UK energy future

[LucidDementia]

'Popular Technology' is in fact a one-man-band blog. Notwithstanding insignificant methodological nitpicks, he presents a total of 5 papers which, in his view, should have been included as 'rejections'. I don't see that these change much, especially as they either do not actually reject the consensus or have been rebutted by later studies.

e.g. Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009

I don't see you addressing any points here.
Standard.

[pjclarke]

I don't see you addressing any points here.
Standard.

Selective blindness again. I don't see you (as opposed to Andrew Kahn) raising any.

The Pop Tech (aka Mastertech aka Andrew K aka GeneralAres* aka Andrew Khan) 'rebuttal' consists of some objections to Powell's methodology, but he does not quantify what difference doing the survey 'his way' would make. Answer: not much

The handful of papers he presents as ones that reject the consensus either do no such thing, or have since been contradicted eg Lindzen and Choi 2009/2011.

And I included James Powell's research for interest and completeness, after several peer-reviewed studies.

Now, how about an example of a failed IPCC prediction?

[pjclarke]

Not at all, my argument is in fact that the "accepted theories" are not in fact accepted theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...nge#Concurring

[LucidDementia]

Selective blindness again. I don't see you (as opposed to Andrew Kahn) raising any.

The Pop Tech (aka Mastertech aka Andrew K aka GeneralAres* aka Andrew Khan) 'rebuttal' consists of some objections to Powell's methodology, but he does not quantify what difference doing the survey 'his way' would make. Answer: not much

The handful of papers he presents as ones that reject the consensus either do no such thing, or have since been contradicted eg Lindzen and Choi 2009/2011.

And James Powell was included for interest and completeness, after several peer-reviewed studies.

Now, how about an example of a failed IPCC prediction?

You just don't get it do you? You need to back up your drivel with something. The IPCC has a track record for getting it wrong, so please show me where they got it right. The burden is on those pushing the agenda, not those questioning it.

As for your comments re: Andrew K. What he did was outline why Powell's methodology was massively flawed. That is the subject of his article. As in most cases the proponents of the climate change scam twist data to their agenda and demand that anyone who questions them show why.
That's not how these things work and that's an end of it.

I'm done. If you wish to believe that mankind is killing the planet you go right ahead.

[LucidDementia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...nge#Concurring

Did you really just cite Wikipedia as a reliable source of information? You're more far gone than I thought.

[pjclarke]

The IPCC has a track record for getting it wrong, so please show me where they got it right. The burden is on those pushing the agenda, not those questioning it.

Hand-waving then. But here is a crucial one; a frequently made claim is that the models used by the IPCC overestimate the actual global temperature rise. Their projections, under various scenarios, from the Third Assessment Report are here

https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/552.htm

From the baseline year of 1990, for the next 2 decades they projected a 0.35C rise under scenario A2, which was the one that best matched how emissions actually developed. The actual linear change was 0.179C per decade. Wow.

True, in recent years the models have diverged on the hot side of reality, however the recent surge in temperatures has meant they are beginning to converge again ...

[pjclarke]

Did you really just cite Wikipedia as a reliable source of information? You're more far gone than I thought.

Not really, I thought you might follow some of the references therein. But then, contrary to your offensive remark, I've provided, and you've ignored, link after link to research from reputable, mostly peer-reviewed sources (Powell is a member of the National Science Board and Executive Director of the National Physical Science Consortium, personally I'd want to be very sure of my facts before accusing him of methodological error).

The point is, the accepted theories, are indeed accepted theories, the largest association of Earth Scientists is the AGU, who say this

Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat‐trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human‐caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.

Do you deny that every scientific association on the planet has put out similar position statements? Wikipedia may help you.

[EternalOptimist]

... every scientific association on the planet has put out similar position statements? Wikipedia may help you.

more nonsense. you really should stop reading Wikipedia and the Guardian, do some proper research and being such a dedicated follower of fashion.
We need free thinkers, the world has enough cultists and dogmatic tribal regurgitators of the party line.

[pjclarke]

more nonsense. you really should stop reading Wikipedia and the Guardian, do some proper research and being such a dedicated follower of fashion.
We need free thinkers, the world has enough cultists and dogmatic tribal regurgitators of the party line.

Perhaps you could explain the difference between what happens in elite universities and the R&D departments of oil companies and 'proper research'?

Maybe 'proper research' consists absorbing the emissions of accountant Andrew Montford, washed up TV weatherman Anthony Watts, potty peer Christopher Monckton, or Christopher 'asbestos is identical to talcum' Booker?

Hint: none of these individuals will go down in history as the Galileo de nos jours.

[LucidDementia]

It's genius really.

Brainwash the world to believe CO2 is a pollutant, tax them on it. Never mind the fact it's a fundamental requirement for life on Earth. Never mind that this nonsense has made Al Gore a billionaire.

Oh and never mind the ******* enormous star up there, that's got nothing to do with temperature changes whatsoever - it's all your lawnmower - stop murdering the planet you bastard.