Here’s a nice little video from Greg Craven. It’s arguing for an approach to the climate change controversy which doesn’t involve understanding complex science – risk management.
It’s a sensible approach. one that governments and organisations often take when they are unclear about the science. When the consequences are such that waiting until the science is completely settled (never happens) before taking action means likely catastrophe.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive, otherwise we would have already done it
Non sequitur.
oh dahling, the denier has quoted Booker, what a jolly fine laugh!!
It is pretty funny.
You are not a skeptic. You are a sucker.
Oh dahhhling, the denier has quoted the “Daily Mail”. How amusing!!!
The Telegraph and the Daily Mail are newspapers, you idiot. It would never occur to me to get my science information from a newspaper.
My standards are higher than that.
Even with the best of intentions, newspapers can get the reporting of science badly wrong. Scientists grant interviews hoping to reach out to the general public only to routinely see the printed article pulp the scientist’s research into unrecognisable mush.
Booker does no actual investigative journalism at all. He could but he doesn’t. His idea of supporting material for anything he writes is to give a few blog links. Anybody can do that…and they do. Hearsay and rumour are given free reign. There’s no actual fact checking at all.
Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.
If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
Aw, diddums. You got your feelings hurt.
It’s your own fault. You have nothing.
You really are the perfect representative of a climate denier.
This whole business of primary versus secondary sources completely spooks you.
The big problem refuting denialist nonsense is getting the dolts to use primary sources of information as opposed to secondary sources. Denialists just love no-name blogs and the “University of Google”. The very thought of going to primary sources of information and going to the scientists that actually do the work themselves is an alien concept to them. It freaks them out if you even suggest it. They seem to regard using primary sources of information as a type of cheating or something.
NASA, for example, is a primary source of information. NASA does much of the heavy lifting on climate science. They are pioneers in climatology research and have been for decades. They have a very good website where they explain their research in easy and simple terms and make it crystal clear the global scientific communities position on climate change.
NASA | Earth’s Climate Checkup: Operation IceBridge Monitors Arctic
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
What a pointless observation.
My neighbor’s annual holidays are expensive. I thought my car was expensive. The cost of corporate welfare dished out to collapsing the financial sector is expensive.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
What a pointless observation.
My neighbor’s annual holidays are expensive. I thought my car was expensive. The cost of corporate welfare dished out to the collapsing the financial sector is expensive.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
Expensive compared to what?
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
In a similar way, buying a car is expensive compared to not buying a car.
Having a holiday is expensive compared to not having a holiday
What’s the cost of not implementing the “climate mitigation” ?
Well that is the $64 question of course. The Stern Report covers this but has many detractors.
The key issue, in my mind, is that the UK is going out on its own to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, when the bulk of the world (China, India USA) is doing nothing.
So it will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain whatsoever (UK is only 2% of global CO2 emissions), whilst sending offshore most of its manufacturing industry.
Australia has also decided that economic suicide is the way forward.
The key issue, in my mind, is that the UK is going out on its own…
Hm, yes. Can’t have that. The UK providing leadership on a global issue? Perish the thought. Maybe it could sit around on it’s hands and wait for the Irish to do something first?
The key issue, in my mind, is that the UK is going out on its own(…)Australia has also decided…
Make up your mind.
Which is it?
…it will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain(…) sending offshore most of its manufacturing industry(…)economic suicide…
And you know this…how?
Wouldn’t happen to be using secondary sources again, would you?
The very same secondary sources that assure you that this whole climate change business isn’t really happening in the first place, right?
Monckton bunkum Part 5 — What, MORE errors, my lord?
Yes, very good. NASA is a primary source of information. You have nothing by way of comparison. All the scientific communities on the planet are in agreement. That didn’t happen by magic and it’s not some super-duper Stalinist plot.
So I ask NASA about the UK economy?
Getting information on important topics that can affect your life solely from secondary sources is stupid.
It’s a recipe for someone else to lead you by the nose.
You continuously use secondary sources…for everything.
Primary sources of information are an alien and discomforting idea to you.
You automatically reach for newspaper headlines.
Bad idea.
Very bad idea.
Science is too important to be left to newspaper editors.
The same goes for economics.
You don’t know how to perform good research. Until you are prepared put down the newspaper headlines and go to primary sources, you will remain profoundly uninformed.
Lift your game.
Here’s a really, really simple video to illustrate my point. It’s only a video but
it does sum up the problem of getting your science from secondary sources nicely. Even you should be able to follow it.
You will see this is a “no name” site called Channel 4 (UK), where they interview a Professor guy about the rising deaths in Britain due to fuel poverty.
Clearly this is rubbish and to be ignored. It is all denialist lies
You will see this is a “no name” site called Channel 4 (UK), where they interview a Professor guy about the rising deaths in Britain due to fuel poverty.
You really are thick.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You are incapable of making a coherent argument. A link on the subject of “fuel poverty” by itself is meaningless.
If you want people to treat you like an adult, then act like one and make a rational argument. Go ahead and use any link you want but…don’t just dump a link and walk away.
That’s just spam.
My point is that fuel poverty is increasing in the UK, as a direct result of the climate change act and that people will die as a direct result of this
Is that clear enough for you?
Perhaps the word “denier” will finally be applied to people like you who acts as propaganda trolls for policies that are killing people
“Fuel poverty” is defined as when you spend more than 10% of your income on fuel.
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel . (as does any “carbon tax” or ETS)
The price of fuel is increased because of the large subsidies and “carbon price” that are applied to make so-called “renewable energy” more attractive by increasing the price of fossil fuel
Much of these subsidies goes into the pockets of rich landowners, who get paid massive subsidies for wind farms on their land. This is in effect a reverse Robin Hood tax. Take from the poor, give to the rich. These subsidies are in the form of Feed In Tarriffs (FITSs) and Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs).
So the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, the energy gets more expensive, and less people can keep warm in the winter. Sometimes there is a choice between keeping warm and eating.
It just sucks to be you. You can’t wrap your head around the idea of primary sources of information. You can’t make a rational argument and successfully defend it like an adult.
You didn’t try to make that point. You just dumped a link and buggered off.
My point is that fuel poverty is increasing in the UK, as a direct result of the climate change act and that people will die as a direct result of this.
How?
Where are you getting your information about this from?
Have you pulled your finger out and done any actual research?
It’s just a shot in the dark but…um…would it just so happen that you’ve done your usual thing and naively relied on secondary sources of information?
A am done with arguing with someone who cannot see some really basic points.
You never got started in the first place.
Dumping a link and then helplessly waving your hands about in the air does not qualify as an argument in the real world.
Where are you getting your information about this from?
(…Mick refuses to say…)
Have you pulled your finger out and done any actual research?
(…Mick looks confused…)
It’s just a shot in the dark but…um…would it just so happen that you’ve done your usual thing and naively relied on secondary sources of information?
Almost 3,000 people in England and Wales will die this winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, a report suggests – more than the number killed in traffic accidents each year.
Commissioned by the government, the Hills Fuel Poverty Review found that if just 10% of UK winter deaths are caused by fuel poverty – a conservative estimate it claims – 2,700 people will perish as a direct result of being fuel poor.
The report also found that between 2004 and 2009 the “fuel poverty gap” (the extra amount those with badly insulated homes and poor heating systems would need to spend to keep warm) increased by 50% to £1.1bn as a result of rising fuel prices.
Naturally, the climate change act won’t make this any better. But hey who cares? They are just old people and were going to die anyway.
You might consider answering the question instead, as Cedric might put it, of just waving your hands in the air and making more assertions .
As you don’t seem disposed to constructing actual argument we’ll try to assist you by asking questions until we drill down to something concrete that we can use as a starting point.
As you don’t seem disposed to constructing actual argument we’ll try to assist you by asking questions until we drill down to something concrete that we can use as a starting point.
You’ll keep “asking questions”, because that is your MO. You seem to think this is some kind of game. Keep baiting the “denier” until he or she cracks.
I have already constructed an argument.
My argument is that there is a cost, both financial ,and in terms of actual human life, of climate change mitigation policies. These arguments are missing from the hopelessly simplistic video analysis presented.
Do you have anything to add to this discussion Ken? Or are you going to join in the baiting game? After all, that is why you post these blog entries isn’t it? It doesn’t actually add anything to the body of human knowledge
No, you’ve not made an argument, you’ve made a string of assertions without any supporting evidence. I wish to examine your claim about the costs of mitigating climate change and whether it is then justified to use it, as you seem to do, as a reason to do nothing to mitigate and equate it to murdering the elderly. Costs are a big subject but let’s narrow it down to the area you chose to highlight – fuel costs.
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel . (as does any “carbon tax” or ETS)
What fuel? Any fuel in particular? all fuel? Some fuel? (hint: fossil vs renewable}
Make an argument, Mick.
Take yourself seriously for a change and make an argument. I have nothing but contempt for your childish behaviour. When you behave like a tool, you get treated like one.
You bring it on yourself.
Make an argument. Think it through. Support the argument with reliable sources. Abandon the idle assertions.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive, otherwise we would have already done it…
Expensive compared to what? Make an argument. You shouldn’t expect people to just take your word on anything. Evidence. You must present evidence.
Richard asked you “What’s the cost of not implementing the “climate mitigation”?
You folded immediately and started waffling.
Well that is the $64 question of course. The Stern Report covers this but has many detractors.
One minute, it’s all very expensive. Clearly. Then suddenly it’s under question “of course”.
The key issue, in my mind…
Nobody cares about your private thoughts. Make an argument. Construct a real argument. Back up what you say.
