UK energy future

[pjclarke]

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.

Ah, so when Svante Arrhenius made the first estimates of the warming influence of CO2 in 1896, he did so to enable taxation a century later. far sighted indeed.

Solar Irradiance has flat-lined since the 1970s so its hard to see how it could be the culprit.

And the Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore made most of his $$$ from selling the TV channel he built up, his Apple share options and Google board membership. He gives all the profits from his Academy Award winning documentary and other climate related activities to an educational charity.

[LucidDementia]

Ah, so when Svante Arrhenius made the first estimates of the warming influence of CO2 in 1896, he did so to enable taxation a century later. far sighted indeed.

Nope. He postulated a theory and won a Nobel Prize, good for him.
Then his theory was refuted experimentally by Woods in 1909. We rarely see that admitted though as it's very inconvenient.

Solar Irradiance has flat-lined since the 1970s so its hard to see how it could be the culprit.

No, actually it's dipped a little since then, but hey I'm sure we can discount the hottest thing in the solar system as a source of temperature changes, you know, because we say so.

And the Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore made most of his $$$ from selling the TV channel he built up, his Apple share options and Google board membership. He gives all the profits from his Academy Award winning documentary and other climate related activities to an educational charity.

Wow, you really love him huh?
He only held 20% of the TV channel, he didn't build anything.

Oh and his amazing documentary? That comes with a government warning for kids that it is both one sided and a political vehicle. And they're on his side.

[pjclarke]

Nope. He postulated a theory and won a Nobel Prize, good for him.
Then his theory was refuted experimentally by Woods in 1909. We rarely see that admitted though as it's very inconvenient.



No, actually it's dipped a little since then, but hey I'm sure we can discount the hottest thing in the solar system as a source of temperature changes, you know, because we say so.



Wow, you really love him huh?
He only held 20% of the TV channel, he didn't build anything.

Oh and his amazing documentary? That comes with a government warning for kids that it is both one sided and a political vehicle. And they're on his side.

Woods described his experiment so poorly that its hard to know what he thought had been shown, what it definitely did not (and could not) do was refute Arrenhuis's exposition of the greenhouse effect.

Again, hard to see how solar can be driving temperature when their trends have different signs?

You're referring to the outcome of Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a case brought by a lorry driver and funded by Christopher Monckton. They attempted to get Inconvenient Truth banned from schools due to its being politically partisan. The attempt failed, as the teacher's notes distributed alongside already noted that the film is partisan, in the sense of making a case for political action. The judge said

Although I can only express an opinion as a viewer rather than as a judge, it is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film. It is built round the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-President, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming. It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film – although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion – but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political. Its theme is not merely the fact that there is global warming, and that there is a powerful case that such global warming is caused by man, but that urgent, and if necessary expensive and inconvenient, steps must be taken to counter it, many of which are spelt out. Paul Downes, using persuasive force almost equivalent to that of Mr Gore, has established his case that the views in the film are political by submitting that Mr Gore promotes an apocalyptic vision, which would be used to influence a vast array of political policies'

He added

'I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that: "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

[DodgyAgent]

Solar Irradiance has flat-lined since the 1970s so its hard to see how it could be the culprit.

.

Within the context of the billions of years the climate has been changing that is the most pathetic attempt to smear a possible counter to your "argument" that exists. Happy to quote whatever statistics that your zealot friends can conjure up saying that they are argued and tested using "proper science" you then dismiss the one thing that controls the planets weather as if does not exist.

No wonder people do not take you lot seriously.

[LucidDementia]

More drivel.

Wood's experiment is easily repeated. You may not like it, and I like that.

Also WDAS (never expected to agree with him!)

And finally, shut up, the documentary is entirely one sided and entirely political.

[LucidDementia]

Within the context of the billions of years the climate has been changing that is the most pathetic attempt to smear a possible counter to your "argument" that exists. Happy to quote whatever statistics that your zealot friends can conjure up saying that they are argued and tested using "proper science" you then dismiss the one thing that controls the planets weather as if does not exist.

No wonder people do not take you lot seriously.

We're ignoring the fact that they tulipcanned the phrase "global warming" when the hockey stick graph got murdered and switched to "climate change". In any other legal situation changing your story tends to mean you lose.

[LucidDementia]

You're referring to the outcome of Dimmock vs Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a case brought by a lorry driver and funded by Christopher Monckton.

...and this is bad?

Chairman of the IPCC - Rajendra Pachauri until February was what? A climatologist? A geologist? Maybe a physicist?

Nope. A railway engineer.
Gotta love it.

Oh and shockingly he turned out to be a scumbag.

[EternalOptimist]

Solar Irradiance has flat-lined since the 1970s so its hard to see how it could be the culprit.

Just because solar activity drives the climate does not mean it has anything to do with irradiance.
Stop spouting the party line and try thinking for yourself

[pjclarke]

We're ignoring the fact that they tulipcanned the phrase "global warming" when the hockey stick graph got murdered and switched to "climate change".

Erm ...The IPCC was formed 27 years ago, and the hockey stick is alive and well.

If you want to talk about manipulating language, look no further than the US Republican party, Frank Luntz, advisor spin doctor to George Bush, in an infamous 2002 memo, urged the party to adopt 'climate change', as it sounded less worrying than 'global warming'.

The scientific debate is closing ... but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.... Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate ...

Luntz later distanced himself from the administration's position.

Memo exposes Bush's new green strategy | Environment | The Guardian

[pjclarke]

Within the context of the billions of years the climate has been changing that is the most pathetic attempt to smear a possible counter to your "argument" that exists. Happy to quote whatever statistics that your zealot friends can conjure up saying that they are argued and tested using "proper science" you then dismiss the one thing that controls the planets weather as if does not exist.

No wonder people do not take you lot seriously.

The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions. {8.5}

Tucked away in er, the executive summary of the latest IPCC report. I know it is not the Mail, but the discussions are all there if you just take the trouble to ..... oh never mind.