tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post4448496658436789846..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: WUWT denier is horrified by opinions about climateSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68603798205806173212014-03-19T02:30:51.813+11:002014-03-19T02:30:51.813+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29099926209742662752014-03-18T20:26:41.732+11:002014-03-18T20:26:41.732+11:00Hnn.
Eric Worrall, with your comprehension disabi...Hnn.<br /><br />Eric Worrall, with your comprehension disability it's easy to see why you're in thrall to the pseudoscience of denialism.<br /><br />I'm staggered that you can't see the difference between what I said, and what you said I said.<br /><br />You make James Delingpole look like an amateur...Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25912151207324841702014-03-18T19:36:09.810+11:002014-03-18T19:36:09.810+11:00When I say the evidence is stacking up against him...When I say the evidence is stacking up against him, I mean that the positions his site takes. If he believes what Josh says he believes then he is mighty inconsistent. Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90823344800297622062014-03-18T19:23:39.186+11:002014-03-18T19:23:39.186+11:00I actually think that Anthony Watts is laying the ...I actually think that Anthony Watts is laying the ground for something of an about turn. That Josh cartoon last week firmly puts Watts as a believer in anthropogenic global warming and I didn't see him say he wasn't. The evidence is stacking up against him. The posts on his site are dissected here and elsewhere and shown up for what they are - deluded drivel. It will only take a decent El Nino for climate denialists to have a bit of a problem defending their positions. Anything like 1998 and they can all dribble away in a cave together because no one will believe them. I can see David Rose in the Daily Mail saying "Fair cop, gov, I was wrong". The fact that Anthony is disparaging about Sou suggests her posts wound him (and I use wound in its old meaning).Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38204846487390101212014-03-18T18:51:06.854+11:002014-03-18T18:51:06.854+11:00Awww. Feeling a bit beseiged are you? Never mind....Awww. Feeling a bit beseiged are you? Never mind.<br /><br />HW *is* making a difference. How many <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/12/denier-weirdness-russian-steam-pipes.html" rel="nofollow">Russian steampipes</a> have you seen lately? How many <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/more-denier-wackiness-from-wuwt-its.html" rel="nofollow">insects causing global warming</a> have you seen? How many <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/08/anthony-watts-visits-greenland-and.html" rel="nofollow">airports have caught UHI disease</a>? How many "<a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/07/denier-weirdness-collection-of-alarmist.html" rel="nofollow">ice age comething</a>" articles have there been in the last couple of months? We haven't even <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/02/the-curious-tale-of-watts-and-his-dog.html" rel="nofollow">heard from Kenji</a> lately. And many of <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/05/an-economist-should-know-better-maybe.html" rel="nofollow">these favourites</a> seem to have fallen by the way.<br /><br />And how many pure personal attacks on climate scientists? They haven't disappeared completely but they aren't nearly as frequent as they used to be.<br /><br />Heck, we've even got Anthony <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/anthony-watts-throws-nicola-scafetta-to.html" rel="nofollow">turning on his allies</a> in an apparent effort to appear to be "sciency".<br /><br />Of course there is still plenty to mock. I mean Anthony is now giving the <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/are-anthony-watts-and-james-delingpole.html" rel="nofollow">interpreter of interpreters</a> a voice now that he's lost his own. And he's still coming up with his own brand of <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/oh-he-of-little-brainpumping-floodwaters.html" rel="nofollow">wacky "brainwaves"</a>.<br /><br />Besides all that, it amuses some of the climate scientists to see someone ridiculing all you wackos. It's worth it just for that!Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-2801037073574624352014-03-18T18:15:10.712+11:002014-03-18T18:15:10.712+11:00Here is an idea for your next app Eric. How about ...Here is an idea for your next app Eric. How about a searchable database of all the misquotes and misrepresentations of Flannery and Gore. Call it the denier automated logical fallacy generator. Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-82510819620493714942014-03-18T18:11:42.439+11:002014-03-18T18:11:42.439+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-58321265791622726862014-03-18T11:37:28.630+11:002014-03-18T11:37:28.630+11:00Eric I have neither the time nor the inclination t...Eric I have neither the time nor the inclination to try to teach you reason and logic or critical thinking. (From past experience at WTD the task would be a fruitless one.)