Mike Jackson, "offensive drivel" is someone asking you to be honest about your little world and your opinions.

shub,

Big Oil makes a great pantomine villain. JR ripping people off and all the rest. Almost as good as capitalists with top hats, silk waistcoats and rakish moustaches who were quite happy to tie virtuous maidens to railway lines.

I wouldn't argue that the oil industry has at all times been totally ethical and above board either. Far from it.

T Boone Pickens is an interesting character, presently pushing for an energy plan which involves windmills, and which it just happens is likely to push huge subsidies his way.

I see Big Oil as Big Money with a particular interest in energy. There's absolutely no reason why they should be dedicated to ensuring the world has 50cent a gallon gas. The green mania is just a wave they ride and profit from.

BitBucket,

Okely dokely. Thanks for the response.

"sceptics and oil companies seem to have a common objective, namely the continuation of an energy model that involves burning things dug from the ground."

I agree. Sceptics tend to favour a "business as usual" approach to the future. And that involves cheap energy from burnable stuff in the ground. Oil companies tend to be be quite partial to the exploitation of burnable stuff in the ground.

"Oil companies exercise their freedom to protect their interests around the world in various ways, for example by buying politicians"

Has Lewandowsky OKed this line of argument? There's a lot of ideation gong on here I think. Can you name a politician who has been bought by oil money? In Europe it's hard to find a politician who hasn't been entranced by the promised looming collapse of civilisation.

"...who spout anti-climate-science and anti-climate-scientist bile and by supporting organisations that do the same."

I'm intrigued by the phrase "anti-climate-science". Surely it should be easy to root out politicians who are against the idea of studying climate scientifically. Now that the US president has asked his activists to confront them in America, surely it should be game over. Those people who speak "anti-climate-scientist bile" will be apprehended, I would have thought.

"All of this activity is intended to raise doubt and to encourage scepticism in the minds of the public."

So, doubt is bad. Scepticism is bad.

"Ah, you might say, you personally concluded against climate science independently, free of any such influence; and all on the Hill say likewise. This could of course be true ...but my best guess says that it is not."

How about we both watch reality. It is quite informative. We can watch together as the global average temperature graph grows. Are you a betting man? It might be fun to have a few wagers. How will the graph develop. How will the politics develop? Want a couple of friendly bets?

James Evans, no no, you are right. I'm sure not a single US politician has ever taken money from an oil company, denied climate science or denounced scientists. It just wouldn't happen. There's no evidence. I mean if you have never actually witnessed it happening it cannot be true. Just as Robin Guenier has never come across anyone denying the greenhouse effect or throwing accusations of fraud, James Evans has never witnessed a pol on an anti climate-science crusade. Or any other type of oil-backed crusade for that matter; not even in Iraq. No sir, it just doesn't happen!

Doubt bad? Scepticism bad? Well of course, it depends. Was doubt and scepticism about MMR vaccinations good? Is it best to doubt that the car hurtling towards you will hit you, or just get out of the way? Doubt bad? Scepticism bad? Like I say, it depends on the circumstances. Is it good to sow doubt in others in order to further ones own interests. Well your answer to that will probably be different from mine.

Betting? Not my line really, but I'll predict that some time in the next 5 years there will be a warm year that pokes the ends of the temperature curves way up. And further, the sceptics will find all sorts of reasons why that one year is not significant and should be ignored. Some will even claim that an ice age is imminent.

Bong! And there goes the signal. Hilary Ostrov scores a gratuitous mention of the Holocaust and this one was a beauty, slipped in there nicely between the paragraphs, not too far along that people had stopped reading but far enough that they might not have noticed it. But sadly, Hilary may not get the prize this time. It seems almost certain that MartinA pipped her to the post some time ago. The judges aren't sure and will have to go through the thread with a fine-toothed comb to check...

BB,

"James Evans, no no, you are right. I'm sure not a single US politician has ever taken money from an oil company, denied climate science or denounced scientists. It just wouldn't happen. There's no evidence. I mean if you have never actually witnessed it happening it cannot be true."

So, can you name one, like I asked? It's hard to pin down exactly what you are saying, but the accusation seems to be that some politicians have taken a sceptical position on climate change because of money they have received from oil companies. Is that your position?

(It's not entirely clear. You sarcastically say "I'm sure not a single US politician has ever taken money from an oil company, denied climate science or denounced scientists." But are you drawing a connection between these things? I'm sure some politicians have taken money from oil companies, just as they have from renewables companies. I don't quite know what "denying climate science" is supposed to mean, but I'm guessing that you equate that with not agreeing with your views on future warming. The "denouncing scientists" thing is also puzzling - examples would be helpful. I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know what you're talking about.)

"Just as Robin Guenier has never come across anyone denying the greenhouse effect or throwing accusations of fraud, James Evans has never witnessed a pol on an anti climate-science crusade. Or any other type of oil-backed crusade for that matter; not even in Iraq. No sir, it just doesn't happen!"

I agree, just because I've never seen evidence of "an anti climate-science crusade" that doesn't mean that there is no "anti climate-science crusade". The world might be teeming with "anti climate-science crusades". But I'm asking for some evidence. Sarcasm isn't evidence.

