Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

So, trust should not come into it.  This is not a religion, although climate activists seem to behave as if so.  As Carl Sagan said, "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."  So if you claim the entire planet is in great danger, you require extraordinary evidence.  Trust is not evidence at all.  So, what actual evidence, which you fully understand yourself, without appealing to authority, do you have to show?

The claim is not "the entire planet is in great danger".

It's "our actions risk making our environment less hospitable for us".

That is not an extraordinary claim.  For example it has been a widely accepted fact that humans have the ability to render the planet extremely hostile to themselves since the early days of the cold war.

So "it is arrogant to think we humans can effect the planet" doesn't really wash.

The claim that humans increasing them levels of an important atmospheric gas by ⅓ will have negligible effect on the environment needs fairly strong evidence. Do you have any?

[BeElBeeBub]

You ignored whether we have less control over our lives if we have no access to oil & gas.  That is important.  If the state has more control, it is inevitably more profitable, because money is power, and vice versa, power is used for profit.

I argue that the state would have less control over my life if I had some solar, a full electric house (heating, hot water etc), an electric car(s), decent storage and so on, I would be alot more independent than I am now (gas heating, diesel car).

I would still need a grid connection for those cold, dark, windless winter days. But that is no different from now.

Such a set up is possible now, though expensive at the moment. Crucially, a degree of battery storage is possible for almost every home in the Uk, even the smallest flats.

Theoretically, with a diesel generator and a big enough diesel tank could see some prepper type able to weather some event for a significant time, but that is really only available to a small % of the population. The vat majority have nowhere to store the equipment and fuel.

[BeElBeeBub]

The question, is what is more profitable.  You still won't address that issue. 

Ok, let's tackle this.

We have 2 routes,

1) "AGW isn't a thing, therefore fossil fuels will be the primary energy source of choice going forward"

2) "AGW warrants drastically reducing our burning of fossil fuels"

Under scenario 1, the oil and gas extraction industry (let's call it the Fossil Extraction industry, FE industry) will continue to grow.

Under scenario 2, the FE industry will shrink.  We will still need them for lubricants, chemicals, energy dense requirements (aviation etc) but the bulk of the current use is burning, which will drastically decline.

The fossil extraction industry is worth over $5tn a year.  Nearly 2x the UK GDP.

And that figure would grow as energy requirements increased.  Not only that, it is a recurring spend.  Once you have burned some oil or gas, you can't use it again. You must purchase.more.  so being in the FE industry is good business and scenario 2 threatens that.

But what about "big green" - the solar wind industrial complex?  Surely that mega business has a vested interest in pushing for scenario 2 to grab a slice of the FE industry pie?.

Well global Solar sales are in the $250bn a year region and wind turbine sales are under $100bn> so big green is maybe 10% the size of big oil.

Even if it quadrupled in size, it would still be less than half of annual FE industry turnover 

Now it might grow (hopefully will) but the key thing with green energy is it is mostly capital cost. Once it's built you just have to pay for maintance (like you do with a thermal power plant). The "fuel" is free.

So.if you re asking "where is the profit?" - it's in denying AGW.

[Scott777]

I noted the idea posited that "Nature" would not design a system which would not be able to compensate..."
Nature didn't design anything.
I believe God did.

I also think belief in AGW demands a certain amount of faith, as where the evidence conflicts, nothing is certain.
It's about as provable that there is or is not a god.

Some good points here, Barry.  Faith is precisely what it is.

I don't believe in any god, but come to the a similar conclusion.  Consider the planets.  They are in orbit, never to fall out of orbit, because of the mechanics of the stuff swirling around for billions of years, under gravity.  Stuff which collided became more dense, stuff which did not, went off into space, and a pattern emerged through a natural process.  

Complex patterns which seems natural and beautiful can emerge naturally from simple ones.  We see this from the Mandelbrot set - a very very simple mathematical formula which you repeat many times, and plot the numbers you get.  A god cannot be creating this pattern, because we see the simple start, and the process is absolutely transparent.  There is no room for god in the Mandelbrot set.