<br /><br />However if other people were to read the above comments in order, including the comments by Bernard J and Marco, then read your third paragraph they will easily see where your chain of reasoning goes awry in your fourth paragraph.<br /><br />End of discussion.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90031724803944379872014-03-18T11:16:39.922+11:002014-03-18T11:16:39.922+11:00Moderation's on, I see. Quelle surprise. Look,...Moderation's on, I see. Quelle surprise. Look, Eric's being repressed! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-61254362222047969782014-03-18T11:13:29.720+11:002014-03-18T11:13:29.720+11:00Oh dear, the lame old "Are you arguing ...?&q...Oh dear, the lame old "Are you arguing ...?" ploy. When someone doesn't say what you want them to say, pretend they did. OK for the schoolyard, but pathetic coming from an adult.<br /><br />Of course there are issues around nuclear power that have nothing to do with climate change; they existed before climate change itself was an issue. I'm no expert in the matter, but I know one big thing : nobody ever got rich by investing in it. Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-68428322554101696422014-03-18T08:37:53.766+11:002014-03-18T08:37:53.766+11:00Sou, Bernard suggested that nuclear power and emis...Sou, Bernard suggested that nuclear power and emissions reduction should be treated as separate issues. <br /><br />"... The need for more nuclear power, and any agreement or disagreement on the matter, are not contingent on only the state of the climate. ..."<br /><br />The link to James Hansen's open letter I provided suggests that opposition to nuclear power is endangering the future of the planetary environment, that nuclear power is the only credible means of substantially reducing CO2 emissions. So it seems pretty clear to me that James Hansen thinks conflating the issue of CO2 emissions with the issue of whether to go nuclear is appropriate.<br /><br />So suggesting I should learn basic comprehension for conflating the issues is to also suggest that James Hansen needs the same lesson.Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-67277513275990665122014-03-18T07:37:17.244+11:002014-03-18T07:37:17.244+11:00No, Eric. Just you need to learn basic comprehensi...No, Eric. Just you need to learn basic comprehension. Both Bernard and Marco have explained why.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90145455778155014992014-03-18T07:28:14.521+11:002014-03-18T07:28:14.521+11:00Bernard, suggesting that conflating nuclear and en...Bernard, suggesting that conflating nuclear and environment is inappropriate seems a bit lame, considering that James Hansen, former director of NASA GISS, did this when he published an open letter last year, along with Tom Wigley of UCAR and Kerry Emanuel of MIT, demanding just such a conflation.<br /><br />Perhaps they should take a course on basic critical learning skills as well?<br /><br />http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-25536555581180967062014-03-18T01:35:34.566+11:002014-03-18T01:35:34.566+11:00"Bernard J. You are arguing that it is more i..."<i>Bernard J. You are arguing that it is more important to agree that anthropogenic forcings drives climate, than it is to agree on a policy that reduces anthropogenic forcings.</i>"<br /><br />No, I am not.<br /><br />"<i>Bernard J, are you seriously arguing that replacing coal plants with nuclear power stations would have no impact on the climate?</i>"<br /><br />No, I am not.<br /><br />Better logical fallacies please.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73462092539448651282014-03-18T00:05:36.926+11:002014-03-18T00:05:36.926+11:00No, Eric, that's nothing like what Bernard J w...No, Eric, that's nothing like what Bernard J wrote. You're not even close.<br /><br />Try this before you post another silly comment:<br /><br />http://www.canberra.edu.au/studyskills/learning/criticalSouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-52806494148048881932014-03-17T21:47:14.653+11:002014-03-17T21:47:14.653+11:00Anonymous, if we add nuclear power, we *may* reduc...Anonymous, if we add nuclear power, we *may* reduce anthropogenic forcings, but if it is not part of the explicit goal, the reduction is likely to be much smaller than desirable if one also agrees that anthropogenic forcings need to be reduced significantly. If not part of the goal, nuclear power just becomes an addition to the energy resources, rather than a replacement.Marconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-20181940508516888392014-03-17T21:37:29.960+11:002014-03-17T21:37:29.960+11:00Bernard J, are you seriously arguing that replacin...Bernard J, are you seriously arguing that replacing coal plants with nuclear power stations would have no impact on the climate? That the two issues are not linked?<br /><br />Perhaps we agree on more than I thought.Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50086365087125245152014-03-17T21:36:29.325+11:002014-03-17T21:36:29.325+11:00Yeah, just to me huh? :-)Yeah, just to me huh? :-)Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-45087329187212748792014-03-17T21:22:39.738+11:002014-03-17T21:22:39.738+11:00Bernard J. You are arguing that it is more import...Bernard J. You are arguing that it is more important to agree that anthropogenic forcings drives climate, than it is to agree on a policy that reduces anthropogenic forcings.