So it will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain whatsoever…
No. This is just you making another different assertion. You are not supporting what you started out with originally. You can’t just keep piling assertion on top of assertion and hope nobody notices.
My point is that fuel poverty is increasing in the UK, as a direct result of the climate change act and that people will die as a direct result of this…
So now we have a third assertion to add to the heap. Now you want to talk about fuel poverty for no apparent reason. And once again, we are just all supposed to take your word for everything.
All you have given us is disconnected babble.
Can you or can you not make a sound argument?
Focus.
If you can’t take your own position on something seriously enough to construct a real argument then you should not be surprised when other people don’t bother much with it either.
What fuel? Any fuel in particular? all fuel? Some fuel? (hint: fossil vs renewable}
Hint? I see, you really think I am that thick. You somehow seem to think I have “missed” the bit about so-called “renewables”
Yes, ALL energy is more expensive. Wind and solar are so expensive, that the point of carbon taxes and ETS schemes is to make fossil fuel so expensive that it makes wind and solar seem affordable.
As a result, ALL energy is more expensive.I don’t have a “low carbon” electricity outlet in my house. It is all the same price regardless of where it comes from. The wind and solar guys get more income through FITs and ROCs.
Hint? I see, you really think I am that thick. You somehow seem to think I have “missed” the bit about so-called “renewables”
Yes and not necessarily. Your disjointed assertions strongly suggest that you need to be publicly and slowly guided through a series of logical steps that examine the assertions and so test their validity. I want you to actually start to do some real thinking, and to do it yourself. So I won’t be supplying answers, perhaps some hints.
the point of carbon taxes and ETS schemes is to make fossil fuel so expensive that it makes wind and solar seem affordable
Ok, getting somewhere, a point of agreement, that one of the several goals of carbon taxes and ETS schemes are so-called ‘price-signals’.
(Before we proceed, you do understand that there is a difference between costs and prices, say so if you don’t),
Let’s even leave the broader area of costs out of the argument for a while examine the price of fossil fuels.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
Your disjointed assertions strongly suggest that you need to be publicly and slowly guided through a series of logical steps that examine the assertions and so test their validity. I want you to actually start to do some real thinking, and to do it yourself. So I won’t be supplying answers, perhaps some hints.
Richard, have you always been such an arrogant and patronising twat, or is this something that has come to you later in life?
Because you are making assertions about the costs of climate change mitigation. Because you made claims about prices and price signals, including the claim
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
Richard, have you always been such an arrogant and patronising twat, or is this something that has come to you later in life?
Temper temper, just asking questions, lose your rag and you automatically lose that argument you haven’t yet made.
Your disjointed assertions strongly suggest that you need to be publicly and slowly guided through a series of logical steps that examine the assertions and so test their validity. I want you to actually start to do some real thinking, and to do it yourself. So I won’t be supplying answers, perhaps some hints.
Because you are making assertions about the costs of climate change mitigation. Because you made claims about prices and price signals, including the claim
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
What relevance does this have to the discussion?
There may be “factors” that affect the price of oil. These factors are external to the ETS and carbon tax issues.
What relevance does it have to the discussion (other than to give you an opportunity to make some smug and patronising comment. Maybe you’d like to wank on about “externalities, or Paul Kruman’s latest ecomonic theory)
More cost -> increased fuel poverty -> more dead people.
Quite a simple argument really
Because you are making assertions about the costs of climate change mitigation. Because you made claims about prices and price signals, including the claim
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
There may be “factors” that affect the price of oil. These factors are external to the ETS and carbon tax issues.
Good, you’re almost to first base, before you assert them to be external and magically wave them away, please name some.
Good, you’re almost to first base, before you assert them to be external and magically wave them away, please name some.
The main “externality” that justifies all this is the theory that CO2 will damage the economy, and that the cost if this will exceed the cost of increased energy.
Even if you accept this idea (which I don’t) then it won’t work because none of the major emitters are doing anything about it anyway
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
You tell me.
you don’t know any. Yet you make assertions such as
So it [ETS, CTx costs of mitigation via price of fuel] will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain whatsoever (UK is only 2% of global CO2 emissions), whilst sending offshore most of its manufacturing industry.a
You can’t name any major factors affecting price of fuel or their current and future affect on its cost and pricing.
The main “externality” that justifies all this is the theory that CO2 will damage the economy, and that the cost if this will exceed the cost of increased energy.
what??
no one’s asked about justification, only about what major factors affects price of fuel. Simple question, here I’ll help you
If fossil fuels are running out because of this supply issue, then maybe we need to look at other forms of energy, like nuclear. However, there is enough shale gas in the UK for at least 100 years, so there is not a supply issue.
Wind does not solve the problem, because it is has a very low energy density that requires massive amounts of land to supply small amounts of intermittent energy that requires backup generation in the form of fossil fuel power stations to be spinning over in standby mode 24×7.
Of course, there is also no shortage of coal either.
That’s why Germany is ramping up on coal generation after its decision to decommission its nuclear industry
The availability of crude oil has very little to do with stationery electricity generation
You can’t name any major factors affecting price of fuel or their current and future affect on its cost and pricing.
War, tyrants, feasibility of drilling, terrorism, environmental activists, international legislation, compliance costs, taxation, exploration permits granted, cash flow, investment funding, international debt issues, startup costs, availability and lead time for infrastructure, availability of trained technical staff.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
Then “clearly” you need to be able to argue that this is true. Nobody is interested in your gut feeling however. You need to be able to make a reasonable argument and back it up with evidence.
(That’s not permission to just dump a link nor pile on yet another hand-waving assertion)
Then “clearly” you need to be able to argue that this is true.
ETS/ Carbon tax -> More expensive energy -> Increased fuel poverty – > More deaths
I have shown that the last three steps are true by providing a reference to a government sponsored study.
I would have thought that having a tax on energy makes it more expensive. I would take this as “obvious”, in the same way as adding a sales tax to a product makes it more expensive.
I have shown that the last three steps are true by providing a reference to a government sponsored study.
No you didn’t. You just dumped a link and kept on waving your hands. You are not making a rational argument.
…Interim report from an independent review of fuel poverty…
Which has nothing to do with your initial claim.
Here is your original claim. Don’t forget it. We certainly won’t!
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
You need to have two sets of data and compare them.
1) What is the cost of climate change mitigation?
2) What is the cost of not implementing climate change mitigation measures?
That way you can talk about which one is “clearly” more expensive.
You also need to actually back up anything you say with primary source material.
NOT your gut feeling.
NOt some gut feeling of some guy with a blog.
Actual primary source material.
1) What is the cost of climate change mitigation?
2) What is the cost of not implementing climate change mitigation measures?
The only source of information that has studied this is the Stern Report.
However, this is not peer-reviewed, and is therefore not suitable for discussion.
So (as far as you know) there’s only one source of information?
However, this is not peer-reviewed…
Huh? That doesn’t make any sense. Is a report of that nature supposed to be peer-reviewed?
…and is therefore not suitable for discussion.
Non sequitur.
I shall ignore it..
So you have decided to ignore the only source of information you think is out there? Dumb.
…it is not a “primary source”.
How does it not qualify as a primary source? Don’t expose your ignorance (again). We’ve already explained to you the difference between primary and secondary sources of information.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive…
Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, you are forced to abandon your assertion.
If you are going to be taken seriously, then you must do better.
Asking someone to use primary sources of information when they make an argument and be prepared to back it up is not some sneaky trick.
You have nothing.
Just idle, ignorant babble.
Maybe I need to construct my argument for carefully. Above, I stated
ETS/ Carbon tax -> More expensive energy -> Increased fuel poverty – > More deaths
I have shown that the last three steps are true by providing a reference to a government sponsored study.
In this statement, I used the notation -> to indicates “leads to”.
i.e
ETS/ Carbon tax “lead to” More expensive energy
More expensive energy “leads to” Increased fuel poverty
Increased fuel poverty “leads to” More deaths
perhaps we could get further by forming some points of agreement.
So can you indicate Cedric whether you agree/disagree with the following statements
(a)ETS/ Carbon tax “lead to” More expensive energy
(b)More expensive energy “leads to” Increased fuel poverty
(c)Increased fuel poverty “leads to” More deaths
Do you agree with (a) Yes/No/Not sure/More information required.
Do you agree with (b) Yes/No/Not sure/More information required.
Do you agree with (c) Yes/No/Not sure/More information required.
Would you like further help with this questionaire? We can provide translation services and also braile for the sight-impaired.
We also offer councelling services for those that find these questions disturbing or offensive.
We also offer an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment that empowers minority opinions and viewpoints.
I have evidence that old and vulnerable people will die as a direct result of the UK climate change act.
Even if you did, that does not support your original claim.
Let’s remember it shall we?
Here it is…
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
To support this claim, you need to have two sets of data and compare them.
1) What is the cost of climate change mitigation?
2) What is the cost of not implementing climate change mitigation measures?
That way you can talk about which one is “clearly” more expensive.
You also need to actually back up anything you say with primary source material.
NOT your gut feeling.
NOt some gut feeling of some guy with a blog.
Actual primary source material.
Of course, there is also no shortage of coal either.
That’s why Germany is ramping up on coal generation… blah blah
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. You’ve conceded a time frame expiry of shale gas resources, and waved away crude oil from your argument, yet it too has very finite time frame.
100 years for shale gas is the UK therefore no supply issue?