"Doubt bad? Scepticism bad? Well of course, it depends. Was doubt and scepticism about MMR vaccinations good? Is it best to doubt that the car hurtling towards you will hit you, or just get out of the way? Doubt bad? Scepticism bad? Like I say, it depends on the circumstances. Is it good to sow doubt in others in order to further ones own interests. Well your answer to that will probably be different from mine."

I think this is probably the heart of the matter. You believe (I think) that people who disagree with you must be doing it to further their own interests. Or, at least, they are poor dupes who have been fooled by nasty people furthering their own interests.

To turn this around - John Smith believes that he and his family are just fine. You believe that you and your family are under threat from CO2. Is it good to sow doubt in John's mind to further your own interests? I'm guessing that you would say that sowing doubt in John's mind is in his interest as well as yours. But that is exactly the sceptic position too - we think panicking about CO2 is messing up all our lives for no good reason.

"Betting? Not my line really"

I get that response a lot from warmists. "Money", "mouth", you know the saying.

"but I'll predict that some time in the next 5 years there will be a warm year that pokes the ends of the temperature curves way up. And further, the sceptics will find all sorts of reasons why that one year is not significant and should be ignored. Some will even claim that an ice age is imminent."

That's all entirely possible, I think. I also think that there won't be any significant warming for a good 20 years. By which time some decent scientists might have arrived.

Toodle pip!

Come on BB you keep making claims and hardly ever back them up. How about telling us about your plan to use mothballed coal fired power stations as backup for renewables?

James Evans, a dislike of being called 'deniers' is a basic tenet of many on the Hill. They are, they claim, 'sceptical', denying nothing, only questioning. And isn't that healthy and necessary and good? I originally gave people the benefit of the doubt - maybe they are just sceptical. But discussions such as this thread show me that the fabric of scepticism really is woven with the thread of denial.

One might expect denial of the science, and that certainly exists here in spades. But people like to cloak themselves in the coat of scientific respectability, questioning the details of sciences that only a few might understand sufficiently. What I find more surprising is that so much denial is peripheral to the real questions of whether climate change is real and should be a cause for concern. There's denial of any honest cost-benefit analysis of fossil fuels - there are no costs, only benefits; there's your and others' denial of the relationships that exist in politics and business; there's denial that sceptics might be nasty and might send rude emails, epitomized by petty FOI requests; there's even denial within denial; denial that anyone else denies the science of greenhouse gasses.

I find this bewildering and often ask myself whether these people really believe what they write, or whether they are purposefully dissembling just to win arguments. Do you really believe there to be no connection between US pols and the businesses they protect? The connections are clear to see, the campaign donations published, at least to some extent. Is it possible for you to be so untouched by the real world that you need me to name names before you'll be convinced. Is MartinA so unworldly that he is appalled by the suggestion that sceptics might say bad things in emails? Is Robin Guenier so saintly that he cannot recognise the type of community he inhabits? Is Shub so unaware of 3rd world conditions that he really thinks all it takes is a little piece of wire to electrify a poor community? Do all of you think that Western prosperity is worth setting to zero any price in suffering in oil producing countries, historic, current and future? Apart from the case of Saint Robin, I find all of these examples unconvincing and that leads to my questioning, why? Why the dissembling? If any of you stood to gain from what you proclaim here then it would be understandable. But I really don't believe it to be that simple - I really do believe you acting of your own volition. And that leaves me really puzzled.

TinyCO2, well if mothballing coal stations is impractical, best by far just to knock them all down and sell the parts for scrap.

Hilary I cannot for the life of me understand why you engage with the little bucker, he's a content-free-zone.

Geronimo, because his arguments are typical warmist arguments. Invariably you can't debate them at warmist sites because they cut you or ignore you. They have to be countered somewhere. Also it helps to practice debating these things in text so that the arguments come easily when talking to someone face to face.

BB, you said that coal should be the backup for emergencies (and I can’t be bothered looking for the exact quote). The point is that the emergencies happen regularly. A gas supply stops at the same time the wind is blowing too slow or too fast and you have a missing supply you were relying on. That’s why coal or nuclear are base load and gas and hydro perform the quick manoeuvres. AFAIK you didn’t respond to Mike Jackson’s comment “What ought to be the basis for any discussion is whether or not a civilised society needs a ready, permanent, consistent supply of affordable reliable energy.” Well? What do you say to that?

You fret about minor problems and dismiss the big ones. Do I care about the hidden costs? No, not if great big costs (and I’m not talking money) are right there in my face. If the hidden costs were so big, they wouldn’t be hidden. There are only two issues in this debate – affordable, reliable energy and CO2 emissions.

You balk at the idea of personal CO2 allowances and “Individual action is just tokenism. The problem is societal and must be tackled on that basis.” What do you think society’s CO2 footprint is made up of if not individual contributions? What are companies but employees and customers? When individuals don’t cut their CO2, society doesn’t either. A point that is proven by yet another report indicating that when imports are considered the UK CO2 footprint has gone up 10% not down since 1993. So despite all the pain, the cost, the decimated birds, the bankrupt companies and the mother of all recessions, the UK is still emitting more CO2 than ever. The public are vigorously complaining now, think what they’d be doing if enough was done to actually reduce CO2!