<br /><br />You are entitled to your opinion, but ask yourself: in what way has your argument contributed positively to the environment?<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-9002439578832679252014-03-17T21:08:40.784+11:002014-03-17T21:08:40.784+11:00Of course that would be the first and likely only ...Of course that would be the first and likely only thing to occur to you :)cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21851115101655912132014-03-17T20:42:08.931+11:002014-03-17T20:42:08.931+11:00"Stop the name-calling, stop demanding that e..."<i>Stop the name-calling, stop demanding that everyone have the same opinion, and it might happen.</i>"<br /><br />No-one's "demanding that everyone have the same opinion" - that's a classic straw man argument.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />...whilst everyone is entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. Nor are people entitled to their own 'Laws of Nature' when those opined laws contradict the best evidence of science, and are used to enact harmful political, economic, environmental and social policies.<br /><br />"<i>Does it actually matter if we agree about the details of what drives climate, if there is broad agreement about the need for more nuclear power?</i>"<br /><br />This is a conflation of separate issues:<br /><br />1) Yes, it actually does matter what "drives climate" because if some of the forcings are anthropogenic and thus voluntary, and if those same <i>anthropogenic</i> forcings are "driv[ing] climate" toward a state that is not conducive to continued cohesion of society and/or global ecosystems, then the addressing of such drivers becomes a critical issue.<br /><br />2) The need for more nuclear power, and any agreement or disagreement on the matter, are not contingent on only the state of the climate. Tying the two together in this way is to oversimplify both issues and introduce fallacious confabulation.<br /><br />F-. Must try harder.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-71265683107792572092014-03-17T19:52:43.942+11:002014-03-17T19:52:43.942+11:00Thorium is only one prospect, so too is IFR techno...Thorium is only one prospect, so too is IFR technology and nuclear fusion (eg ITER, and it's children). If history is any guide, the technology which will be the most common form of energy production in 2100, hasn't even been invented yet. The key is to recognise that current technology is not capable of affordably "decarbondioxiding" the economy, and to throw weight behind new ideas rather than old ones that have proven to be a blind alley.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69398392857298245062014-03-17T17:46:00.317+11:002014-03-17T17:46:00.317+11:00Absolutely - for example, both James Hansen and An...Absolutely - for example, both James Hansen and Anthony Watts are fervent supporters of next generation nuclear power.<br /><br />James Hansen saying anyone opposed to nuclear power threatens humanity's ability to avert dangerous climate change:- http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuclear-energy-climate-change-scientists-letter/<br /><br />Anthony Watts expressing dismay at America's lack of investment in next generation Thorium technology, and his openness to the idea of teaming up with alarmists to make it happen:-<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/16/quote-of-the-week-the-middle-ground-where-agw-skeptics-and-proponents-should-meet-up/<br /><br />Does it actually matter if we agree about the details of what drives climate, if there is broad agreement about the need for more nuclear power? Alarmists get large scale decarbonisation of the economy, we get a step into the future of humanity. Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-92166843722173029292014-03-17T17:38:40.180+11:002014-03-17T17:38:40.180+11:00We need the facts, like those reported by the Clim...<i>We need the facts, like those reported by the Climate Council and RealClimate.org and ClimateProgress and SkepticalScience.com. We also need strongly worded opinion, as is being advocated by Rod Lamberts to counteract the three word slogans of idiots like our Prime Minister and deniers at WUWT.</i><br /><br />With that view, there is no chance that we will ever agree to meaningful policy. It simply is never going to happen that we will all agree on the facts. It might be fun to call each other names, but does it achieve anything positive? In fact it is destructive, and promoting such ideas as above is probably delaying the action that you declare is so urgent.<br /><br />There is the political will to promote technology development that will make "decarbondioxiding" the economy affordable, even desirable. Stop the name-calling, stop demanding that everyone have the same opinion, and it might happen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-6413328452204827372014-03-17T17:07:54.425+11:002014-03-17T17:07:54.425+11:00The first thing which occurred to me is, if the Cl...The first thing which occurred to me is, if the Climate Commission is ever reconstituted, Rod would like Flannery's old job.Eric Worrallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14053132017679865559noreply@blogger.com