You are remarkably short sighted. Sooner or later we are going to have to seek alternatives to fossil fuels, it is simply a matter of when and in what state we are prepared to allow the planet to be in when the shift is made.
Your argument, to do nothing to mitigate climate change and continue using fossil fuels until exhaustion, solves absolutely nothing.
Nothing at all.
It merely shifts the time frame for change and does so at great probable risk to the planet., according to all of the world’s scientific organisations.
Do nothing => use resources up => price increase => fuel poverty => murder elderly
good one Mike
All you propose is to put one’s fingers in one’s ears and head in the sand.
In Booker’s article, he claims that the cost of the UK climate change bill will be hundreds of billions over the next forty years.
And you just took his word on this. You never demanded any hard evidence.
Dumb. You got sucked in completely. Our standards are higher.
Sorry, no primary sources.
There never are.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives. Primary sources are not your friend.
So, basically I don’t give a toss about your arguments.
It’s your argument we were discussing, dummy.
Just in case you’ve forgotten your own words, here they are again:
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
Oh so I see Richard’s argument. We need to find a form of energy that has infinite lifetime. 100 years time scale is not enough?
Because coal and shale gas will “run out” in a hundred years or so, we can’t use them, and have to use windmills instead, and condemn old people to death. How amusing!
Is that your argument Richard?
Fairly shallow I must say. If we used that argument 150 years ago, the industrial revolution would never have happened.
Maybe that would have been good, in your minds. At least we wouldn’t be sitting in front of computers having these pointless discussions.
(I am looking for a “primary source” to demonstrate that wind and solar has no cost of maintenance and requires no input from resources. No repairs, no “non-renewable component”)
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
Of course, silly me. All those people talking of :”trillions” of dollars to re-engineer the world to a “low-carbon” economy were just evil climate deniers funded by Big Oil.
Of course, I have seen the light now! A blinding flash has come! A road to Damascus moment! All we need to do is shed our baggage and our addiction to Oil! Hallelujah! Praise be to Lord Gore!
We can live in perfect harmony with nature, skipping through fields of beautiful wind turbines idly turning in the breeze!
I don’t get my information from “all those people”. Too vague. I prefer NASA.
That’s why you listen to videos made by schoolteachers and comedians!
I’ve explained this to you before.
The videos that I used are a popularisation of the science. They are an illustration. People like potholer54 and Peter Sinclair use primary sources all the time. NASA is a big favourite.
If you find anything that is at odds with primary sources of information from any of the videos that are used around here then that would be genuinely impressive.
The creators of the videos use excellent scholarship. Go ahead and read the fine print for yourself. It’s all publically available and very good work. It’s not about the conclusions they draw. It’s their methodology.
So, basically I don’t give a toss about your arguments.
We do. We give them a lot of attention. It’s all about education and insisting on being well informed. You should try it some time.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then do so. So far you are doing a lousy job.
NASA is not your enemy.
Use primary sources of information.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Think about it.
If you think that you deserve the best and that your family deserves the best then do real scholarship and create real arguments.
Primary sources of information.
NASA, for example, is a primary source of information. NASA does much of the heavy lifting on climate science. They are pioneers in climatology research and have been for decades. They have a very good website where they explain their research in easy and simple terms and make it crystal clear the global scientific communities position on climate change.
NASA | Earth Science Week: Climate Change & The Global Ocean
It is actually possible, you know, for some people to “accept” the science and still be at odds with the policy.
You don’t accept either.
You don’t use primary sources to understand the science.
Nor do you use primary sources to understand policy.
You are woefully ill-informed.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
NASA is not “the enemy”. They are not Stalinists or any other such rot.
Go to primary sources of information. Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
Jenkins: What role should climate scientists play in shaping or informing future policy?
Slingo: I think it’s really important that scientists do not get involved in shaping policy. We have to be independent. We have to keep scrupulously to the science and present it in a very objective, rational and honest way. Our role is purely to provide the best scientific evidence to policymakers to enable them to do their job. Therefore, there has to be a very clear divide between the two.
Go to primary sources of information. Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
So what is the “primary source of information”…
You are not getting this.
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it. Any important decision you make on science or political policy should be firmly grounded on primary sources of information.
Not newspapers.
Not blogs.
No some guy on the internet.
Primary sources of information. As long as you are using primary sources of information then you have made a good beginning in understanding any topic or claim.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
Yes I know there is no “one” point of information. But where do Iget a fair and balanced view of the cost of the UK climate change act? The only ones that come up on Google are “denier” sites.
Sp maybe it doesn’t cost anything at all? Maybe the government don’t want the peeps to know? cuz we would becum angry and burn de shops like wat we did in London innit
Yes I know there is no “one” point of information.
Then demonstrate it. Actions speak louder than words.
The only ones that come up on Google are “denier” sites.
Again, you fail to understand. I’m not talking about the value of denier sites.
It’s not “our” sites versus “your” sites.
I’m talking about primary sources of information.
It’s doesn’t get any more objective and fair and reasonable than that.
I didn’t tell you not to get your information from denier blogs.
I told you not to get your information from blogs. Period.
I didn’t tell you not to get your information from the Daily Mail as opposed to the Guardian.
I told you not to get your information from newspapers. Period.
I didn’t tell you to get your information about climate change and political policy from me.
I told you not to get your information from some guy on the internet. Period.
You must use primary sources of information.
If you want to understand important scientific and political issues then you must demand primary sources. Don’t settle for second best.
…the cost of the UK climate change act…
Your first port of call should be the science not the policy…reacting… to the science. Otherwise, you are putting the cart before the horse.
We have to keep scrupulously to the science and present it in a very objective, rational and honest way. Our role is purely to provide the best scientific evidence to policymakers to enable them to do their job. Therefore, there has to be a very clear divide between the two.
Exactly. Look at what scientific evidence the policymakers used to do their job. That would be referenced in the paperwork of the Act itself. Look at the foundations first. Tell the blogs you rely upon to take a hike. Go yourself directly to the source.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
Because coal and shale gas will “run out” in a hundred years or so, we can’t use them, and have to use windmills instead, and condemn old people to death. How amusing!
Is that your argument Richard?
Fairly shallow I must say. If we used that argument 150 years ago, the industrial revolution would never have happened.
Mick, is your surname Mouse by chance?
It merely illustrated the fallacy of your argument that mitigation against climate change is essentially murdering the elderly due to its cost, yet the cost of not mitigating against climate change and exhausting fossil fuels won’t hurt, as you are blind to the fact that racing to exhaust carbon sources will eventually have same effect on prices, irrespective of the climate issues.
I am looking for a “primary source” to demonstrate that wind and solar has no cost of maintenance and requires no input from resources. No repairs, no “non-renewable component”
More from the big bag of stupid. I suppose you think the non-renewable components of wind and solar end up as CO2, water and trace hydrocarbons as does the end product of combustion.
Interestingly, a recent study from the Netherlands showed that wind energy actually increases CO2 emissions, thanks to the inefficient running of the fossil fueled backup power that needs to run 24×7.
Oh well, I guess NASA says the science is settled. We need to destroy the countryside, kill birds and bats, increase CO2 emissions, treble power bills, make any remaining industry uncompetitive so it moves offshore.
Here is a non-primary source of information on Wind Energy.
The Sun newspaper
NATIONAL GRID has been forced to ask wind farms to shut down for the second time in a MONTH – because it’s too windy.
Seven wind farm operators switched off their turbines on Monday night.
National Grid said they were generating TOO MUCH power as storms ripped across Scotland.
It leaves taxpayers with yet another bill. National Grid has to pay wind farm operators compensation when asking them to stop the turbines.
National Grid said: “It was very windy yesterday and there was some curtailment of wind generation.”
Despite huge subsidies for wind farm operators, National Grid claims its network is not ready to handle the power surge in storms.
Demand for electricity also drops off late at night.
National Grid paid out almost £3 million to wind farm operators in compensation in mid-September when a dozen wind farms were shut for three nights in a row.
Fred Olsen Renewables pocketed £1.2 million.
The Grid spokesman insisted: “This is all a normal part of how we balance the electricity transmission system and manage constraints on the network.”
More cherry-picking. You don’t even bother to cite the study nor to explain how it relates to anything you have said before. Not very interesting.
Oh well, I guess NASA says the science is settled.
Why guess? You can go to them directly and find out for yourself what they say in their own words.
Here is a non-primary source of information ….
Yes, we know.
There are lots of non-primary sources of information out there.
Duh!
The idea, Mick, is to use primary sources of information.
Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
NASA? Are they a primary source of information about Wind Farms?
Well, if you want to know if NASA has anything to do with windfarms then…you could find out for yourself. NASA has an easy-to-read website.
HINT – There is no wind on the Moon.
Non sequitur.
I have the answer,
But I am not a primary source of information.
Non sequitur.
(shrug)
Any important decision you make on science or political policy should be firmly grounded on primary sources of information.
Not newspapers.
Not blogs.
No some guy on the internet.
Primary sources of information. As long as you are using primary sources of information then you have made a good beginning in understanding any topic or claim.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
See? That was easy. You can answer your own questions with a little basic research.
What kind of lame-ass “Primary Source” is this?
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
Yes I know there is no “one” point of information.
Then demonstrate it. Actions speak louder than words. Stop being a moron.
You are a moron, Mick. You allow yourself to be lead by the nose.
Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.
If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
…it is really hard to find the Primary Source of Information.(…)Where is it?
You are not getting this.
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
Any important decision you make on science or political policy should be firmly grounded on primary sources of information.
Not newspapers.
Not blogs.
No some guy on the internet.
