Dynamics of Skepticism
| |
As ever the dynamics don't work our way,
- On the other side it's easy to go from being a CAGW believer into making money from NGO work or selling magic solutions like solar panels.
- The dynamic for my internet work is similar, My customers see magic solutions such as "Search Engine 0ptimisation" will give them magically lots of customers, and I tell them "don't waste your money, spent the effort making your product/website better for the customers instead", This at first upsets them and only after a long time do they understand.
- So with climate if we can get biz to stop wasting money on magic solutions, and stop government wasting money on unecessary bureaucracy then we are doing the world a favour. It should not be necessary for gov to do much except make it clear to companies and orgs "that you better have a proper policy to environment, cos you will be held accountable."
.. other people must have written about Environment Agency
Britain announced that it will cut 15 percent of its Environment Agency staff, Oct 28
| Independent slags skeptics cos owned by Russian Oil
| |
@tomo Fill, in the blank - The price of which ____ (comodity) would drop dramatically if the CAGW scare ended
Is it possible that Alexander Lebedev owner of The Independent and Evening Standard or his close Russian Oiligarch friends have investments in __ ?
- Yes Indy has spun heavily towards CAGW for years
but I notice these days it's gone the same as Guardian in brazenly reporting things it must know are lies,
| cop19error.jpg
|
| Twitter no good for advertising
|
For sale : device for advertising to 1000 media professionals and 10,000 stay-at-homes (students, artists & the unemployed)
apply at Twitter.com ......(Social media is a clique, don't mistake it for the real world)
| Debunk : of smartmeters
|
a comment decimating the alarmist article
http://theenergycollective.com/stephenlacey/303081/67-consumers-would-pay-more-clean-energy
| NASA 2009 Report says sun does climate
|
Repeat after me "The sun does not affect climate", everyone knows that darling @etzpcm even if a NASA paper says it does !
| 2 stories
| |
Green-scheme-and-a-red-tape-farce : hatchet job on eco insulation biz
- How they hid the FULL cost of Renewables cos not very good
| |
Why Science Authorities may lie
They paint selves into corner
|
Today brings quite an important understanding
The bystander says "Of course the IPCC are right, they are all scientists. Why would scientists lie ? Scientists would not lie so IPCC support must be true"
- Now see the very emphatic statement from DECappeal today
- " HAIYAN WAKE UP CALL glimpse of the future. WARN AT COP19, urgent action needed" paraphrased (1)
now just in case you don't think that assessment of science not flakey enough the next part confirms it
-" More and more, extreme weather and its effects are being seen in every country around the world"(2)
The statement continues with more alarmist phrases
To me that statement comes out of a Kneejerk emotional response & OPPORTUNISM (which probably seemed like a great idea at the time)
- THE DEC PR guy is talking to Betts on Twitter, who's told him that IPCC says "Most intense storms expected more often after ~2050, but low confidence in past trend & human effect so far " (quotes a report not exactly saying that
- DEC PR guys replies : so we are OK to say it's a glimpse of the future
(anyway there is no evidence at all to support phrase (2)
- but look now it doesn't matter if phrase (1) is almostly completely disproved DEC have painted themselves into a corner. They've made emphatic statements about future climate, and would look idiotic if they bactrack.
- So now they have to cover their ass.. quite possibly gritting their teeth & lying. Just as I imagine many scientists have similarly found themselves painted into a corner.
Can DEC be TRUSTED with donations or tax money ? As they have abandonment of science/evidence
As individual charities @DECappeal have used donations for ClimateChange lobbying yet they have have such low science/evidence standards
| Is CC CO2 stopping like insurance
|
Cameron's analogy is wrong (insurance and then saying something is 60% likely, not least cos the insurance costs more than the actual impact) howeve I am trying to understand what HE is driving at, which that is you believe something is quite likely you do spend money on prevenatative methods. Now that would be, research on Climate/geo-engineering. It should not mean getting carried away and going beyond science..and that it what they have done .. We have got no idea really of the sensitivity of Climate to CO2
- A better analogy is that you you adapt your technique , cos you could drive at 150mph in the middle of the road all the time, belching out black smoke, but then there'd be a 60% chance you'd be dead in a month.
..what it does bring up is the neeed for an evaluation report of progress so far. i.e. we were told that if we built these windfarms it would save this much CO2.
Is it saving Xtonnes of CO2 per £100 or not ?
and we were told that the world would follow ..well they are not they are laughing at us close our industries
| 3 stories
| |
- 3.45pm On Radio 5 Live - Prince Charles getting big criticisim for not believing in the scientific method from @jimalkhalili Jim Al, @alokjha (womaniser &GuardianScience) and @richardpbacon (twat)
funny all 3 of them excempt Climate Change from scientific method ..
- M4 tailbacks due to big transformer being moved from UK coal power station (closed by EU CO2 rules) to a new coal power station in Germany
- shush M4 Traffic jam due to COAL POWER STATIONS EU CO2 rules close UK one so big transformer being moved to a NEW1 in Germany
95% of fossil subsidies are in 3rd world, practically zero in UK & USA, 95% of Renewables subsidies are to rich BigGreenHedgeFund mafia
Even Big-Oil is begging for Big-Green subsidies « JoNova
| Evaluate cost/benefit CO2 measures
|
- Someone in the UK called for Climate Commission the other day ..I see in Australia there is a petition for a cost-benefit inquiry on all plans to reduce carbon. I'd support that here
- Do need to evaluate cost/benefit CO2 measures so far
|
|