It's Hot! But Fox Only Talks About Global Warming When It's Snowing

[Defiant47]

It's the pretense of science the movement hides behind. Refute the science, and the the whole corrupt system collapses.

Proceed at your discretion. If you've got something, you should publish it.

 

[Rashiminos]

A) Conspiracies like these don't work. We have worldwide acceptance of AGW.
B) This seems like a very silly conspiracy. It would be easier to spend all that time and money in monitoring people online better, especially as the trend is that we're becoming more and more dependent on this.
C) The information on individual energy consumption is not Earth-shatteringly more useful than household usage, especially on a "controlling" level.
D) It would be far more likely to have big oil and coal companies be rejecting the idea of AGW for self-preservation reasons and profit.

I could go on... But at this stage, I think I've made my point.

A) Showing what, exactly?
B) Also on the docket (Intelligence and Security).
C) Criminal proceedings.
D) How did you gauge this likelihood? There's profit to be had in carbon-trading and in offering the more expensive alternatives, especially when newfound government regulatory enthusiasm comes to bear (ba-dum-psh).

Also, hang on a second, smart meters are about efficiency, accurate billing, the option of market-based tariffs, and data gathering to better understand the nature of the load in the electricity system. Of all the things to be paranoid of...

Certainly. With better data collection, we can discriminate on how the energy is used in the billing.

 

[Dale]

Diesel-powered generators and electrical systems, of course, never short out or malfunction, and the fuel is free and plentiful. It's a good thing, too, because apparently even one anecdotal example of such a problem would invalidate the entire notion of ever using diesel power.

Diesel == oil == CO2. Oh dear, don't tell me you're a hypocrite too now?

Who said it was cheap? It's cheaper in the long-run, but solar power is more expensive than coal power.

This is the entire reason the issue is being pushed! Because it's not coming in by itself.

What's more important - having a sustainable industry that can last and does not pollute your city and country, or having a few extra bucks in your pocket?

(The issue of Africa is irrelevant, since their poverty necessitates only the cheapest things)

Actually, the issue of Africa is very relevant. Electricity is modern life. Without electricity the basics of life cannot be improved: medicine, housing, food sanity and preparation. Electricity also drives development: transportation, communication, industry, education. Thus by eliminating the possibility of affordable electricity to these people, you are denying these people the possibility of increasing their quality of life. They will be stuck in medieval standards of living with low life expectancy and high mortality from diseases.

 

[Dale]

Proceed at your discretion. If you've got something, you should publish it.

The papers are being published by numerous reputable institutes showing IPCC over-estimations. I provided a couple links a few pages back.

Even in IPCC reports they admit many assumptions and unknowns. As these assumptions and unknowns become known with recent research, the IPCC models are proven more and more incorrect.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The papers are being published by numerous reputable institutes showing IPCC over-estimations. I provided a couple links a few pages back.

Am I right when I read into your posts, the science you are refuting is the prediction-side of it, and specifically when it is deliberately exaggerated. Not the actual mechanisms which cause AGW (as you previously said), not the predictions which are solely based on data without outside interference?

 

[Defiant47]

Actually, the issue of Africa is very relevant. Electricity is modern life. Without electricity the basics of life cannot be improved: medicine, housing, food sanity and preparation. Electricity also drives development: transportation, communication, industry, education. Thus by eliminating the possibility of affordable electricity to these people, you are denying these people the possibility of increasing their quality of life. They will be stuck in medieval standards of living with low life expectancy and high mortality from diseases.

Please don't patronize me.

You misunderstood my point. Africa will need cheaper sources of electricity in order to thrive. This much is given. Sustainability and environmentalism wouldn't work as well over there. First they need to get up off the ground before they can learn how to run without spraining their knee.

But for the Western world, we can afford the more expensive solar power. All it takes is willing to give up some more money in exchange for having our industries be sustainable (i.e. they will last) and environmentally friendly (ever seen the pollution clouds in China?).

 

[NBAfan]

Please don't use Al Gore as an example of an environmental scientist. He's a politician first, a businessman second and what little room he's got left to manoeuvre he allows his inner scientist to play in.

He is one of the leaders of the green moment though. He's such a hypocrite too, flying in private jets everywhere for example.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He is one of the leaders of the green moment though.

Though? As I said, first a politician.

 

[Earthling]

The promotion of smart grids to monitor individual energy use by quantity and activity will control us better and leave more for those at the top.

That's not what the phrase "smart grid" means.

 

[Dale]

Though? As I said, first a politician.

He's AGW's Monckton. If we can't make fun of Gore, you have to leave Monckton out.

 

[Dale]

Am I right when I read into your posts, the science you are refuting is the prediction-side of it, and specifically when it is deliberately exaggerated. Not the actual mechanisms which cause AGW (as you previously said), not the predictions which are solely based on data without outside interference?