Primary sources of information. As long as you are using primary sources of information then you have made a good beginning in understanding any topic or claim.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.
If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
Making a decision on whether wind farms are viable is not a “climate denier talking point”.
I never said it was.
Yet, it’s true that all climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Making a decision on whether wind farms are viable… should be done using primary sources of information. Why settle for anything less?
Why is it so hard for you? Use Primary Sources of Information
I use primary sources of information all the time.
For example, when I want to know something about climate change I go straight to NASA or any other scientific community on the planet.
You don’t.
Yet you should. Otherwise you will continue to be led by the nose.
Where is the Primary Source of Information for an unbiased appraisal of wind energy?
Where?
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
…an unbiased…
Use a biased or an unbiased source according to your own personal taste and however you define it. That’s for you to judge.
The only important thing is to do real research on an issue and use primary sources.
If you are not prepared to do that then you are at the mercy of newspapers and blogs.
You must verify things for yourself.
Maybe this?
You should be able to figure it out for yourself by now. Or you could ask your local librarian.
Mick, I am doing you a favour by giving you fair and reasonable advice. There is nothing bad in trying to get someone to research their position so that they can make a solid reality-based argument.
This whole business about primary sources versus secondary sources isn’t from me. It’s not exclusive to the issue of climate change. You can go to your local library or university and they will tell you exactly the same thing.
As it happens, Cedric, I do actually agree with you on the primary source thing.
I’m glad to hear it.
I never shoot down or dismiss a person’s argument unfairly.
Yet I always demand primary sources of information.
I demand it from people on the internet, I demand it from politicians, I demand it from blogs, I demand it from newspapers and I demand it from myself. I’m happy to use videos and articles to illustrate a point or to save time but those very same videos and articles have to be firmly based on (you guessed it) primary sources of information.
Always.
Everything else is just some other guy’s opinion. Even if they do have a newspaper.
My question is really coming back to how we actually find some unbiased information on energy policy.
At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a good energy policy that is not based on good science.
I don’t say that to annoy you. I genuinely mean it.
If you seriously want to talk about what is more expensive as opposed to less expensive then you have to look to the science first to understand the situation that gives birth to policy.
And, of course, the way you look to the science is to skip the newspapers and go directly to primary sources.
Yes, but my point is that if you take a “science based” approach, then the so-called renewables option isn’t necessarily the best way forward.
If you wish to make an argument to make that point then no-one here will stop you, least of all me.
However, you can’t expect people to just take your word on things.
Any position you take has to be based on firm foundations. Foundations that are independently verifiable by someone else.
For example: Suppose I just said the opposite of what you said.
“the so-called renewables option is indeed the best way forward”.
Would you just roll over and take my word for it?
I would hope not. I’m just some guy on the internet. My personal opinion is as worthless as an op-ed in a newspaper or a shock jock on the radio.
It’s like building a defense for an appearance in court. You have to prepare your materials first before you make a claim-not after. By then it’s too late.
If someone asks you “What’s your evidence” or “What sources are you using” then those are fair questions. In fact, it would be foolish not to automatically ask those questions.
I don’t ask you to trust me on anything and I treat you the same way. I’m not trying to frustrate you or make you mad. I just don’t give anybody a free pass. You have a perfect right to do the same. In fact, nothing would please me better.
When you dump a link or just go to a newspaper article you are not doing the work that is required to make a serious case. You won’t be taken seriously. I’d say the same thing to my best friend. I’m not picking on you in particular. None of us are.
It doesn’t actually solve the supposed problem at hand.
Either there is a problem or there is not. If you want to talk about the pros and cons about which is the best way forward to tackle ANY problem then you must first clearly identify and acknowledge the problem in the first place. Otherwise you are just putting the cart before the horse. There’s no way around that. Problem first. Possible solutions after.
As you well know, I talk about NASA all the time. They do excellent work. I feel as confident getting my climatology information from them as I do getting my cancer information from the NIH. Neither of those two organisations gets to just make things up. The positions they hold on a great number of scientific issues are created using good science firmly based on a wealth of peer-reviewed research going back many decades.
If you can recommend a better primary source for information on climate change then I’d like to hear it. But for my money, NASA is arguably the best there is.
Nobody treats NASA or the NIH as a religion or just goes along with what they say. The same goes for the Royal Society or the RMET etc. These scientific communities have hard-earned reputations. There’s a process involved.
Again, make any argument you like. Take any position you want. No problem here.
Just be prepared in advance to support your position with primary sources.
However, the way things are panning out rapidly in the Eurozone right now, I suspect a “primary source of information” might be the sharp end of an AK47
Not what I wish for, of course, but just an observation ….
NZ Science Blogs
Open Parachute 
…risk management.
Therefore Stalin. QED.
LikeLike
You might also enjoy David Mitchell’s concise rant on the same topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2011/sep/15/david-mitchell-soapbox-climate-change-doubters-video
LikeLike
Thanks Amy – it is very good.
LikeLike
How much does it cost?
That is the question
LikeLike
How much does it cost?
That is the question
How much does what cost? You don’t know.
LikeLike
How much does it cost?
That is the question
How much does what cost? You don’t know.
(*rolls eyes*)
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive, otherwise we would have already done it
(*awkward silence*)
Here you go, a link from your favorite “denier”, Christopher Booker:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7550164/Climate-Change-Act-has-the-biggest-ever-bill.html
(* cue laughter *)
oh dahling, the denier has quoted Booker, what a jolly fine laugh!! What ho!
(* awkward silence *)
1/4 of British citizens forced into fuel poverty
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048122/Green-taxes-force-fuel-poverty.html
(* awkward silence *)
Oh dahhhling, the denier has quoted the “Daily Mail”. How amusing!!!. Another Charonnay dahlinkss?”
Just a thought?
Just asking a question
LikeLike
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive, otherwise we would have already done it
Non sequitur.
oh dahling, the denier has quoted Booker, what a jolly fine laugh!!
It is pretty funny.
You are not a skeptic. You are a sucker.
Oh dahhhling, the denier has quoted the “Daily Mail”. How amusing!!!
The Telegraph and the Daily Mail are newspapers, you idiot. It would never occur to me to get my science information from a newspaper.
My standards are higher than that.
Even with the best of intentions, newspapers can get the reporting of science badly wrong. Scientists grant interviews hoping to reach out to the general public only to routinely see the printed article pulp the scientist’s research into unrecognisable mush.
Booker does no actual investigative journalism at all. He could but he doesn’t. His idea of supporting material for anything he writes is to give a few blog links. Anybody can do that…and they do. Hearsay and rumour are given free reign. There’s no actual fact checking at all.
Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.
If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
Primary or Secondary
LikeLike
Primary or secondary?
link to video
blah blah appeal to authority
Your input is what exactly Cedric?
denier denier blah blah blah drone drone drone blah
By the way, I enjoyed the videos posted. They indicated the level of intellect required to (*get*) this stuff.(i.e poultry )
denier denier drone drone drone denier denier drone drone drone denier denier drone drone drone denier denier drone drone drone denier denier drone drone drone denier denier drone drone drone denier denier drone drone drone
( *squarks*)
LikeLike
Aw, diddums. You got your feelings hurt.
It’s your own fault. You have nothing.
You really are the perfect representative of a climate denier.
This whole business of primary versus secondary sources completely spooks you.
The big problem refuting denialist nonsense is getting the dolts to use primary sources of information as opposed to secondary sources. Denialists just love no-name blogs and the “University of Google”. The very thought of going to primary sources of information and going to the scientists that actually do the work themselves is an alien concept to them. It freaks them out if you even suggest it. They seem to regard using primary sources of information as a type of cheating or something.
NASA, for example, is a primary source of information. NASA does much of the heavy lifting on climate science. They are pioneers in climatology research and have been for decades. They have a very good website where they explain their research in easy and simple terms and make it crystal clear the global scientific communities position on climate change.
NASA | Earth’s Climate Checkup: Operation IceBridge Monitors Arctic
LikeLike
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
What a pointless observation.
My neighbor’s annual holidays are expensive. I thought my car was expensive. The cost of corporate welfare dished out to collapsing the financial sector is expensive.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
Expensive compared to what?
LikeLike
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
What a pointless observation.
My neighbor’s annual holidays are expensive. I thought my car was expensive. The cost of corporate welfare dished out to the collapsing the financial sector is expensive.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
Expensive compared to what?
LikeLike
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive,
Expensive compared to what?
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
In a similar way, buying a car is expensive compared to not buying a car.
Having a holiday is expensive compared to not having a holiday
Is this hard to understand?
LikeLike
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures….
….Is this hard to understand?
What’s the cost of not implementing the “climate mitigation” ?
LikeLike
What’s the cost of not implementing the “climate mitigation” ?
Well that is the $64 question of course. The Stern Report covers this but has many detractors.
The key issue, in my mind, is that the UK is going out on its own to reduce emissions by 80% by 2050, when the bulk of the world (China, India USA) is doing nothing.
So it will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain whatsoever (UK is only 2% of global CO2 emissions), whilst sending offshore most of its manufacturing industry.
Australia has also decided that economic suicide is the way forward.
LikeLike
The key issue, in my mind, is that the UK is going out on its own…
Hm, yes. Can’t have that. The UK providing leadership on a global issue? Perish the thought. Maybe it could sit around on it’s hands and wait for the Irish to do something first?
The key issue, in my mind, is that the UK is going out on its own(…)Australia has also decided…
Make up your mind.
Which is it?
…it will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain(…) sending offshore most of its manufacturing industry(…)economic suicide…
And you know this…how?
