Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > The IEA Strategy Report

I think your long silence probably indicates that you accept that it may no longer be acceptable to say that you don't trust someone because they are German or Japanese. Equally, that this unacceptable practice is not very different from expressing lack of confidence in a scientific point of view simply because the authors are Chinese.

You could simply accept you probably made a mistake.

You argument is not being strengthened by further rationalisation.

By the way, when you talk about "vile tactics" on this thread, you are once again laying yourself open to being accused of vile tactics yourself. Some would say you are pretty vulnerable on this score - but not for me to comment of course.

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Philip,
I'll try another track, avoiding moral overtones.

The only fuel possible, with the density and portability, and handling characteristics of fossil fuel is fossil fuel. Again on abstract grounds, even among these, CNG is density poor and both CNG and LPG are cumbersome (requiring significant infrastructure).

The issue is not merely of energy abundance, but of energy 'distributability'. No source can have the atomizing characteristics of fossil fuels. Human progress depends acutely on such atomization, i.e., units of x (can be food/energy/light/water etc) that is accessible at the level of the human individual.

You can take all the coal, pile it up and burn it in a MW powerplant, you can divide it up and put it each hearth, gas tank, barbeque, jet etc etc. No other fuel will allow this.

This is not a 'practical' constraint, this is a situation borne of fundamental physics, ...or so says Laughlin. What do you/we do?

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterShub

matthu

You could simply accept you probably made a mistake.

You called me a racist for no reason.

I didn't make a mistake and I have twice explained exactly what prompted my original comment. You have continued to ignore everything that doesn't suit your very peculiar perceptions.

Reading your further extraordinary attempts at self-justification confirms my earlier opinion: you are slightly mad.

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Philip

Excuse me, but how exactly did my reply at 5:01 PM not back up my complaint? It contained five separate quotes from you supporting my complaint, all found on a single page of this thread.

Your reply at 5:01pm contains exactly zero evidence of my having misrepresented you. Each and every quote you present is an accurate response to your own statements.

This is why I asked for clear, unambiguous, detailed examples. I knew you would be unable to provide any.

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

matthu
You must admit, BBD has a point.
After all only a devious sceptic that he's never heard of would try to influence the outcome of Durban by publishing politically motivated rubbish at this stage.
I mean, this is something that the warm-mongers' useful idiots in the media would never dream of doing, is it?

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

BBD - you frequently employ ad hominem as a method of debate apparently without recognising the fallacy of doing so (although I find that hard to swallow). Unfortunately, this time you simply descended into racism by citing an author's nationality as a reason for ignoring his science and you got called on it.

Even if you don't trust somebody's motives - this is really irrelevant to the validity of the science. The fact that the science was sound and the author was an internationally renowned scientist really did help to underline the fallacy of your argument. But I doubt you even looked at the review, did you?

Calling somebody dishonest because their views differ from your own or lapsing frequently into puerilism don't appear to be particularly effective debating techniques.

How about simply raising the level of your debate?

Nov 23, 2011 at 7:00 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

How about simply raising the level of your debate?

This - from you?

: )

Nov 23, 2011 at 7:45 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

BBD

"As I understand it, there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere for a glaciation to occur in 3ky even if the eccentricity of orbit were sufficient (all other factors being equal) to trigger one"

What is your understanding of past climate? My understanding is that for periods of hundreds of millions of years the earth had teperatures higher than today by 15/20 degrees with CO2 higher by several factors of 10 than today but still the earth fell into ice age.

Nov 23, 2011 at 9:22 PM | Unregistered CommenterDung

BBD

"As I understand it, there is already too much CO2 in the atmosphere for a glaciation to occur in 3ky even if the eccentricity of orbit were sufficient (all other factors being equal) to trigger one"

Based on what exactly? A hunch, a premonition, a dream, Explain for once please, your words, not just references to research papers.

As usual, no answer to a question on the science!

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

Reading your further extraordinary attempts at self-justification confirms my earlier opinion: you are slightly mad.
Nov 23, 2011 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

Slightly mad?

You really are an adolescent aren't you with childish comments like that.

"Methinks you are a troll"

Nov 23, 2011 at 10:44 PM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

BBD,

"Each and every quote you present is an accurate response to your own statements."

You love playing with words don't you? Certainly every quote I presented is a "response" from you to my statements. I presume each is also "accurate" in the sense that it reflects your own thinking on the subject. However, each and every one of them remains an misrepresentation both of my views and of my statements about my views.

I also want to support Matthu and company regarding your constant personal attacks on scientists. You will do far better to avoid them, and concentrate on science or politics or whatever else interests you.

