Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ABrass

JKenH wrote: »

Ms Oreskes is at one end of the AGW spectrum and Wattsupwiththat are at the other. She is (currently) a climate activist not a climate scientist. Having previously waged war against Big Tobacco she has now turned her attention to Big Oil, and Exxon Mobil in particular with the help of some funding from the Rockefeller family. A bit more publicity will no doubt help her next book sell.

Climate scientist? No. Independent? No. Activist with an agenda? Yes.

Are we looking at the same person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

Professor Oreskes (BSc, PhD et.) is a published author in climate science, specifically in the understanding and communication of it. Geology degrees at the RCM don't come easy. She's undoubtedly a scientist and a well published one.

Mr Watts, or to give him his full academic title, Mr Watts, is a blogger who I believed completed High School and is famous for and reliant upon his denial of global warming and is funded by the Heartland institute. I don't have much time for !!!!!!!! about independence but it's absurd to throw that around when the person you're bringing in to counter a peer reviewed academic is Watts.

You're right, they are at different ends of the spectrum. On so many different spectrums.

As far as I am aware I still enjoy the right to free thought and free speech, the right to question the orthodox view. I admit that right might not be around for much longer as we are moving to an age of Liberal Authoritarianism but for now I can enjoy it as can you.

Melodrama much? Free speech is very different to consequence free speech. You're free to be an idiot if you so choose, we're free to point and laugh.

JKenH

ABrass wrote: »

Are we looking at the same person?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Oreskes

Professor Oreskes (BSc, PhD et.) is a published author in climate science, specifically in the understanding and communication of it. Geology degrees at the RCM don't come easy. She's undoubtedly a scientist and a well published one.

The same one - she writes about climate science but she has no qualifications in it or training as a climate scientist. At least Mr Watts is a meteorologist.

ABrass wrote: »

Mr Watts, or to give him his full academic title, Mr Watts, is a blogger who I believed completed High School and is famous for and reliant upon his denial of global warming and is funded by the Heartland institute. I don't have much time for !!!!!!!! about independence but it's absurd to throw that around when the person you're bringing in to counter a peer reviewed academic is Watts.

The article wasn’t written by Watts. I see no reason, however, if he had been the author, why, as a meteorologist, his view is less valid than that of someone like Ms Oreskes who has no training in climate science.

Contrary to what you say, Watts is not denying global warming is occurring.

Wikipedia - Watts rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[4][5][20] He believes that global warming is occurring, but that it is not as bad as has been reported, and that carbon dioxide plays a much smaller part than the sun in causing climatic change.

ABrass wrote: »

Free speech is very different to consequence free speech.

I don’t understand your point in the context of what I wrote but don’t worry I’m not too bothered about it.

I have now defended what I have posted to both you and Mart and suggest we leave it there. If you wish to carry on by all means do so but in view of the discourteous nature of your last post I trust you will excuse me if I decline to engage further.

ABrass

Climate change has often fallen into the department of Geology. Oddly that's where Professor Osrekes, and it's very telling that you deny her her Doctorate and her title of Professor, got her first degree.

Watts doesn't have a single qualification after school, he worked as a meteorologist on the radio. If he's a meteorologist then Professor Osrekes is definitely a climate scientist, as she not only did that as a job but also has qualifications in it and taught it.

Next thing you'll say is that Michael Mann (Geology PhD) isn't a climate scientist.

Coastalwatch

JKenH wrote: »

I have now defended what I have posted to both you and Mart and suggest we leave it there. If you wish to carry on by all means do so but in view of the discourteous nature of your last post I trust you will excuse me if I decline to engage further.

If only you would! I'm no academic JKenH but having witnessed you habitually posting your "alternate" views on climate change and particularly those following Mart's posts I can only conclude that you do so to be as disruptive to the aims of the forum as you can.

As such you leave me with no alternative other than to ignore anything you post in future.

JKenH

Coastalwatch wrote: »

If only you would! I'm no academic JKenH but having witnessed you habitually posting your "alternate" views on climate change and particularly those following Mart's posts I can only conclude that you do so to be as disruptive to the aims of the forum as you can.

As such you leave me with no alternative other than to ignore anything you post in future.

That is your prerogative and of course you are entitled to that view. I think you will find that I only respond negatively to Mart’s posts that relate to the demonisation of Big Oil; that imply we are where we are with AGW simply because some oil companies misled the world. That claim is in fact disputed but if it were true, when did the world realise there was a problem and what did it do about it. It continued consuming oil of course.

A lot of people make a lot of noise about Big Bad Oil but still merrily consume their products making all sorts of excuses along the way to ease their conscience. They want to see the death of Big Oil but buy their products. As I have said before we have the power to stop Big Oil dead in its tracks if we give it up but it is cheap and we like it and let’s make no bones about it we still need it. A few like yourself are very close to being fossil free but it is hypocritical of the rest of us to blame Big Oil for all our troubles when knowing what we know we still burn their products to put more CO2 into the atmosphere.

So I make no apologies for challenging Mart on this. It doesn’t make me a climate denier or negative to all the progress we are making in moving to RE. I am just a pragmatist who believes that we in the UK have a much better life because of Big Oil than we would have had without it.

EricMears

What on Earth has happened to this thread ? Very few posts relevant to "Green, ethical, energy issues in the news "; many flame wars about nothing in particular ! Why can't those warmongers just put each other on ignore and leave the rest of us to spot the odd relevant item ?

JKenH

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/14/sail-away-global-shipping-industry-returning-wind-power/

1961Nick

EricMears wrote: »

What on Earth has happened to this thread ? Very few posts relevant to "Green, ethical, energy issues in the news "; many flame wars about nothing in particular ! Why can't those warmongers just put each other on ignore and leave the rest of us to spot the odd relevant item ?

....or we could look objectively at both sides of of the picture & not resort to personal barbs?

JKenH

Climate change is becoming the catch all excuse for almost every natural disaster where the authorities have been caught napping, be it forest fires or local flooding.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/12/environment-agency-shouldnt-use-climate-change-excuse-incompetence/

JKenH

Is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change still correct in arguing that natural gas is the necessary bridging fuel to eliminate coal, to back renewables with dispatchable power, and to meet the 2050 climate targets? That is no longer clear in Britain's case.

The cost of offshore wind power has fallen so fast – with the latest auctions coming in below market prices at under £40 per megawatt hour – that we can start to map an even better route to energy independence. The wind bonanza of the North Sea’s shallow sandbanks is an order of magnitude greater than British shale.

In parallel we have the tumbling cost of both energy storage and the production of "green hydrogen" from electrolysis. It is a fair bet that we will be able to generate hydrogen from wind power at costs low enough to displace LNG gas imports by the early 2030s, depending on the implicit level of global carbon taxes. Yes, this means transforming the country’s energy infrastructure. It is not beyond the wit of man.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/11/04/britain-treated-frackers-terribly-lucky-no-longer-need/