So we arrive at a well-balanced and self-maintaining earth, whether it was god, or a natural process.

[Scott777]

Ok then, let's stop the ad hominem attacks on the evidence.

If I present some evidence, you can attack the science all you like, but simply dismissing it out of hand because it's all a government hoax to take our freedoms or some such isn't allowed.

It *is* acceptable to question the qualification of the evidence interpreter.  Data is not always easy to interpret. We should trust someone expert in the field over a non-expert. If I'm looking at a climate model, I want to listen to a climatologist over an oncologist. When it comes to a brain scan, I'll trust the oncologist.

Well we are getting somewhere.  I think.  🤔  

Firstly, I don't think it's all a government hoax.  The truth is always more complicated.  Some are liars, some believe the lies, some are ignorant or stupid or bow to peer pressure or social pressure.

The question, is what is more profitable.  You still won't address that issue.  You ignored whether we have less control over our lives if we have no access to oil & gas.  That is important.  If the state has more control, it is inevitably more profitable, because money is power, and vice versa, power is used for profit.

So, trust should not come into it.  This is not a religion, although climate activists seem to behave as if so.  As Carl Sagan said, "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness."  So if you claim the entire planet is in great danger, you require extraordinary evidence.  Trust is not evidence at all.  So, what actual evidence, which you fully understand yourself, without appealing to authority, do you have to show?

[Scott777]

Because his only route for trade is via oil and gas. People will tell you that the Russian economy is doing well, if you remove gas and oil it is on its knees. When I was there last year the shops were empty and everyone looked miserable as sin. I took $2000 with me as the only means to trade and buy meals, I think the exchange rate for the dollar was about 30, I was getting 82, as everyone was desperate for them as they could use them outside the country, IE in Dubai or Turkey as those where pretty much the only countries still dealing with Russians.

As for Putin, the west did poke the bear somewhat, but saying that, it's Putins paranoia that has caused this war and nobody else.

Let's not argue about the war, we will have to agree to disagree on who did what, but I agree on your reason for Putin not doing the green crap, among other things.  So Beelzebub cannot say Putin is a denier just because he is authoritarian.  Same with Trump, who is less authoritarian.

[Barry]

I've been following this thread with interest. Enjoying the good clean, reasoned debating.

I left school at 15 so I'm a real thicky.
I noted the idea posited that "Nature" would not design a system which would not be able to compensate..."
Nature didn't design anything.
I believe God did.

I also think belief in AGW demands a certain amount of faith, as where the evidence conflicts, nothing is certain.
It's about as provable that there is or is not a god.

I'll go back to the sidelines now. Have fun!

[BeElBeeBub]

We are still discussing the "evidence" for AGW, but you keep drifting away.  Your "evidence" strongly depends on funding, and therefore on politicians, and some rich people who fund or run the media, the research, etc.  So it's important to know what is most profitable.  As in law, the motive is crucial.  

Ok then, let's stop the ad hominem attacks on the evidence.

If I present some evidence, you can attack the science all you like, but simply dismissing it out of hand because it's all a government hoax to take our freedoms or some such isn't allowed.

It *is* acceptable to question the qualification of the evidence interpreter.  Data is not always easy to interpret. We should trust someone expert in the field over a non-expert. If I'm looking at a climate model, I want to listen to a climatologist over an oncologist. When it comes to a brain scan, I'll trust the oncologist.

[johnofgwent]

Because his only route for trade is via oil and gas. People will tell you that the Russian economy is doing well, if you remove gas and oil it is on its knees. When I was there last year the shops were empty and everyone looked miserable as sin. I took $2000 with me as the only means to trade and buy meals, I think the exchange rate for the dollar was about 30, I was getting 82, as everyone was desperate for them as they could use them outside the country, IE in Dubai or Turkey as those where pretty much the only countries still dealing with Russians.

As for Putin, the west did poke the bear somewhat, but saying that, it's Putins paranoia that has caused this war and nobody else.