Wouldn’t happen to be using secondary sources again, would you?
The very same secondary sources that assure you that this whole climate change business isn’t really happening in the first place, right?
Monckton bunkum Part 5 — What, MORE errors, my lord?
LikeLike
Primary sources?
NASA?
So I ask NASA about the UK economy?
If not, who are these “primary sources”?
Maybe the old people who can’t afford to pay their bills, and freeze to death?
Are they primary sources?
LikeLike
Primary sources? NASA?
Yes, very good. NASA is a primary source of information. You have nothing by way of comparison. All the scientific communities on the planet are in agreement. That didn’t happen by magic and it’s not some super-duper Stalinist plot.
So I ask NASA about the UK economy?
Getting information on important topics that can affect your life solely from secondary sources is stupid.
It’s a recipe for someone else to lead you by the nose.
You continuously use secondary sources…for everything.
Primary sources of information are an alien and discomforting idea to you.
You automatically reach for newspaper headlines.
Bad idea.
Very bad idea.
Science is too important to be left to newspaper editors.
The same goes for economics.
You don’t know how to perform good research. Until you are prepared put down the newspaper headlines and go to primary sources, you will remain profoundly uninformed.
Lift your game.
Here’s a really, really simple video to illustrate my point. It’s only a video but
it does sum up the problem of getting your science from secondary sources nicely. Even you should be able to follow it.
Ben Goldacre’s “Don’t Dumb Me Down”
LikeLike
Here’s another link for you
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid69900095001?bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAEabvr4~,Wtd2HT-p_VhJQ6tgdykx3j23oh1YN-2U&bctid=1226990033001
You will see this is a “no name” site called Channel 4 (UK), where they interview a Professor guy about the rising deaths in Britain due to fuel poverty.
Clearly this is rubbish and to be ignored. It is all denialist lies
It doesn’t come from NASA.
LikeLike
You will see this is a “no name” site called Channel 4 (UK), where they interview a Professor guy about the rising deaths in Britain due to fuel poverty.
You really are thick.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. You are incapable of making a coherent argument. A link on the subject of “fuel poverty” by itself is meaningless.
If you want people to treat you like an adult, then act like one and make a rational argument. Go ahead and use any link you want but…don’t just dump a link and walk away.
That’s just spam.
LikeLike
You really are thick.
Thanks
My point is that fuel poverty is increasing in the UK, as a direct result of the climate change act and that people will die as a direct result of this
Is that clear enough for you?
Perhaps the word “denier” will finally be applied to people like you who acts as propaganda trolls for policies that are killing people
Would you like further clarification?
LikeLike
For readers here, please explain the term ‘fuel poverty’ .
Your argument is that the climate change act somehow causes fuel poverty, how?
LikeLike
“Fuel poverty” is defined as when you spend more than 10% of your income on fuel.
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel . (as does any “carbon tax” or ETS)
The price of fuel is increased because of the large subsidies and “carbon price” that are applied to make so-called “renewable energy” more attractive by increasing the price of fossil fuel
Much of these subsidies goes into the pockets of rich landowners, who get paid massive subsidies for wind farms on their land. This is in effect a reverse Robin Hood tax. Take from the poor, give to the rich. These subsidies are in the form of Feed In Tarriffs (FITSs) and Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs).
So the poor get poorer, the rich get richer, the energy gets more expensive, and less people can keep warm in the winter. Sometimes there is a choice between keeping warm and eating.
LikeLike
You really are thick.
Thanks
It just sucks to be you. You can’t wrap your head around the idea of primary sources of information. You can’t make a rational argument and successfully defend it like an adult.
You didn’t try to make that point. You just dumped a link and buggered off.
My point is that fuel poverty is increasing in the UK, as a direct result of the climate change act and that people will die as a direct result of this.
How?
Where are you getting your information about this from?
Have you pulled your finger out and done any actual research?
It’s just a shot in the dark but…um…would it just so happen that you’ve done your usual thing and naively relied on secondary sources of information?
JSTOR Primary and Secondary Sources
LikeLike
Cedric, you are either
(a) a computer program
or
(b) an autistic teenager
Either way, you can go and take a hike. A am done with arguing with someone who cannot see some really basic points.
LikeLike
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel . (as does any “carbon tax” or ETS)
Any fuel in particular? all fuel? Some fuel?
LikeLike
A am done with arguing with someone who cannot see some really basic points.
You never got started in the first place.
Dumping a link and then helplessly waving your hands about in the air does not qualify as an argument in the real world.
Where are you getting your information about this from?
(…Mick refuses to say…)
Have you pulled your finger out and done any actual research?
(…Mick looks confused…)
It’s just a shot in the dark but…um…would it just so happen that you’ve done your usual thing and naively relied on secondary sources of information?
(…Mick flounces out of the room…)
Yes, just as I thought. No surprises there.
Global Warming Facts
LikeLike
Fuel poverty ‘will claim 2,700 victims this winter’
Interim report from an independent review of fuel poverty says the number of people living in cold homes contributes to Britain’s unusually high rates of ‘excess winter deaths’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/oct/19/fuel-poverty-2700-victims-winter
Almost 3,000 people in England and Wales will die this winter because they cannot afford to heat their homes, a report suggests – more than the number killed in traffic accidents each year.
Commissioned by the government, the Hills Fuel Poverty Review found that if just 10% of UK winter deaths are caused by fuel poverty – a conservative estimate it claims – 2,700 people will perish as a direct result of being fuel poor.
The report also found that between 2004 and 2009 the “fuel poverty gap” (the extra amount those with badly insulated homes and poor heating systems would need to spend to keep warm) increased by 50% to £1.1bn as a result of rising fuel prices.
Naturally, the climate change act won’t make this any better. But hey who cares? They are just old people and were going to die anyway.
LikeLike
You might consider answering the question instead, as Cedric might put it, of just waving your hands in the air and making more assertions .
As you don’t seem disposed to constructing actual argument we’ll try to assist you by asking questions until we drill down to something concrete that we can use as a starting point.
LikeLike
As you don’t seem disposed to constructing actual argument we’ll try to assist you by asking questions until we drill down to something concrete that we can use as a starting point.
You’ll keep “asking questions”, because that is your MO. You seem to think this is some kind of game. Keep baiting the “denier” until he or she cracks.
I have already constructed an argument.
My argument is that there is a cost, both financial ,and in terms of actual human life, of climate change mitigation policies. These arguments are missing from the hopelessly simplistic video analysis presented.
LikeLike
“You seem to think this is some kind of game. Keep baiting the “denier” until he or she cracks.”
Do you think Mick might be on to you guys?
After all he has a history of “cracking”.
LikeLike
After all he has a history of “cracking”.
Do you have anything to add to this discussion Ken? Or are you going to join in the baiting game? After all, that is why you post these blog entries isn’t it? It doesn’t actually add anything to the body of human knowledge
LikeLike
I have already constructed an argument.
No, you’ve not made an argument, you’ve made a string of assertions without any supporting evidence. I wish to examine your claim about the costs of mitigating climate change and whether it is then justified to use it, as you seem to do, as a reason to do nothing to mitigate and equate it to murdering the elderly. Costs are a big subject but let’s narrow it down to the area you chose to highlight – fuel costs.
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel . (as does any “carbon tax” or ETS)
What fuel? Any fuel in particular? all fuel? Some fuel? (hint: fossil vs renewable}
LikeLike
Make an argument, Mick.
Take yourself seriously for a change and make an argument. I have nothing but contempt for your childish behaviour. When you behave like a tool, you get treated like one.
You bring it on yourself.
Make an argument. Think it through. Support the argument with reliable sources. Abandon the idle assertions.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive, otherwise we would have already done it…
Expensive compared to what? Make an argument. You shouldn’t expect people to just take your word on anything. Evidence. You must present evidence.
Richard asked you “What’s the cost of not implementing the “climate mitigation”?
You folded immediately and started waffling.
Well that is the $64 question of course. The Stern Report covers this but has many detractors.
One minute, it’s all very expensive. Clearly. Then suddenly it’s under question “of course”.
The key issue, in my mind…
Nobody cares about your private thoughts. Make an argument. Construct a real argument. Back up what you say.
So it will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain whatsoever…
No. This is just you making another different assertion. You are not supporting what you started out with originally. You can’t just keep piling assertion on top of assertion and hope nobody notices.
My point is that fuel poverty is increasing in the UK, as a direct result of the climate change act and that people will die as a direct result of this…
So now we have a third assertion to add to the heap. Now you want to talk about fuel poverty for no apparent reason. And once again, we are just all supposed to take your word for everything.
All you have given us is disconnected babble.
Can you or can you not make a sound argument?
Focus.
If you can’t take your own position on something seriously enough to construct a real argument then you should not be surprised when other people don’t bother much with it either.
LikeLike
What fuel? Any fuel in particular? all fuel? Some fuel? (hint: fossil vs renewable}
Hint? I see, you really think I am that thick. You somehow seem to think I have “missed” the bit about so-called “renewables”
Yes, ALL energy is more expensive. Wind and solar are so expensive, that the point of carbon taxes and ETS schemes is to make fossil fuel so expensive that it makes wind and solar seem affordable.
As a result, ALL energy is more expensive.I don’t have a “low carbon” electricity outlet in my house. It is all the same price regardless of where it comes from. The wind and solar guys get more income through FITs and ROCs.
This is not exactly rocket science.
