1. "Fossil fuels are subsidised cos energy is taxed at 5% VAT"
well I just checked, there is a massive list of things on reduced or no VAT lots if eco stuff, medical & as well as subsidised food, childrens clothes, we have subsidised caravans & aircraft repair. from HRMC
2. This "temperature hiatus doesn't matter cos it's the whole energy of the climate system that CO2 increases". Yes I agree with them. But it's a typical example of why popular climate science isn't proper science; they are content to oversimplify and see the world in black/white instead of full colour when temperature trend was going with their dogma. When in fact a one directional temperature trend is an indication of the state of the system rather than absolute precision, as yes at any time varying amounts of climate energy is held in the form of winds & ocean currents & maybe some other stuff like storms & clouds.
3. Tidal friction ? I'm not sure that in that oversimplification of the climate system they are including all of the energy inputs of the climate system rather than just sun & CO2 effect, recently I heard there can be large friction in water tides on other planets due to gravity from nearby moons etc. And then when I think about it there must be other inputs like radiation decay energy and magma and earthquake energy.
| Re The creaming of the Guardian Brulle $1bn story, provides
|
simple proof that alarmist websites are the wrong side. There is a word for when you won't fess up properly to your mistakes... what is it ? ...oh yes DENIAL
- Are in the right place here on BH ? We could go in every detail of climate science BUT Stories like the Brulle $1bn story provides a good test. If Anthony or Andrew make a mistake we quickly point it out and they issue a correction straight away.
- When I googled that story it was easy to sort the pseudo science alarmist sites from proper science ones. Useful suspects masquerating as pro-science and proper skepticsm like DoubtfulNews *, phys.org & other usual suspects in their confirmation bias way churned the article and their fanboys laid into skeptics. Now they won't print any proper corrections. So if they are underhand, and don't care about facts in such SMALL stories how can we trust them on the BIG climate story ?
Yes I am in the right place here in skepticland. If I were to engage trolls here I woukd ask them how they feel about disingenuity.
* (pro freespeech ? now their page says "commenting here is a privilege no a right", my simple comment didn't make it thru.)
| Why models go wrong :
Forgot to say Tim Hartford had a recent prog about the decline of the booming German forestry industry 150 years ago. Why ? cos they had started to rely on maps of the forest rather than reality.. yes basically the prog was about believing models over reality ... also same on recession time plan to save US homeowners from repossesion.
| |
|
| | |
|
Using the 97% argument proves warmists wrong, as no rational would use it
| |
Far from being sa hinderance the 97% is a great stick to beat the greens with.
"97% of scientists say ..."
-stop right there ?
Is this your level of understanding of science.. it's expletive Pathetic !
Hundreds of millions of pounds are spent everyday on climate mitigation and ghat is the level of you argument !
#1. It's the fallacy of appeal to authority.
#2. There never has been a proper survey of scientists.
Cos you don't have any proper science like VALIDATED models you have to come out with PR rubbish like this.
Tell the world how many of the world's climate
scientists your survey is based on !
go on tell them !
(they won't know, if they do they'll try for another argument of authority)
"You know that there is a consensus of all the worlds (west) Climate institutions that we are headed for catastrophe, Name one that contradicts.
that"
(now that is tricky to counter)
(they maybe also switch to Cook and Lews "97% of climate papers say, muddying the water)
an old survey of 79 cherry picked scientists Firstly hundreds of millions of pounds is spent everyday of climate stuff and that the level of you argument ! ("Cook and Lews discredited 97% survey is just the same)
- Now you know that is not how science work : yes there are green activist scientists who will shout the hardest, while proper scientists get on with the hard job of trying to make climate models that WORK that make VALIDATED predictions ..so far they haven't been able to do that so they remain pretty quiet.
For one thing if the shout about that failure they risk having their funding cut off.
(by then they should be out of their depth
They'll lie ?)
"There are models that replicate"
Ridiculous, the real world is far from Al Gore and his dodgy graph you know damm well for 17 years CO2 has gone up and temperature stayed the same.
| The 97% argument is a perfect example that the greens are wrong.
Like many of their claims it just doesn't stand up to close examination.
- Green arguments consistantly rely on PR rather than science
- There never has been a proper survey, and anyway it's the fallacy of appeal to authority. But they parrot dodgy straw PR like this, cos their dogma is not backed by VALIDATED science.
If they really had facts on their side they wouldn't have all these straw arguments that don't they'd have proper evidence.
| SIMILARLY
- Namecalling=weak logic
|
The way green-left use "the right is anti-science" is a straight SMEAR, to poison the wells and simply disarm their opponents. It's just bullying.
- It arises out of another logical fallacy of non-sequiteur extrapolation "creationism is unscientific",
"many right-wingers are creationists", "so ALL they say is unscientific"
- The mere premise they use "the right is anti-science" is dispictable it's not an attempt at rational argument, but rather a discussion spoiler, the fallacy of the poisoning of the wells, a whole category ad-hominem. That's what petty namecalling is. Assigning a belief system to a group on no evidence base at all.
You can assign a characteristic
1. if they self describe
2. or if measured evidence shows it is the characteristic of a group.
- Although I don't think you can do that with the right or left
- I sincerely observe that of all groups greens are the most dreamy and unscientific. Being unscientific is a characteristic to many greens, on many issues. However that fact cannot be used to kill each green arguments, rather it's just a key thing we look out for.
- I note that there is a further non-sequeteur that green-left arguers often push "scientist's say"=science, that way "what their pet scientist say"="truth"
No, "VALIDATED science"=truth
it is not something you get from observing a group is unscientific about one thing say creationism and then extrapolating it to say they are unscientific about
| |
|