 | catweazle666 on China develops revolutionary e… |
 | Curious George on China develops revolutionary e… |
 | brianrlcatt on China develops revolutionary e… |
 | Bob Greene on China develops revolutionary e… |
 | coecharlesdavid on China develops revolutionary e… |
 | jb on China develops revolutionary e… |
 | oldbrew on Suggestions-50 |
| oldbrew on Russia finds vast oil and gas… |
 | Phoenix44 on Russia finds vast oil and gas… |
 | watersider on Russia finds vast oil and gas… |
| oldbrew on Russia finds vast oil and gas… |
 | saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
| saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
| saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
| oldbrew on Suggestions-50 |
.
.
In a world of soundbites a two-word label is about the limit before people mentally switch off.
by Judith Curry
Interesting article in The Atlantic, but I’m still trying to figure out what is being ‘denied.’
View original post 1,032 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop
Note: commenters using the ‘d word’ may find WordPress software flags the comment for moderation. That’s just how it is.
I’ve always found Judith to be a warmer, just not a crazy one. The only human caused global warming, by humans that I have seen proved, is data manipulation. The concept of CO2 causing increases in global atmospheric temperature has been proved to be false. The climate is always changing and human activities are not a real factor. And last, the argument that humans are the cause of climate change has been used for political purposes for thousands of years. Does that make me one of those “D” word people?
I would certainly hope so…pg
A reply from my M.P. (Skipton and Ripon) to my question concerning the spiralling costs, I pointed out that there is no evidence of mankind’s influence on a changing climate.
“I agree with you that some areas of climate change science need further research, but I do believe that man-made climate change is one of the most serious global challenges we face.”
And.
“Regardless of ones views on climate change, decarbonising the UK’s energy supplies will reduce the exposure of our energy prices to movements in international fossil fuel prices.”
This chap has been told ‘what to think’, not ‘how to think’.
Jmac.
8364kHz: yes, you’re wasting your time on Julian Smith.
A slavish follower of the party line, unfortunately.
‘will reduce the exposure of our energy prices to movements in international fossil fuel prices.’
So if we pay high prices [for part-time renewables] we’ll be less exposed to changes in lower prices [for non-renewables]. What fool would run a business on that basis?
Oldbrew, that is the whole point, none of them could run a business, that is why they are MPs.
US infighting is undermining US integrity.
There are no brakes on the runaway train.
Solution from outside the US is the only stable option.
Judith Curry’s dark lukewarm corruption has gone totally black.
Her tone has descended to that of a closed minded abusive dictator who is going to use a baseball bat to repeatedly beat you silly until you take a lukewarm position.
Get this clown off the stage.
Looked at Judith Curry site and left a comment —
I can not imagine anyone will take any notice but there it is, this AGW boondoggle has legs yet.
Discussion: JC’s ‘role’
Posted on February 11, 2017
by Judith Curry
In view of recent controversies, numerous criticisms have been made about my ‘role,’ with expectations of things that I ‘should’ be doing.
JC concludes: I don’t have an agenda for influencing policy, largely because I have no particular wisdom or political preference related to energy and climate policy, beyond the obvious peace, health and prosperity for everyone.
– – –
Of course there’s no ‘neutral corner’ in the so-called climate debate, having stepped into the ring.
“In a world of soundbites a two-word label is about the limit before people mentally switch off.”
Quote of the year thus far.
Climate activists’ final act, as they move into the last stage of grief
Not sure about that, we shall see.
If, as it seems, the consensus is regrouping around a luke-warmist position, the line in the sand becomes, ‘Does my position justify decarbonisation?’
The economic, social, and political consequences of the Decarb movement – denying cheap and reliable energy to billions of people and providing a pretext for global control – are as bad as the extreme consequences heralded for warming.
Compromising and taking a middle position is not always a rational approach. It depends on the context and how you define ‘middle’. I’m reminded of the joke about a family who couldn’t agree on whether to take their holidays in Western Australia or South America, and ending up snow-bound in a hut in Antarctica.
Stable division’s superior to unstable union.
Arctic winter warming, if it exists, is wholly beneficial to humans, animals, plants, everything. Draconian measures to stop it are foolhardy, especially since past climate history says a cold spell is probably in store. As in California, what we now fear is probably the opposite of what will actually happen.