In what universe does a coal/gas power station operator think the UK will incentivise the building of anything that isn't a windmill? BitBucket has answered his own question.

Shub, incentives are how capitalism works.

James, if it is a choice of the lights going out or building/extending existing stations, there is no debate. The government either puts up the money itself or makes it worth someone's while. Most likely the latter.

Martin, I was going on what my wife told me, but since neither of us drive, maybe it is a mistake. Certainly the prices are $1.50 for 'normal' and $2.00 for 'super'. I'll ask what the difference is and whether there is any lead.

BitBucket, I agree. When it becomes clear that the lights are going out (or will do imminently) mega bucks will be thrown in by govt (i.e. us) to upgrade existing gas generation, and fracking and all these things that are being ideologically opposed right now. We'll have to spend a lot more then to do it fast.

I asked at a petrol station and it really is per-gallon, but not leaded (sorry to mislead). Diesel is cheaper.

James, "We'll have to spend a lot more then to do it fast": but on the other hand, the technology will be better in 10 years and it might be cheaper/better. Maybe even modular nuclear will be available off the shelf (eternal optimist :-)

I see that the "coal train = death train" dogma quoted earlier relates to extinctions and not to people, but the equivalence could also be applied to people, based upon the WHO numbers I quoted earlier (1 million annually) and on the annual death rate from mining accidents (in the thousands in China, 30-40 in the US).

Coal train = death train seems quite apt.

So... what do we want this blog to achieve?

That's a big ask. Especially the bit about me running something, I have a hard enough time doing the minimal accounting requirements for my own small company.

I suppose I'd like the blog to more away from WUWT (fun but applauds anything anti-, even nonsense) and towards ScienceOfDoom (strictly phsyics, but tends to bad tempered)

Shub, regulating (constraining) business is one of governments responsibilities. Would you want unrestrained business? How about a coal fired power station or an incinerator with no controls on their emissions next to you home or school? That's the sort of thing you get without constraints, with capitalism or socialism. Incentives are about the chances of making a profit; if there's no profit, there's no business. The profit has to come from someone, namely the customer.

Martin, you are right of course that poverty is the biggest killer. I was just surprised when I looked for mining deaths that the US still has so many. And if you go back to the early 20th century the US had thousands of deaths in coal mines each year, as in China today.

On "in the hope of provoking BB into apoplexy", why would you want to do that? I'm a nice guy really :-) Actually, I have learnt over the last weeks that it is best not to respond to nasty posts and accusations of trolling etc with equally angry posts, but instead to try to keep replies civil. Angry accusers loose interest. Anyway, I enjoy having my prejudices challenged.

I wondered whether there was sense in creating a 'BishopHill' IRC channel (on freenode for example).

IRC? I was a big user in 93-99 period, but it's died a death now. Gone the way of NNTP newsgroups (I'm sure there are still eejits on alt.alien.visitors, or alt.slack arguing about stuff, but it's of no interest to me now!)

I suppose there might be a market for a general forum, not parented by a blog.

IRC is not really dead. For example, I use it to chat to tech support at my web host. Answers within minutes - it's great. It would be ideal for the sort of banter here. Forums don't have the immediacy of chatting. Just an idea, anyway.

I know the network is still there, but its heyday was over years ago. You'd be better off setting up a Bishophill Facebook page these days - it has some of the forum/chat capability, and most peoplel are already on it.

To be or to do?

To ask, ever so politely, that if the tiny influence of increased CO2 is amplified by positive feedbacks, why the tiny influence of changed solar output is not allowed to be.

BH tackles the 'allowed' part of that type of question, CA the 'tiny' and WUWT the 'influence'.

If it aint broke.....

So BitBucket, I've seen a story arc in your experience here, but how do you feel about "skeptics" now? You came here with a set of expectations, have they panned out? Do you feel more or less empathetic with the skeptic "cause" now than before?

Hey James, I have come to realise that not all sceptics are crazy :-)

Actually it is more complicated than that. The label 'scientific sceptic' can clearly be applied to people like you and Martin who understand the science and have serious doubts about the methods, data, conclusions etc. That is in the tradition of scientific scepticism and should be a common to any scientifically thinking person. I do empathise with such views. One has to be sceptical of proxies and models; of supposition and projection based upon uncertain knowledge. But that doesn't necessarily mean rejecting them out of hand as people here tend to, along with much else. And in fairness, I expect that most climate scientists will not claim absolute knowledge of outcomes; their views are couched in probabilities and uncertainties.

There is another category of people here who are not sceptics in this sense, who reject the orthodox view for a variety of unsound reasons. Many are illogical or disagree with established science and have more in common with religious bigots and conspiracy theorists. I have no sympathy with this.

Even among the true sceptics, there is a degree of intolerance, a willingness to condemn all climate scientists, public figures and bodies as corrupt and dishonest that I find objectionable. Some of it is doubtless playing to the gallery but I find it distasteful nonetheless. I don't see why one cannot be sceptical without doubting the good faith of everyone who takes the orthodox view (I guess this goes both ways). There is some amount of catastrophe panic (such as the lights are going to go out, we will be reduced to penury, etc) that I find ironic, considering that such characteristics in the orthodox view are decried by sceptics.

BitBucket,

What I always find surprising is that people come here expecting us all to be a monolithic block of identikit beliefs. I don't know why I am surprised, though, since it's the way Mann et al and the compliant mainstream media portray us, in order to demonize us. Like any group of people, including climate scientists, there is a spectrum of views.

As for the intolerance and anger towards science and climate science in particular, you have to remember this has been a long war for some of us. Like the grandad who can never forgive the Japanese long after the war is over, some people have been angered beyond the point of return.

If you don't understand why, I beg you to read our host's book The Hockey Stick Illusion. It's a very good read, and while I don't expect you to suddenly convert after reading it, it will explain in some detail why some people here are angry. We aren't being melodramatic when we say some climate scientists have acted dishonorably.

Over at climateaudit right now is yet another chapter in the saga of so-called scientists lying and acting badly to cover their own backsides. If you don't want to read the Bish's book, at least give the thread over at Steve M's a read.

I'm absolutely sure that there are many (if not most) peope on the warmisst side who are completely in the dark about these shenanigans and who would be shocked and horrified if they knew. They never get reported.

I'm reading Gulag Archipelago currently (what happens when madmen take over a country), but when I've finished I might give the Illusion a spin. I see there is a Kindle version so I can get it here. I'm a bit hesitant because I guess it has graphs (!) and these don't come out at all well. MacKay's SEWTHA has lots of figures that are illegible on the Kindle but fortunately there is a free pdf version. Do you happen to know if they are legible? Any BH readers with the Kindle version?

Which Climate Audit thread are you referring to - Schmidt’s “Conspiracy Theory” or another? There are lots :-)