God, i remember Italy being like that in 1981. The country was on its knees and although officially it was forbidden to bring money into the country - and it had until very recently also been illegal to take much OUT of Britain - the 'rate of exchange' offered by retailers to anyone buying with pounds sterling or US Dollars was about four times what a bank advertised.

at least italy still had goods to sell mind. And for the gold ring i bought Moira for £20 valued back here at £220 they took my cheque made out in pounds sterling which was presented at a bank in Dover before i got home

God, those were the days !!

[Nick]

Anyway, Nick, why do you think Putin is not pushing the green agenda?

Because his only route for trade is via oil and gas. People will tell you that the Russian economy is doing well, if you remove gas and oil it is on its knees. When I was there last year the shops were empty and everyone looked miserable as sin. I took $2000 with me as the only means to trade and buy meals, I think the exchange rate for the dollar was about 30, I was getting 82, as everyone was desperate for them as they could use them outside the country, IE in Dubai or Turkey as those where pretty much the only countries still dealing with Russians. 

As for Putin, the west did poke the bear somewhat, but saying that, it's Putins paranoia that has caused this war and nobody else. 

[Nick]

There have been more legal and illegal immigrants arrive in the last three years than came in the last 2000 years.

And as you keep being told, the vast majority of those were from Hong Kong and India. Neither race as a rule came here for free accommodation and money, they work hard and pay taxes. 

[Scott777]

Your theory of "big government is faking AGW to control you" falls down at pretty much every hurdle. The correlation between AGW denial and authoritarianism is striking.

Trump - AGW denier
Orban - AGW denier
Bolsonaro - AGW denier
Melei - AGW denier
Putin  - AGW denier

Perhaps the only outlier is Xi's china which hasn't denied AGW

Anyway, we've drifted away from the evidence for or against AGW , let's drift back.

We are still discussing the "evidence" for AGW, but you keep drifting away.  Your "evidence" strongly depends on funding, and therefore on politicians, and some rich people who fund or run the media, the research, etc.  So it's important to know what is most profitable.  As in law, the motive is crucial.  But you have so far denied that it is more profitable to promote AGW, without providing any evidence, and denying common sense.  You claim the deniers are more authoritarian, but that's pure speculation, and I disagree.  It's not evident, or common sense.  And you still haven't admitted a ban on oil & gas would give us less freedom and flexibility, and therefore less control over our energy, and more reliance on the state.  Will you concede to that yet?

[BeElBeeBub]

And yet, Nick dispels your theory for you, as he does not fit this trend.

I see you have run away from the discussion, and only wish to change the subject.  That's very deceitful, after you made claims which you could not support.  What Russia does is irrelevant.  It proves nothing about our establishment promoting bullshit about AGW.  Do you concede?

Nick ticks alot of boxes - pro Brexit, AGW denier., user of "woke snowflake".

I don't believe he's a Putin apolgist and I have no idea of his stance on toilets or patriotism.

I assume I'm fairly on the nose with you though.

Your theory of "big government is faking AGW to control you" falls down at pretty much every hurdle. The correlation between AGW denial and authoritarianism is striking.

Trump - AGW denier
Orban - AGW denier
Bolsonaro - AGW denier
Melei - AGW denier
Putin  - AGW denier

Perhaps the only outlier is Xi's china which hasn't denied AGW

Anyway, we've drifted away from the evidence for or against AGW , let's drift back.

[Scott777]

The Russian people as a rule buy any old bull that they are given, that's how Putins regime keep going.

Anyway, Nick, why do you think Putin is not pushing the green agenda?

[Scott777]

As a side note, I do find it fascinating how certain views trend together.

It is entirely unsurprising that you are pro Brexit, soft on Russia and an AGW denialist.

And yet, Nick dispels your theory for you, as he does not fit this trend.

I see you have run away from the discussion, and only wish to change the subject.  That's very deceitful, after you made claims which you could not support.  What Russia does is irrelevant.  It proves nothing about our establishment promoting bullshit about AGW.  Do you concede?