LikeLike
Hint? I see, you really think I am that thick. You somehow seem to think I have “missed” the bit about so-called “renewables”
Yes and not necessarily. Your disjointed assertions strongly suggest that you need to be publicly and slowly guided through a series of logical steps that examine the assertions and so test their validity. I want you to actually start to do some real thinking, and to do it yourself. So I won’t be supplying answers, perhaps some hints.
the point of carbon taxes and ETS schemes is to make fossil fuel so expensive that it makes wind and solar seem affordable
Ok, getting somewhere, a point of agreement, that one of the several goals of carbon taxes and ETS schemes are so-called ‘price-signals’.
(Before we proceed, you do understand that there is a difference between costs and prices, say so if you don’t),
Let’s even leave the broader area of costs out of the argument for a while examine the price of fossil fuels.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
LikeLike
Let’s even leave the broader area of costs out of the argument for a while examine the price of fossil fuels.
Why? What relevance does this have/ What argument are you trying to promote?
LikeLike
Your disjointed assertions strongly suggest that you need to be publicly and slowly guided through a series of logical steps that examine the assertions and so test their validity. I want you to actually start to do some real thinking, and to do it yourself. So I won’t be supplying answers, perhaps some hints.
Richard, have you always been such an arrogant and patronising twat, or is this something that has come to you later in life?
LikeLike
Because you are making assertions about the costs of climate change mitigation. Because you made claims about prices and price signals, including the claim
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
LikeLike
Richard, have you always been such an arrogant and patronising twat, or is this something that has come to you later in life?
Temper temper, just asking questions, lose your rag and you automatically lose that argument you haven’t yet made.
Your disjointed assertions strongly suggest that you need to be publicly and slowly guided through a series of logical steps that examine the assertions and so test their validity. I want you to actually start to do some real thinking, and to do it yourself. So I won’t be supplying answers, perhaps some hints.
Because you are making assertions about the costs of climate change mitigation. Because you made claims about prices and price signals, including the claim
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
LikeLike
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
What relevance does this have to the discussion?
There may be “factors” that affect the price of oil. These factors are external to the ETS and carbon tax issues.
What relevance does it have to the discussion (other than to give you an opportunity to make some smug and patronising comment. Maybe you’d like to wank on about “externalities, or Paul Kruman’s latest ecomonic theory)
More cost -> increased fuel poverty -> more dead people.
Quite a simple argument really
.
LikeLike
What relevance does this have to the discussion?
Because you are making assertions about the costs of climate change mitigation. Because you made claims about prices and price signals, including the claim
The climate change act results in increased fuel poverty, because it increases the price of fuel
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Aside from potential of evil taxes and ETS schemes what are some of the major factors that directly affect the price of fossil fuels?
There may be “factors” that affect the price of oil. These factors are external to the ETS and carbon tax issues.
Good, you’re almost to first base, before you assert them to be external and magically wave them away, please name some.
LikeLike
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
Yes, lets kiddies. No gather round and listen to Uncle Richard.
You tell me. Otherwise I’ll just assume that you are JAQing off
LikeLike
Good, you’re almost to first base, before you assert them to be external and magically wave them away, please name some.
The main “externality” that justifies all this is the theory that CO2 will damage the economy, and that the cost if this will exceed the cost of increased energy.
Even if you accept this idea (which I don’t) then it won’t work because none of the major emitters are doing anything about it anyway
LikeLike
So let’s examine the price of fossil fuel and factors that have a bearing on it.
You tell me.
you don’t know any. Yet you make assertions such as
So it [ETS, CTx costs of mitigation via price of fuel] will destroy what’s left of its economy for no environmental gain whatsoever (UK is only 2% of global CO2 emissions), whilst sending offshore most of its manufacturing industry.a
You can’t name any major factors affecting price of fuel or their current and future affect on its cost and pricing.
LikeLike
The main “externality” that justifies all this is the theory that CO2 will damage the economy, and that the cost if this will exceed the cost of increased energy.
what??
no one’s asked about justification, only about what major factors affects price of fuel. Simple question, here I’ll help you
Demand and ….?
LikeLike
If fossil fuels are running out because of this supply issue, then maybe we need to look at other forms of energy, like nuclear. However, there is enough shale gas in the UK for at least 100 years, so there is not a supply issue.
Wind does not solve the problem, because it is has a very low energy density that requires massive amounts of land to supply small amounts of intermittent energy that requires backup generation in the form of fossil fuel power stations to be spinning over in standby mode 24×7.
LikeLike
Of course, there is also no shortage of coal either.
That’s why Germany is ramping up on coal generation after its decision to decommission its nuclear industry
The availability of crude oil has very little to do with stationery electricity generation
LikeLike
You can’t name any major factors affecting price of fuel or their current and future affect on its cost and pricing.
War, tyrants, feasibility of drilling, terrorism, environmental activists, international legislation, compliance costs, taxation, exploration permits granted, cash flow, investment funding, international debt issues, startup costs, availability and lead time for infrastructure, availability of trained technical staff.
That’s a starter.
.
LikeLike
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
Then “clearly” you need to be able to argue that this is true. Nobody is interested in your gut feeling however. You need to be able to make a reasonable argument and back it up with evidence.
(That’s not permission to just dump a link nor pile on yet another hand-waving assertion)
LikeLike
Then “clearly” you need to be able to argue that this is true.
ETS/ Carbon tax -> More expensive energy -> Increased fuel poverty – > More deaths
I have shown that the last three steps are true by providing a reference to a government sponsored study.
I would have thought that having a tax on energy makes it more expensive. I would take this as “obvious”, in the same way as adding a sales tax to a product makes it more expensive.
LikeLike
I have shown that the last three steps are true by providing a reference to a government sponsored study.
No you didn’t. You just dumped a link and kept on waving your hands. You are not making a rational argument.
…Interim report from an independent review of fuel poverty…
Which has nothing to do with your initial claim.
Here is your original claim. Don’t forget it. We certainly won’t!
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
You need to have two sets of data and compare them.
1) What is the cost of climate change mitigation?
2) What is the cost of not implementing climate change mitigation measures?
That way you can talk about which one is “clearly” more expensive.
You also need to actually back up anything you say with primary source material.
NOT your gut feeling.
NOt some gut feeling of some guy with a blog.
Actual primary source material.
LikeLike
1) What is the cost of climate change mitigation?
2) What is the cost of not implementing climate change mitigation measures?
The only source of information that has studied this is the Stern Report.
However, this is not peer-reviewed, and is therefore not suitable for discussion.
I shall ignore it..
it is not a “primary source”.
LikeLike
The only source of information…
So (as far as you know) there’s only one source of information?
However, this is not peer-reviewed…
Huh? That doesn’t make any sense. Is a report of that nature supposed to be peer-reviewed?
…and is therefore not suitable for discussion.
Non sequitur.
I shall ignore it..
So you have decided to ignore the only source of information you think is out there? Dumb.
…it is not a “primary source”.
How does it not qualify as a primary source? Don’t expose your ignorance (again). We’ve already explained to you the difference between primary and secondary sources of information.
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive…
Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, you are forced to abandon your assertion.
If you are going to be taken seriously, then you must do better.
Asking someone to use primary sources of information when they make an argument and be prepared to back it up is not some sneaky trick.
You have nothing.
Just idle, ignorant babble.
Why can’t I just Google?
LikeLike
You have nothing, just babble
I have evidence that old and vulnerable people will die as a direct result of the UK climate change act.
Clearly this is of no concern to you..
Why doesn’t this surprise me?
LikeLike
Maybe I need to construct my argument for carefully. Above, I stated
ETS/ Carbon tax -> More expensive energy -> Increased fuel poverty – > More deaths
I have shown that the last three steps are true by providing a reference to a government sponsored study.
In this statement, I used the notation -> to indicates “leads to”.
i.e
ETS/ Carbon tax “lead to” More expensive energy
More expensive energy “leads to” Increased fuel poverty
Increased fuel poverty “leads to” More deaths
perhaps we could get further by forming some points of agreement.
So can you indicate Cedric whether you agree/disagree with the following statements
(a)ETS/ Carbon tax “lead to” More expensive energy
(b)More expensive energy “leads to” Increased fuel poverty
(c)Increased fuel poverty “leads to” More deaths
Do you agree with (a) Yes/No/Not sure/More information required.
Do you agree with (b) Yes/No/Not sure/More information required.
Do you agree with (c) Yes/No/Not sure/More information required.
Would you like further help with this questionaire? We can provide translation services and also braile for the sight-impaired.
We also offer councelling services for those that find these questions disturbing or offensive.
We also offer an inclusive and non-discriminatory environment that empowers minority opinions and viewpoints.
Have a nice day.
LikeLike
I have evidence that old and vulnerable people will die as a direct result of the UK climate change act.
Even if you did, that does not support your original claim.
Let’s remember it shall we?
Here it is…
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
To support this claim, you need to have two sets of data and compare them.
1) What is the cost of climate change mitigation?
2) What is the cost of not implementing climate change mitigation measures?
That way you can talk about which one is “clearly” more expensive.
You also need to actually back up anything you say with primary source material.
NOT your gut feeling.
NOt some gut feeling of some guy with a blog.
Actual primary source material.
LikeLike
Let us remind ourselves also, that this Greg Craven guy is a schoolteacher, and the other “Guardian” video was done by a comedian
So while we are banging on about “primary sources”, let us remember where the original argument came from
LikeLike
Of course, there is also no shortage of coal either.
That’s why Germany is ramping up on coal generation… blah blah
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. You’ve conceded a time frame expiry of shale gas resources, and waved away crude oil from your argument, yet it too has very finite time frame.