Nov 24, 2011 at 6:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

Hi Shub,

You make good points here, but I think Laughlin is also suggesting that future developments in technology will resolve these problems, even if people don't yet have the answers. It's a little unfair to comment too strongly without the book in my hands, but the Amazon page has some clues:

Laughlin foresees the birth of a conventional synthetic fuel industry. Present-day oil companies already have the catalytic synthesis technologies capable of converting any carbon-containing substance-coal, trash, trees-into conventional fuels. Meanwhile, energy from the sun and wind is likely to be cheaper than energy made from biomass. However, long-term storage facilities must be built for this power to last. If countries don't build them, they will go nuclear out of necessity, whether they like it or not. Since nuclear energy won't disappear, the price of electricity will drop, even as the price of transport fuel rises sky high. It might get warmer, but life will go on. As Laughlin sees it, the energy problem is simply a matter of engineering, of keeping the lights on when the gas begins to run out.

If you haven't already, MacKay's book in a similar space is well worth reading too, very practical and fact-filled, and not at all what you might expect. Also free!

Nov 24, 2011 at 7:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

If you haven't already, MacKay's book in a similar space is well worth reading too, very practical and fact-filled, and not at all what you might expect. Also free!
Nov 24, 2011 at 7:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

Thanks for the link. I've downloaded the PDF and had a quick scan before loading it onto my Ebook reader for a more thorough read.

The author assumes from the outset that CO2 levels are too high and must be dealt with.

That's ok by me as I've long thought , if only for our long term security, that fossil fuels must be replaced.

My main concern at present is the corrupt use of 'green tariffs' to subsidise inefficient wind and solar power, at the expense of hydro and tidal energy sources. Indeed, Nuclear would require much less subsidy than wind or solar but the unrepresentative 'greens' object to it.

I wonder if/when clean Fusion power becomes mainstream the green luddites would object to that also because it relies on advanced technology.

Anyway, I digress. I'll read the book and give my opinions later.

Nov 24, 2011 at 8:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

RKS, "The author assumes from the outset that CO2 levels are too high and must be dealt with."

I think the main bulk of the book is independent from this section, and as far as I know is an accurate assessment of the potential of various non-fossil energy sources. Fair to say, it may not always be comfortable reading for renewable energy enthusiasts. I'll be interested to hear what you think!

Nov 24, 2011 at 8:46 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

Dung

What is your understanding of past climate? My understanding is that for periods of hundreds of millions of years the earth had teperatures higher than today by 15/20 degrees with CO2 higher by several factors of 10 than today but still the earth fell into ice age.

Just a minute. Before you begin your own, self-motivated research on the geological carbon cycle (keywords: weathering; tectonics; subduction; volcanism; CaCO3) we need to back-track a bit.

Yesterday, you responded to my attempt to help you (Nov 23, 2011 at 11:11 AM) with this oafish taunt:

I am not asking you to do homework, I am ridiculing statements that you made. Did you not understand that?

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:43 PM

First, have you yet bothered to find out about the 400ky periodicity in the Earth's orbital eccentricity? This long-term cycle in Earth orbital dynamics is the reason why the Holocene interglacial will indeed be many times longer than any since MIS 11 (420 - 360kya).

Second, what makes you think I want to answer more of your questions given your behaviour? Why the f-ck should I waste my time?

Allow me to cordially invite you to get stuffed.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Philip

I also want to support Matthu and company regarding your constant personal attacks on scientists.

Unbelievable. You are doing it again. Please list the 'personal attacks' on scientists to which you refer. I am most curious to see them.

Thanks.

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Second, what makes you think I want to answer more of your questions given your behaviour? Why the f-ck should I waste my time?

Allow me to cordially invite you to get stuffed.
Nov 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

"Quack quack!"

"Pants on fire!"

"Get stuffed!"

"F-ck!"

Tell me young lady, what exactly do you intend to do when you grow up?

Nov 24, 2011 at 11:47 AM | Unregistered CommenterRKS

You still don't get it, do you?
Instead of addressing yourself to the uncertainties highlighted by scientists, you simply say:e.g.

- One Chinese paper by authors no-one's heard of
- Muller, who has stated that AGW is real and largely responsible for modern warming
- Michaels, a notorious pocketer of oil money
- Stott, an emeritus something-or-other from SOAS with zero professional expertise on climate
- Curry being controversial (ooh!)

all comments which are either demonstrably false or irrelevant.

Nov 24, 2011 at 12:10 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Please list the 'personal attacks' on scientists to which you refer.
Always happy to oblige. (It's been a quiet morning!)

Nov 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM
Curry's 0 - 10C is nonsense ... and as usual, one is left wondering what the hell she thinks she's doing.

Nov 23, 2011 at 11:17 AM
As soon as you stop referencing Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis etc as though they were reliable sources, we will be be able to agree on something.

