of climate change - here's a link to some 'Disaster Porn': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kohxJwcUAFA Watch as the CNN reporter tries desperately to alarm us about a category 1 hurricane. It's pathetic. The media have become advocates and have no credibility left. They made Obama look stupid as he took 'command and control' of a category 1 hurricane (the lowest category -...”
Stephen commented on Daniel's question: “Adam, we must define renewable energy first. If renewable energy does not mean the power of water falling from a height in a dam because of a religious nut-case greenie aversion then we cannot even begin to have a rational conversation. What about wind? Seems 'renewable' on the face of it. Except that it is not free. Windfarms are large industrial projects which require steel, concrete, energy and rare earth metals. They have a huge footprints per unit of energy. They do not function at the nameplate rating (it's usually around 20%+. (That...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Adam, I can only base what I 'believe' (which is always in a state of flux as new data/information comes to light) on what I have read. Whilst I have read a little about how humans emissions of CO2 are only 3% of total global emissions and thus can have little or no effect on the earth's climate, I think the most likely case is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (greatly subservient to water vapour, of course) and thus more CO2 means more warming. But it is a logarithmic warming, so we need increasingly more and more CO2 to produce each unit of...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Climate change is a reality. The climate always changes. The words "climate change" are NOT interchangeable with the words "man-made climate change". Your question illustrates the problem. Politics and science have been mixed up. Politics and science do not mix. Politics is poison to science. So, I 'believe' in climate change. All climate sceptics 'believe' in climate change .We just don't buy into the massive groupthink that human emissions of CO2 is sending the world to hell in a handbasket. In fact, the groupthink thing is in the minority...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Charlotte, I am not a contrarian by nature. I just like to ask question and have things explained. With AGW you are told to sit down and shut up and stop asking pesky questions; to "eat your vegetables'. How patronising is that?! My BS meter went off the scale when asking a few question earned me the moniker of 'denier'. So I investigated AGW. I have read about 15 books and hundreds of articles. It is is just madness to alter the whole foundation of our technological western society (our energy sources) on the basis of the precautionary...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Charlotte, there are a number of reasons why the major science academies etc seem to support the AGW hypothesis. Some of the rank and file of some of these academies are very unhappy about the certainty of the pronouncements made by their respective hierarchies. In the case of Britain's Royal Society (which, incidentally, has the motto "Nullius in Verba ' (on the word of no-one!) was forced to seriously modify its comment on AGW due to a member backlash. The fact that a great degree of uncertainty existed about the AGW hypothesis was...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Adam, there are lots of definitions of the left. I'm sure you have heard the expression before; just as sure I'm that you have an idea of what the term means. You do play coy! But since you ask I'll give you a partial explanation (it's a big story explaining what defines and animates the left - lots of inconsistencies and delusions). Anyway, a hallmark of the left is its insistence that the left is intellectually and morally superior to all others. The left alone has the moral authority to dictate how we must live and order our lives. No-one...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “No Adam, I have no problem with bankers, capitalists and religion. What I do have is a problem with those who willfully misrepresent what others say. (That would be you). Go back and re-read what I wrote. The straw man tactic is yet more evidence of having no facts or evidence to present. Incidentally, since we are talking about what or whom I may or may not have a problem with I must say that The Minister for Climate Change and the Moon is Made of Green Cheese, Greg Combet, does have me a little concerned. Disagreeing with his plan to abate...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Geoff, so the insurance industry can raise premiums and make bigger profits because ideologically captured scientific organisations and politicians so we face catastrophe. How nice for the insurance industry. They get to make bigger profits because it has been sanctioned by the AGW alarmist machine. It never ceases to amaze me how all what we imagined were principles cherished by the left have been conveniently forgotten and junked in the quest to keep the AGW juggernaut afloat. Once environmentalists abhorred industry defacing the country...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Charlotte, you say the website I referenced "is dodgy as all get out". Did you read that? Did someone tell you that? Here is a tip from the side that values rational, analytical, 'sceptical' investigation: check things out for yourself before you judge. See if t he evidence stacks up. Is what you are being told (fed) credible, rational andself-consistent? If you bother to go the website you label 'dodgy' you will discover is nothing more than a list of links to articles published in the media which report how someone (usuallly) in the...”
Stephen commented on Stephen's question: “Charlotte, here's the link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047711.shtml Your warnings of impending doom are hysterical. You should calm down. The world IS NOT about to end no matter how much you believe it is. Global temperatures have moved up and down throughout history (that's not just the bit that humans have lived though). A 0.7 degree C increase in global temperatures in 100+ years is well within natural variation. The earth's climate is not so sensitive that a small change in temperature (either up or down) will cause all...”
Stephen asked the question: “Charlotte, here's the link: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011GL047711.shtml Your warnings of impending doom are hysterical. You should calm down. The world IS NOT about to end no matter how much you believe it is. Global temperatures have moved up and down throughout history (that's not just the bit that humans have lived though). A 0.7 degree C increase in global temperatures in 100+ years is well within natural variation. The earth's climate is not so sensitive that a small change in temperature (either up or down) will cause all...”