100 years for shale gas is the UK therefore no supply issue?
You are remarkably short sighted. Sooner or later we are going to have to seek alternatives to fossil fuels, it is simply a matter of when and in what state we are prepared to allow the planet to be in when the shift is made.
Your argument, to do nothing to mitigate climate change and continue using fossil fuels until exhaustion, solves absolutely nothing.
Nothing at all.
It merely shifts the time frame for change and does so at great probable risk to the planet., according to all of the world’s scientific organisations.
Do nothing => use resources up => price increase => fuel poverty => murder elderly
good one Mike
All you propose is to put one’s fingers in one’s ears and head in the sand.
LikeLike
In Booker’s article, he claims that the cost of the UK climate change bill will be hundreds of billions over the next forty years.
And you just took his word on this. You never demanded any hard evidence.
Dumb. You got sucked in completely. Our standards are higher.
Sorry, no primary sources.
There never are.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives. Primary sources are not your friend.
So, basically I don’t give a toss about your arguments.
It’s your argument we were discussing, dummy.
Just in case you’ve forgotten your own words, here they are again:
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
(…)
Expensive compared to not implementing the “climate mitigation” measures.
Idle twaddle.
LikeLike
Oh so I see Richard’s argument. We need to find a form of energy that has infinite lifetime. 100 years time scale is not enough?
Because coal and shale gas will “run out” in a hundred years or so, we can’t use them, and have to use windmills instead, and condemn old people to death. How amusing!
Is that your argument Richard?
Fairly shallow I must say. If we used that argument 150 years ago, the industrial revolution would never have happened.
Maybe that would have been good, in your minds. At least we wouldn’t be sitting in front of computers having these pointless discussions.
(I am looking for a “primary source” to demonstrate that wind and solar has no cost of maintenance and requires no input from resources. No repairs, no “non-renewable component”)
I look forward to this…….
LikeLike
Clearly the cost of climate change mitigation will be very expensive
Of course, silly me. All those people talking of :”trillions” of dollars to re-engineer the world to a “low-carbon” economy were just evil climate deniers funded by Big Oil.
Of course, I have seen the light now! A blinding flash has come! A road to Damascus moment! All we need to do is shed our baggage and our addiction to Oil! Hallelujah! Praise be to Lord Gore!
We can live in perfect harmony with nature, skipping through fields of beautiful wind turbines idly turning in the breeze!
It is truly a beauty to behold!!
LikeLike
Dumb. You got sucked in completely. Our standards are higher.
LOL
That’s why you listen to videos made by schoolteachers and comedians!
ROTFL
LikeLike
http://www.europesillwind.org/films/europes-ill-wind-2.html
LikeLike
All those people…
I don’t get my information from “all those people”. Too vague. I prefer NASA.
That’s why you listen to videos made by schoolteachers and comedians!
I’ve explained this to you before.
The videos that I used are a popularisation of the science. They are an illustration. People like potholer54 and Peter Sinclair use primary sources all the time. NASA is a big favourite.
If you find anything that is at odds with primary sources of information from any of the videos that are used around here then that would be genuinely impressive.
The creators of the videos use excellent scholarship. Go ahead and read the fine print for yourself. It’s all publically available and very good work. It’s not about the conclusions they draw. It’s their methodology.
So, basically I don’t give a toss about your arguments.
We do. We give them a lot of attention. It’s all about education and insisting on being well informed. You should try it some time.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then do so. So far you are doing a lousy job.
NASA is not your enemy.
Use primary sources of information.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Think about it.
If you think that you deserve the best and that your family deserves the best then do real scholarship and create real arguments.
Primary sources of information.
NASA, for example, is a primary source of information. NASA does much of the heavy lifting on climate science. They are pioneers in climatology research and have been for decades. They have a very good website where they explain their research in easy and simple terms and make it crystal clear the global scientific communities position on climate change.
NASA | Earth Science Week: Climate Change & The Global Ocean
LikeLike
What has NASA got to do with the UK climate change act?
They do science. Politicians do policy.
It is actually possible, you know, for some people to “accept” the science and still be at odds with the policy.
LikeLike
It is actually possible, you know, for some people to “accept” the science and still be at odds with the policy.
You don’t accept either.
You don’t use primary sources to understand the science.
Nor do you use primary sources to understand policy.
You are woefully ill-informed.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
NASA is not “the enemy”. They are not Stalinists or any other such rot.
Go to primary sources of information. Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
LikeLike
Go to primary sources of information. Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
So what is the “primary source of information” when making up your mind on the UK climate change act? I’d really like to know. Is it NASA?
Are NASA now controlling the European nations from a gigantic space station?
LikeLike
Well I did find this on the NASA site:
https://climatesciences.jpl.nasa.gov/news/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=7
Jenkins: What role should climate scientists play in shaping or informing future policy?
Slingo: I think it’s really important that scientists do not get involved in shaping policy. We have to be independent. We have to keep scrupulously to the science and present it in a very objective, rational and honest way. Our role is purely to provide the best scientific evidence to policymakers to enable them to do their job. Therefore, there has to be a very clear divide between the two.
Natch…
So about those windmills….
LikeLike
Go to primary sources of information. Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
So what is the “primary source of information”…
You are not getting this.
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
Any important decision you make on science or political policy should be firmly grounded on primary sources of information.
Not newspapers.
Not blogs.
No some guy on the internet.
Primary sources of information. As long as you are using primary sources of information then you have made a good beginning in understanding any topic or claim.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
Primary vs. Secondary Sources
LikeLike
Yes I know there is no “one” point of information. But where do Iget a fair and balanced view of the cost of the UK climate change act? The only ones that come up on Google are “denier” sites.
Sp maybe it doesn’t cost anything at all? Maybe the government don’t want the peeps to know? cuz we would becum angry and burn de shops like wat we did in London innit
LikeLike
Yes I know there is no “one” point of information.
Then demonstrate it. Actions speak louder than words.
The only ones that come up on Google are “denier” sites.
Again, you fail to understand. I’m not talking about the value of denier sites.
It’s not “our” sites versus “your” sites.
I’m talking about primary sources of information.
It’s doesn’t get any more objective and fair and reasonable than that.
I didn’t tell you not to get your information from denier blogs.
I told you not to get your information from blogs. Period.
I didn’t tell you not to get your information from the Daily Mail as opposed to the Guardian.
I told you not to get your information from newspapers. Period.
I didn’t tell you to get your information about climate change and political policy from me.
I told you not to get your information from some guy on the internet. Period.
You must use primary sources of information.
If you want to understand important scientific and political issues then you must demand primary sources. Don’t settle for second best.
…the cost of the UK climate change act…
Your first port of call should be the science not the policy…reacting… to the science. Otherwise, you are putting the cart before the horse.
We have to keep scrupulously to the science and present it in a very objective, rational and honest way. Our role is purely to provide the best scientific evidence to policymakers to enable them to do their job. Therefore, there has to be a very clear divide between the two.
Exactly. Look at what scientific evidence the policymakers used to do their job. That would be referenced in the paperwork of the Act itself. Look at the foundations first. Tell the blogs you rely upon to take a hike. Go yourself directly to the source.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
LikeLike
Because coal and shale gas will “run out” in a hundred years or so, we can’t use them, and have to use windmills instead, and condemn old people to death. How amusing!
Is that your argument Richard?
Fairly shallow I must say. If we used that argument 150 years ago, the industrial revolution would never have happened.
Mick, is your surname Mouse by chance?
It merely illustrated the fallacy of your argument that mitigation against climate change is essentially murdering the elderly due to its cost, yet the cost of not mitigating against climate change and exhausting fossil fuels won’t hurt, as you are blind to the fact that racing to exhaust carbon sources will eventually have same effect on prices, irrespective of the climate issues.
I am looking for a “primary source” to demonstrate that wind and solar has no cost of maintenance and requires no input from resources. No repairs, no “non-renewable component”
More from the big bag of stupid. I suppose you think the non-renewable components of wind and solar end up as CO2, water and trace hydrocarbons as does the end product of combustion.
LikeLike
Interestingly, a recent study from the Netherlands showed that wind energy actually increases CO2 emissions, thanks to the inefficient running of the fossil fueled backup power that needs to run 24×7.
Oh well, I guess NASA says the science is settled. We need to destroy the countryside, kill birds and bats, increase CO2 emissions, treble power bills, make any remaining industry uncompetitive so it moves offshore.
We need to do this because it is a moral issue
Of course, there is another way……
LikeLike
So why don’t we use nuclear energy then?
LikeLike
Here is a non-primary source of information on Wind Energy.
The Sun newspaper
NATIONAL GRID has been forced to ask wind farms to shut down for the second time in a MONTH – because it’s too windy.
Seven wind farm operators switched off their turbines on Monday night.
National Grid said they were generating TOO MUCH power as storms ripped across Scotland.
It leaves taxpayers with yet another bill. National Grid has to pay wind farm operators compensation when asking them to stop the turbines.
National Grid said: “It was very windy yesterday and there was some curtailment of wind generation.”
Despite huge subsidies for wind farm operators, National Grid claims its network is not ready to handle the power surge in storms.
Demand for electricity also drops off late at night.
National Grid paid out almost £3 million to wind farm operators in compensation in mid-September when a dozen wind farms were shut for three nights in a row.
Fred Olsen Renewables pocketed £1.2 million.
The Grid spokesman insisted: “This is all a normal part of how we balance the electricity transmission system and manage constraints on the network.”