Nov 21, 2011 at 9:59 PM
... a misleading 'literature review' by some unheard-of CHINESE authors ...

Nov 20, 2011 at 10:18 PM
... you referenced Philip Stott - the one with zero expertise but loudly contrarian views ...

Nov 20, 2011 at 8:19 PM
One Chinese paper by authors no-one's heard of ...
Michaels, a notorious pocketer of oil money
Stott, an emeritus something-or-other from SOAS with zero professional expertise on climate

Nov 18, 2011 at 7:13 PM
Singer, Ball, Reiter, Michaels, Clark - do you have the first idea how little credibility attaches to these names?

Nov 17, 2011 at 10:13 PM
It's obvious to most that RP Snr is more agenda-driven and biased than those he criticises/defends.

Nov 10, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Now, stop trying to divert this conversation away from the comprehensive rebuttal of Lindzen ...
And what about RP Sr's errors?

I gave you the benefit of the doubt on a couple.

Nov 24, 2011 at 12:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterMike Jackson

Has your curiosity been assuaged, BBD?
Top save you time:

The phrase ad hominem argument (often called an ad hominem attack) comes from the Latin "at the person". It also sometimes applies to any argument that centres on emotive (specifically irrelevant emotions) rather than rational or logical appeal.[1] It occurs when people who are unable to attack the argument itself resort to attacking the person making it. As such arguments have nothing to do with the topic, they have no weight or validity against the argument. This is the case even if the attack is true; two plus two still equals four even if the first person to point this out was the most morally reprehensible person to have ever lived.

Nov 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Mike Jackson

Are you kidding? Personal attacks?

I stand by every single word of the quotes above.

As usual, the responses here are a miserable joke. You are clutching at straws, all of you. And what straws some of them are.

Curry - 1 - 10C is so meaningless as to inspire bafflement. READ THE LITERATURE WHY DON'T YOU. So, what on earth is she trying to do (answer: create groundless confusion and doubt). Statement of fact, not ad hom.

Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis are NOT regarded as reliable sources. What planet are you on? Sorry if you don't like that, but it's true. My saying so is not an ad hom. Get over yourself.

Fang et al. is misleading. And IMO politically motivated. Don't like the sound of that - tough. I don't like what the Chinese did at COP15 or what appears to be going on now. Doesn't make me a racist (I loath Republican nutters too; an oddly white bunch, no?)

Philip Stott IS an emeritus prof of biogeography from the School of Oriental and African Studies. He has NO climate science credentials and NO climate science publishing history.

Patrick Michaels IS a notorious pocketer of oil money - did we not know this? Oh dear. Sorry to puncture the bubble of your ignorance. Maybe you should be more careful who you trust.

The same goes for Singer, Ball, Reiter, Michaels, Clark - all credibility-free. What planet are you on? Do some research.

Lindzen's claims about low CS have been comprehensively rebutted - as I showed exhaustively on this thread. Not an ad hom.

RP Seniors many errors are real, and I have linked to a summary twice on this thread (most recently at Nov 22, 2011 at 4:54 PM - why don't you READ??). Not an ad hom.

How long can you lot keep this rubbish up?

Nov 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

matthu

So how does calling me a racist fit with your pompous moral posturing?

Nov 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM | Unregistered CommenterBBD

Fang et al. is misleading?

Please show us why.
He is, after all, merely conducting a well-references literature review and summarising the undertainty. in order to refute that, you would need to demonstrate that there is no uncertainty - which seems to fly in the face of published literature.

Nov 24, 2011 at 2:08 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

To remind you

(1) climate warming occurs with great uncertainty in the magnitude of the temperature increase;
(2) both human activities and natural forces contribute to climate change, but their relative contributions are difficult to quantify; and
(3) the dominant role of the increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (including CO2) in the global warming claimed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is questioned by the scientific communities because of large uncertainties in the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and in the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration.

To remind you, it is insufficient merely to point to your side of the argument. You need to demonstrate that there is no uncertainty on the other side of the debate.

For example, can you reliably quantify e.g. the extent of warming/cooling caused by land use? No? then there is uncertainty here.

For example, can you reliably quantify e.g. the extent of warming/cooling caused by cosmic rays? No? then there is uncertainty here.

Do you compl;etely understand all of the mechanisms of natural factors and anthropogenic activities and the sources of the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration? No? then there is uncertainty here.

The onus is on you to demonstrate that there is no uncertainty here.

Nov 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu

Finally, I think you will find that reiteration of a racist view does not make it more acceptable.

Saying that you loath Republican nutters too simply exposes another prejudice and pointing out that you think they are "oddly white" exposes yet another (have you even heard of Senator John McCain?) .

Nov 24, 2011 at 2:36 PM | Unregistered Commentermatthu