Finally.

[pjclarke]

Like this...

Even if the global warming scare were a hoax, we would still need it - Telegraph

Ok, a Keynesian, but close enough to socialist to count.

Last few paragraphs are telling.

Good piece. Bookmarked for reference.

[SueEllen]

Like this...

Even if the global warming scare were a hoax, we would still need it - Telegraph

Ok, a Keynesian, but close enough to socialist to count.

Last few paragraphs are telling.

Look what you have done.

[DodgyAgent]

Like this...

Even if the global warming scare were a hoax, we would still need it - Telegraph

Ok, a Keynesian, but close enough to socialist to count.

Last few paragraphs are telling.

[Zero Liability]

Look what you have done.

It's like they say, 1984 wasn't meant to be an instruction manual. Neither is this piece. It should highlight just how bad an idea it is for a government like China to try and dictate energy policy, given how much it has wasted in the process, both back and forth. The last two paragraphs were illuminating, IMO, because seldom are people that honest.

[DodgyAgent]

It's like they say, 1984 wasn't meant to be an instruction manual. Neither is this piece. It should highlight just how bad an idea it is for a government like China to try and dictate energy policy, given how much it has wasted in the process, both back and forth. The last two paragraphs were illuminating, IMO, because seldom are people that honest.

I do believe that there may well be a problem with climate change. My "issue" is with those that have used it pursue their own agendas - mostly anti capitalism control freaks/socialists. There is also the matter of the self serving scientific communities who's own wealth and importance enjoy elevated status and recognition by virtue of this problem existing. Instead of dealing with it many of these people have done their level best to exaggerate it whether through selective use of data, building computer models designed to produce outcomes that they want or to callously linking any instance of extreme climate occurrences that happen day to day across the world to climate change. They even try to link every other problem in the world (including terrorism) with climate change.

Most of us on here (and most with a brain that challenges what people say) can see through this and as such nothing that our eminent propagandist PJclarke comes up with goes unchallenged. The more uncompromising he is the more we dig in (he is not a good communicator with people).

His bluff has been called on two counts. One is that he simply refuses to acknowledge that the climate changes all the time (something that he doesn't need to do - so it must be for the sake of the totalitarian control of his argument). The other is that when presented with a solution that he cannot argue with he chooses to completely ignore it.

Of course the upshot is that whilst he may be right (that the planet is warming) the zealous pursuit of his own agenda has turned everyone away from the problem.

[Zero Liability]

Although I accept that 'green' energies may have become more cost efficient (I have neither an intrinsic dislike for them nor a liking of fossil fuels; it's subsidies for either that are problematic), it is besides the point. The author of that article is peddling nonsense economics, trying to treat this as some huge 'stimulus' package, ignoring the massive element of preceding capital destruction entailed by it, as it was in his war rebuilding example, not to mention potential future malinvestments. There's a cultish hubris towards the end of the article.

I'm in the 'sceptic' camp on the 'catastrophic anthropogenic' parts of the hypothesis, and the readiness with which the socialist cult tries to use it to justify hugely costly, ambiguous 'solutions', does not do much to reduce that scepticism. Even if I were not sceptical in that respect, I'd still be regarding their supposed 'solutions'. It reeks of a desperate control freak ideology corrupting legitimate scientific inquiry, and the hundreds of billions thrown at it by governments and corporations are not going unnoticed.

[SpontaneousOrder]

I do believe that there may well be a problem with climate change. My "issue" is with those that have used it pursue their own agendas - mostly anti capitalism control freaks/socialists. There is also the matter of the self serving scientific communities who's own wealth and importance enjoy elevated status and recognition by virtue of this problem existing. Instead of dealing with it many of these people have done their level best to exaggerate it whether through selective use of data, building computer models designed to produce outcomes that they want or to callously linking any instance of extreme climate occurrences that happen day to day across the world to climate change. They even try to link every other problem in the world (including terrorism) with climate change.

Most of us on here (and most with a brain that challenges what people say) can see through this and as such nothing that our eminent propagandist PJclarke comes up with goes unchallenged. The more uncompromising he is the more we dig in (he is not a good communicator with people).

His bluff has been called on two counts. One is that he simply refuses to acknowledge that the climate changes all the time (something that he doesn't need to do - so it must be for the sake of the totalitarian control of his argument). The other is that when presented with a solution that he cannot argue with he chooses to completely ignore it.

Of course the upshot is that whilst he may be right (that the planet is warming) the zealous pursuit of his own agenda has turned everyone away from the problem.

They're called Water Melons. I learned that today

[pjclarke]

His bluff has been called on two counts. One is that he simply refuses to acknowledge that the climate changes all the time (something that he doesn't need to do - so it must be for the sake of the totalitarian control of his argument). The other is that when presented with a solution that he cannot argue with he chooses to completely ignore it.

I think you may be suffering from memory loss, either that or it is you who is the propagandist.

DA:

What about the bit about the climate constantly changing (something you have never admitted in your attempt to micro control the entire debate)

Me:

That's true.

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2185362

As for solutions, as yet nobody has come up with a geo-engineering solution that offers the same benefit/cost ratio as simply improving efficiency and reducing emissions, however if you examine the treaty there is a concession that to reach the targets some kind of what they refer to as 'negative emissions' will be necessary, which means removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

So who knows - maybe we will end up feeding bugs in the sea.

[DodgyAgent]

I think you may be suffering from memory loss, either that or it is you who is the propagandist.

DA:

Me:

http://forums.contractoruk.com/gener...ml#post2185362

As for solutions, as yet nobody has come up with a geo-engineering solution that offers the same benefit/cost ratio as simply improving efficiency and reducing emissions, however if you examine the treaty there is a concession that to reach the targets some kind of what they refer to as 'negative emissions' will be necessary, which means removing CO2 from the atmosphere.

So who knows - maybe we will end up feeding bugs in the sea.

Fair enough Let us also note the sneer about "bugs in the sea" . Otherwise known to Scientists and people who know even a minimum amount about photosynthesis as "Plankton"

[pjclarke]

They're called Water Melons. I learned that today

There is absolutely no scientific proof that sticks and stones will break my bones.