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3893761/Wind-farms-shut-because-its-too-windy.html
Quite a laugh eh?
(Just a thought)
hahahahhahahahahahahah
LikeLike
Interestingly, a recent study from the…
More cherry-picking. You don’t even bother to cite the study nor to explain how it relates to anything you have said before. Not very interesting.
Oh well, I guess NASA says the science is settled.
Why guess? You can go to them directly and find out for yourself what they say in their own words.
Here is a non-primary source of information ….
Yes, we know.
There are lots of non-primary sources of information out there.
Duh!
The idea, Mick, is to use primary sources of information.
Anything else is an invitation for someone to lead you by the nose.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
LikeLike
Where do I find out about the uselessness of windfarms?
NASA? Are they a primary source of information about Wind Farms?
HINT – There is no wind on the Moon.
What kind of power are they planning for the moon stations?
Wind?
Hydro?
Coal?
Gas?
Just a thought.
I have the answer,
But I am not a primary source of information.
LikeLike
NASA? Are they a primary source of information about Wind Farms?
Well, if you want to know if NASA has anything to do with windfarms then…you could find out for yourself. NASA has an easy-to-read website.
HINT – There is no wind on the Moon.
Non sequitur.
I have the answer,
But I am not a primary source of information.
Non sequitur.
(shrug)
Any important decision you make on science or political policy should be firmly grounded on primary sources of information.
Not newspapers.
Not blogs.
No some guy on the internet.
Primary sources of information. As long as you are using primary sources of information then you have made a good beginning in understanding any topic or claim.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
I need to look after my health and that of my family.
Then take your responsibility to yourself and your family seriously.
Use primary sources of information.
There’s no good reason to avoid doing so.
LikeLike
Well, if you want to know if NASA has anything to do with windfarms then…you could find out for yourself. NASA has an easy-to-read website
Nope, nothing about windfarms
What kind of lame-ass “Primary Source” is this?
Doh!
LikeLike
Nope, nothing about windfarms
See? That was easy. You can answer your own questions with a little basic research.
What kind of lame-ass “Primary Source” is this?
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
Yes I know there is no “one” point of information.
Then demonstrate it. Actions speak louder than words. Stop being a moron.
LikeLike
Then demonstrate it. Actions speak louder than words. Stop being a moron.
I never started.
I am not a moron.
Gordon is though.
LikeLike
You are a moron, Mick. You allow yourself to be lead by the nose.
Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.
If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
LikeLike
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
Yes it is, because if I want to find out why WInd Farms are Crap, it is really hard to find the Primary Source of Information.
Where is it?
Just a thought?
It’s not on NASA’s website
Everyone is talking about it, so there must be a Primary Source of Information (PSI)
Where is the PSI?
Help?
Hahhahahahah!
LikeLike
…it is really hard to find the Primary Source of Information.(…)Where is it?
You are not getting this.
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
Any important decision you make on science or political policy should be firmly grounded on primary sources of information.
Not newspapers.
Not blogs.
No some guy on the internet.
Primary sources of information. As long as you are using primary sources of information then you have made a good beginning in understanding any topic or claim.
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Unless you are prepared to go to primary sources of information and do the bare minimum of scholary effort then you deserve to be sucked in by twaddle.
Use primary sources of information. It’s not some sneaky trick.
If you don’t like it when people write you off as a denier then put some distance between yourself and the methods that deniers use. Demonstrate how your scholarship is solid and not built on kookiness.
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
LikeLike
All climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Making a decision on whether wind farms are viable is not a “climate denier talking point”.
It is a question of engineering.
Why is it so hard for you? Use Primary Sources of Information – your head.
LikeLike
Making a decision on whether wind farms are viable is not a “climate denier talking point”.
I never said it was.
Yet, it’s true that all climate denier talking points instantly self-destruct upon contact with primary sources. Every single time. Not one survives.
Making a decision on whether wind farms are viable… should be done using primary sources of information. Why settle for anything less?
Why is it so hard for you? Use Primary Sources of Information
I use primary sources of information all the time.
For example, when I want to know something about climate change I go straight to NASA or any other scientific community on the planet.
You don’t.
Yet you should. Otherwise you will continue to be led by the nose.
LikeLike
Go to primary source of information. Why do you hesitate? Is it…too hard for you?
Where is the Primary Source of Information for an unbiased appraisal of wind energy?
Where?
LikeLike
Maybe this?
http://www.withouthotair.com/
LikeLike
Where is the Primary Source of Information for an unbiased appraisal of wind energy?
Where?
There is no “the”. There is no single, super-duper special source.
The basic rule of good scholarship is to use primary sources of information.
That’s it.
…an unbiased…
Use a biased or an unbiased source according to your own personal taste and however you define it. That’s for you to judge.
The only important thing is to do real research on an issue and use primary sources.
If you are not prepared to do that then you are at the mercy of newspapers and blogs.
You must verify things for yourself.
Maybe this?
You should be able to figure it out for yourself by now. Or you could ask your local librarian.
What is a primary source?
LikeLike
You should be able to figure it out for yourself by now. Or you could ask your local librarian.
Do you get paid by the hour to write this?
LikeLike
Mick, I am doing you a favour by giving you fair and reasonable advice. There is nothing bad in trying to get someone to research their position so that they can make a solid reality-based argument.
This whole business about primary sources versus secondary sources isn’t from me. It’s not exclusive to the issue of climate change. You can go to your local library or university and they will tell you exactly the same thing.
Test it for yourself. Ask ‘em.
LikeLike
As it happens, Cedric, I do actually agree with you on the primary source thing.
Too many times we see newspapers regurgitating information. Some have called this by the rather graphic phrase “turd eating”.
My question is really coming back to how we actually find some unbiased information on energy policy.
never mind. it can wait until another day.
LikeLike
As it happens, Cedric, I do actually agree with you on the primary source thing.
I’m glad to hear it.
I never shoot down or dismiss a person’s argument unfairly.
Yet I always demand primary sources of information.
I demand it from people on the internet, I demand it from politicians, I demand it from blogs, I demand it from newspapers and I demand it from myself. I’m happy to use videos and articles to illustrate a point or to save time but those very same videos and articles have to be firmly based on (you guessed it) primary sources of information.
Always.
Everything else is just some other guy’s opinion. Even if they do have a newspaper.
My question is really coming back to how we actually find some unbiased information on energy policy.
At the risk of repeating myself, I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a good energy policy that is not based on good science.
I don’t say that to annoy you. I genuinely mean it.
If you seriously want to talk about what is more expensive as opposed to less expensive then you have to look to the science first to understand the situation that gives birth to policy.
And, of course, the way you look to the science is to skip the newspapers and go directly to primary sources.
I do the same with health information. If I want to find out about the risks of cancer from smoking/my parents/alcohol/cell phones/flowers etc then I will not rely on a newspaper article or a blog. I’ll go straight to primary sources. My personal health is too important to risk with amateurs. And there is a lot of amateur crap out there.
LikeLike
Yes, but my point is that if you take a “science based” approach, then the so-called renewables option isn’t necessarily the best way forward.
It doesn’t actually solve the supposed problem at hand.
LikeLike
Yes, but my point is that if you take a “science based” approach, then the so-called renewables option isn’t necessarily the best way forward.
If you wish to make an argument to make that point then no-one here will stop you, least of all me.
However, you can’t expect people to just take your word on things.
Any position you take has to be based on firm foundations. Foundations that are independently verifiable by someone else.
For example: Suppose I just said the opposite of what you said.
“the so-called renewables option is indeed the best way forward”.
Would you just roll over and take my word for it?
I would hope not. I’m just some guy on the internet. My personal opinion is as worthless as an op-ed in a newspaper or a shock jock on the radio.
It’s like building a defense for an appearance in court. You have to prepare your materials first before you make a claim-not after. By then it’s too late.
If someone asks you “What’s your evidence” or “What sources are you using” then those are fair questions. In fact, it would be foolish not to automatically ask those questions.
I don’t ask you to trust me on anything and I treat you the same way. I’m not trying to frustrate you or make you mad. I just don’t give anybody a free pass. You have a perfect right to do the same. In fact, nothing would please me better.
When you dump a link or just go to a newspaper article you are not doing the work that is required to make a serious case. You won’t be taken seriously. I’d say the same thing to my best friend. I’m not picking on you in particular. None of us are.
It doesn’t actually solve the supposed problem at hand.
Either there is a problem or there is not. If you want to talk about the pros and cons about which is the best way forward to tackle ANY problem then you must first clearly identify and acknowledge the problem in the first place. Otherwise you are just putting the cart before the horse. There’s no way around that. Problem first. Possible solutions after.
As you well know, I talk about NASA all the time. They do excellent work. I feel as confident getting my climatology information from them as I do getting my cancer information from the NIH. Neither of those two organisations gets to just make things up. The positions they hold on a great number of scientific issues are created using good science firmly based on a wealth of peer-reviewed research going back many decades.
If you can recommend a better primary source for information on climate change then I’d like to hear it. But for my money, NASA is arguably the best there is.
Nobody treats NASA or the NIH as a religion or just goes along with what they say. The same goes for the Royal Society or the RMET etc. These scientific communities have hard-earned reputations. There’s a process involved.
Again, make any argument you like. Take any position you want. No problem here.
Just be prepared in advance to support your position with primary sources.
LikeLike
Yes indeed. I take your point.
However, the way things are panning out rapidly in the Eurozone right now, I suspect a “primary source of information” might be the sharp end of an AK47
Not what I wish for, of course, but just an observation ….
LikeLike