It doesn’t matter what you, or I or any of the sceptics and believers think about CO2 or fossil fuels, it only matters what the wider public do. They’re voting with their money and they’re saying a big, fat NO to cutting CO2. Why is that? Haven’t they heard about global warming? ROTFLMAO! Apart from a few European countries there is nowhere that has been drenched in more CO2 awareness, but there’s one little bit they forgot to mention (and clearly you don’t understand) cutting CO2 means everyone has to have less. A lot less.

Until we have the magical technologies you blithely assure us will turn up, we have to rely on what we’ve got. At the moment the only way to emit less CO2 (nuclear excluded) is to have less, do less, travel less. Even you don’t seem to like that idea. You certainly don’t seem to be encouraging your neighbours that the diesel generator used as backup for your unreliable energy supply has a hidden cost that makes it untenable. What? Is it easier to whine at us than come face to face to real people and their opinions on doing without fossil fuels?

You want to deal with hidden problems? How about dealing with the one you and your fellow warmists refuse to acknowledge – you don’t believe the science is good enough to persuade people to cut CO2 and you hope governments will trick or force people into it. And you say we’re in denial?

"Geronimo, because his arguments are typical warmist arguments. Invariably you can't debate them at warmist sites because they cut you or ignore you."

Fair enough Tiny, I'm not sure that he does reflect warmist thinking, more likely the dolly day dream thinking of environmentalist fools, but if you want to practise on the little bucker, that's fine, but he's remarkably ignorant of the science, engineering, social and economic issues and is showing no signs of grasping even the slightest detail on any of these issues. Personally I think he's an adolescent.

Ooh, some comments, but after discounting the insults, only TinyCO2 and Shub really have anything to say. Shub says I must give specifics, sceptics need specifics. But that assumes I take protestations of ignorance of the energy/politics nexus in good faith. I don't. It is just not credible. Tiny saddles up his favourite hobby horse once more. We need a "ready, permanent, consistent supply of affordable reliable energy", he says. Have I argued that to be untrue? No, I have argued that to judge affordability one must know the costs. We can argue about base load vs peak load 'til the cows come home, but we still should know the costs.

Let's ignore all costs except actual deaths and imagine that fossil fuels were costing 100 million lives a year around the globe, would we say that is affordable? Would we still want to use fossils? Ridiculous you might say, there's no way the death toll could ever be so high. But that's ok, it is a rhetorical question; would we continue to consider fossils affordable? I think we wouldn't. Ok, so lets be more reasonable, what if the death toll were 10 million globally? Affordable now? Or 1 million. That is no longer just rhetorical, but actual. So where do we draw the line and say this is acceptable, affordable? I can't answer that question and I doubt you can either. The damage done is diffuse; it is in some other place or time, out of sight. But it exists however deep your denial. Have the honesty to recognise that and to attempt to quantify it before you set it to zero.

BB "The damage done is diffuse; it is in some other place or time, out of sight. But it exists however deep your denial. Have the honesty to recognise that and to attempt to quantify it before you set it to zero." I don't have to do anything, histroy and energy inequality has done it for me. The net effect of fossil fuels has been increased life span. To reduce any bad effects of fossil fuels but not lose the benefits, you have to replace them with something with the same good qualities but no new bad ones.

There are no hazard free energy sources. All of them have their dark side. In fact everything we use has some delterious effect somewhere. Non of the crop of renewables available in the UK fulfill the criterior of being reliable. To significantly increase renewables will make the grid unstable, which would cause powercuts, which would lead to deaths. The 'hidden costs' - calculate.

TinyCO2,

"To significantly increase renewables will make the grid unstable, which would cause powercuts, which would lead to deaths. The 'hidden costs' - calculate.".

=========================

That's why we are seeing ludicrous and poorly thought out schemes such as "demand management" or rationing with smart meters and chipped appliances, the batteries of electric cars (of which there almost none) used as backup storage for the grid, and an expensive rework of the grid to cope with more intermittent renewables.

If this manages to cause a grid outage, we've never cold started the grid in anything like its current form. It could take days to restart. The consequences are enormous in all aspects, when you consider the dependency we have on reliable electricity, even compared with 20 years ago.

All of this is being brought to us by having a crowd of fantasists calling the shots.

No MartinA, 'curious' is, hmm perhaps I'll send him a polite email to see what's going on. You, on the other hand, go to the trouble of making and FOI request and following it for 11 months. That is nearer to harassment than curiosity, not to mention being an utter waste of the university's time and resources. And now that you have your disappointing result you draw conclusions that your sceptic antennae should tell you are weak. What if he deleted the mails, which any normal person would do? Would they still be available on a backup? Do you know what storage arrangements the uni has for emails? Do you know how hard they bothered to look for the emails (not very would be my guess)? Does he have more than one email account (he says they are personal)? You have nothing but you are prepared to condemn - now that says a lot about what is in your head.