No not the prediction side of things (a lot of the links I posted previously discuss alterations in observed knowledge and the change on prediction models that new knowledge has). I refute the general message that "humans are responsible for the majority of modern global warming". Yes we've had an effect (the science of GHG's and their role in keeping the planet in a range that supports liquid water and life) but I do not believe the amount of effect. New findings and research are tending to support that with new sources of heat into the system being found (radioactive decay), better understanding of existing internal forcings (PDO/AMO/ENSO/Clouds) as well as new understandings of external forcings (cosmic radiation, solar). These are not taken into account in IPCC models (and in some cases flatly denied or just purely assumed to be part of the human CO2 component).

But most importantly, I refute the politicizing of the science and particularly the politicizing of the message. Lobby groups and the far left are using the message to push their political agenda on the world. There's a reason they're called "extremists" and are a minority. The act of exaggerating the message and using scaremonger tactics to try and brain-wash people into following their political message is despicable. And I acknowledge there are some elements in the anti-AGW side which is doing the same thing (of which I also don't like).

Yes we need to protect the environment and find a healthy balance between modernisation and sustainability. Business as usual will not work, but neither will the Green-socialist doctrine. One will result in destruction of the atmosphere, the other will return humans to the medieval era. We should instead get to the point where we fully understand what's happening in the climate (or at least to 95% certainty) and then make rational economically sound decisions which will not risk quality of life nor the modern way.

 

[Arwon]

"I politically dislike some of the people saying climate change is a big thing, therefore their conclusions must be wrong" isn't skepticism.

We should instead get to the point where we fully understand what's happening in the climate (or at least to 95% certainty) and then make rational economically sound decisions which will not risk quality of life nor the modern way.

And yet you oppose carbon pricing. Damn those UN eco-socialist market mechanisms!

 

[Tarquelne]

He is one of the leaders of the green moment though. He's such a hypocrite too, flying in private jets everywhere for example.

It's tough being a green. You make big changes to your lifestyle and you get accused of neo-Luddism. Or you don't, and you get called a hypocrite. Despite, say, buying lots of carbon credits.

(Carbon credits just an ineffective scam? Ok, you get called part of the world-wide conspiracy. Again.)

 

[Dale]

"I politically dislike some of the people saying climate change is a big thing, therefore their conclusions must be wrong" isn't skepticism.



And yet you oppose carbon pricing. Damn those UN eco-socialist market mechanisms!

Carbon pricing is a political response to a political doctrine. As a local example you and I can relate to, how will the Aussie carbon TAX work? Its wealth distribution to shore up votes, a destruction of affordable energy before a commercially viable alternative is available, as well as a highly negative influence on the quality of life and free markets. In the end it will hurt the Aussie economy, drive up the cost of living and any discernable reduction in emissions will be replaced by China in 3 days.

Carbon is not a commodity to be taxed, it is a vital natural element in the life cycle of the planet and every organic thing.

 

[Arwon]

Raising the tax free threshold is socialism now?

Jayzus.

And yeah, that 40 bucks a year is really going to hurt. Tremble in fear at the carbon price's smaller-than-the-GST impact on cost of living! FEAR the slight rollback of the diesel excise rebate for some commercial purposes! Rage on the streets against the one-off increase to the pension and other government benefits to offset the expected 0.7% increase to CPI!

I can see why you're so afraid. It's UN-mandated eco-socialism after all.

Edit: On the other hand, it will be funny to watch the Coalition vote against a tax cut.

 

[NBAfan]

It's tough being a green. You make big changes to your lifestyle and you get accused of neo-Luddism. Or you don't, and you get called a hypocrite. Despite, say, buying lots of carbon credits.

(Carbon credits just an ineffective scam? Ok, you get called part of the world-wide conspiracy. Again.)

If you tell people to lower their living standards, maybe you should actually follow that. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

 

[Tarquelne]

If you tell people to lower their living standards, maybe you should actually follow that. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

When did Al Gore tell people to lower their standard of living?

I did a google search and I found page after page of people talking about what a hypocrite he is for doing so... but no quotes. And the first thing I found that actually had Gore saying something on the subject was this:

Spoiler :

AL GORE: Well, see, I think that the best way to use the tax code is to give incentives for the quicker introduction of the new technologies that will allow us to burn far less gasoline and other kinds of fuels. I've put forward the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles -- for example -- and here in a short time you're going to see some new advances in speeding up the introduction of the new technologies that are going to allow us to continue improving our standard of living without increasing pollution -- indeed, while decreasing pollution.

Key bit:

...new technologies that are going to allow us to continue improving our standard of living without increasing pollution...

Which, funnily enough, is pretty much what I remembered Gore - who by the way is the technocrat who single-handedly invented the internet - to have said.

 

[Cutlass]

If you tell people to lower their living standards, maybe you should actually follow that. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

There's no reason that environmentalism should reduce living standards. Change how people actually live, yes. But as new techs become viable, living standards as a whole can even go up.

 

[Arwon]

It's also a false dichotomy. If even some elements of environmental politics are vaguely accurate, the choice is either to change how we do things and try to retain good living standards, or to face uncontrolled declines in living standards later on. Permament business as usual is the option we don't have.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

He's AGW's Monckton. If we can't make fun of Gore, you have to leave Monckton out.

Make fun all you want. Just don't mistake him for a scientist.