- #1710088Hero42 February 4, 2019 at 4:15 pm
Yes I was looking forward to the continuing debate as well but it doesn’t look like we will be getting it on the subject if the IPCC statement and how chaos theory works with climate prediction.
Cheers 🙂#1710090Hero42 February 4, 2019 at 4:23 pm
Advancing the widespread use of solar panels would be a useful initiative, either in a requirement as a building code requirement or as a subsidy.
It would have been easier if we hadn’t sold off 49% of the power companies. None of them wants to push solar panels on homes as an alternative to building a new power station. One of the downsides of competition.
The issue with any national generation plan is that there have to be several sources of power generation to allow for different issues. If their are renewable generation sources then allowance has to be made for when the wind doesn’t blow, the sun doesn’t shine, the rain doesn’t fall etc.
There also has to be provision for the times when their is a sudden upsurge in power consumption.
Cheers 🙂#1710145mommabear70MemberMember since: February 20, 2017
Replies: 1807mommabear70 February 4, 2019 at 8:14 pm
hero42 “Shame that some posters choose to try and discredit other posters”
Yes, agree entirely. I should have included that in my post #1709805.
Consider it a late addition.
Henri’s ‘invitation’ as you call it, was not about debating the ippc quote.
He stated I need to be prepared to be open to the possibility I’ve been given false information. That could only be possible if the quote was false, which it isn’t.
He also seems to want to debate why it’s my belief that climate change isn’t happening.
I’ve stated several times that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time and will continue to change until the end of time.
That is my belief.
But regarding what you want to debate – If it looks like a duck*, walks like a duck* and quacks like a duck*, then it’s a duck*.
* replace duck with scam.#1710152TedE February 4, 2019 at 9:35 pm
The mass extinctions have occurred on 5 occasions and we are now experiencing the sixth!
It is debatable whether mammals will survive this experience but the sooner we cut on our emissions profile the more possible that becomes.
Granted our generation is not likely to be terribly inconvenienced except maybe our insurance premiums but our grand children are really going to be in the hot place.
TedE - Papakura -#1710174henriMemberMember since: April 18, 2017
Replies: 154henri February 5, 2019 at 12:28 pm
My apologies, what I should have said was if you believe the climate isn’t being changed by man’s behaviour rather than you not believing that the climate is changing. No one is claiming that climate doesn’t change over time and that is such a basic fact I didn’t think I needed to be so explicit, but clearly I did and now I have.
So are you ready for the debate?
Will we start with chaos theory and how it is used to predict how much man’s behavoiur is effecting the sped with which the climate is changing?#1710185Hero42 February 5, 2019 at 1:39 pm
Top marks for persistence but Mommabear will undoubtedly find another minor reason to not debate.
Now if it had been me I would have pointed out the incorrectness of your statement about not believing climate was changing and then I would have responded to your question. Just as I am about to do in my next post.
That however is not the modus operandi of Mommabear. Any excuse to find a reason to take offence and not debate.
I don’t think anyone said the quote was false, just hard to verify. It was certainly incomplete in the sense that Mommabear choose only part of the quote to suit Mommabear’s agenda but of course that isn’t what Mommabear is prepared to debate rather trying to change the focus.
But you keep asking as the excuses are getting more and more frivolous with every post.
Cheers 🙂#1710186Hero42 February 5, 2019 at 1:45 pm
Well it doesn’t look like a scam to me.
However the denialists or climate doubter’s actions do look like a scam.
The global warming conspiracy theory invokes claims that the scientific consensus on global warming is based on conspiracies to produce manipulated data or suppress dissent. It is one of a number of tactics used in climate change denial to legitimize political and public controversy disputing this consensus. Global warming conspiracy theorists typically allege that, through worldwide acts of professional and criminal misconduct, the science behind global warming has been invented or distorted for ideological or financial reasons, or both.
Despite the scientific consensus on climate change, allegations have been made that scientists and institutions involved in global warming research are part of a global scientific conspiracy or engaged in a manipulative hoax. There have been allegations of malpractice, most notably in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy (“ClimateGate”). Eight committees investigated these allegations and published reports, each finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report stated that the scientists’ “rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt,” that the investigators “did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments,” but that there had been “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness.” The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged at the end of the investigations.
There is evidence that some of those alleging such conspiracies are part of well-funded misinformation campaigns designed to manufacture controversy, undermine the scientific consensus on climate change and downplay the projected effects of global warming.
Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said.
Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities.
Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless.
“They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry,” says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. “Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That’s had a huge impact on both the public and Congress.”
Greenpeace presented evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial in their ‘Exxon Secrets’ project. An analysis conducted by The Carbon Brief in 2011 found that 9 out of 10 of the most prolific authors who cast doubt on climate change or speak against it had ties to ExxonMobil. Greenpeace have said that Koch industries invested more than US$50 million in the past 50 years on spreading doubts about climate change. ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut its funding to many of the groups that “divert attention” from the need to find new sources of clean energy, although in 2008 still funded over “two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis.” A survey carried out by the UK Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed US$2.9 million to 39 groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence”.
Now would you like to explain why the actions of the denialists or doubters isn’t a scam and the actions of scientists are.
Cheers 🙂#1710187Hero42 February 5, 2019 at 1:47 pm
You say “And while there is more evidence supporting the concept of global warming than refuting it at this stage, I am not convinced.”
So out of curiosity what would convince you?
Are there particular areas that need more explanation?
Cheers 🙂#1710249TedE February 5, 2019 at 6:34 pm
The deniers have prompted Greta to post this:
TedE - Papakura -#1710271TedE February 5, 2019 at 7:44 pm
It seems the younger generation has a bit more nouse than we do:
TedE - Papakura -
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.