Garbage praxidice!

Big business has jumped on the scam & is coining it thanks to the idealistic fools who "believe".

GE is one of the biggest companies on earth. It doesn't matter a damn to them how we generate our power. They have a finger in every technology, & will still make a pile. In fact alternate power gives them, & many others better profits.

We see many people from the green, left & right factions of the elites raking in the cash from our skyrocketing power bills, with what is effectively insider trading.

What do you think about wood chips, shipped from the USA to the UK replacing coal in power generation. If it had been used as a plot for a movie, people would say it couldn't happen, but it does when green bullsh#t ideology, politics & business get together on the same gravy train.

Au contraire, Hasbeen.

Nice try - excellent spin and all that - but...

Perhaps you'd like to examine where the overwhelming majority of government subsidies end up?

Clue: it ain't the renewable industry.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-10-21/when-it-comes-to-government-subsidies-dirty-energy-still-cleans-up

this article from2012 states that in 2010:

"Global subsidies for oil, gas and coal amounted to $409 billion in 2010 - compared with $60 billion for renewable energy that year..."

So it's your dirty energy mates who are scooping the cream off taxpayers contributions globally.

Have a nice day....

A few responses.

Praxidice: if you use terms like 'human vandalism' it would be hard not to find
'undesirable consequences' wouldn't it? Later on you talk about indisputable facts (I think) but most of what you put forward as such are propositions, not facts.

Jeremy: In my view arguments from consensus do little more than show that the person using them is not able to find decent evidence himself or herself. And I have greater respect for my doctor than I do for many climate scientists. Not only does he have more than 30 years knowledge of me and my health, he also knows a great deal about health in general, and about other practitioners to whom to send me if he's not sure what to do. The same cannot be said for climate science, which is, in some respects, not even 30 years old.

John Bennetts: It would be nice to learn who these people are who have 'demonstrable knowledge' of climate. The lack of them is one reason why I occasionally become a Grumpy Old Man!

Don Aitkin,

"Consensus" on this issue pertains to the fact that peer-reviewed literature tends to agree by overhwelming majority on AGW.

That's a far cry from your take that "...arguments from consensus do little more than show that the person using them is not able to find decent evidence himself or herself...."

The catalogue of peer-reviewed papers detailing evidence - what's that?

I'm always fascinated that "skeptics" seem to have so much respect for scientists from other fields...yet somehow draw a distinction between them and the scientific ethics of climate scientists.

Why is that?

Don Aitkin - if you use terms like 'human vandalism' it would be hard not to find 'undesirable consequences' wouldn't it?

Ahh, so you don't believe a few centuries worth of atmospheric & waterway pollution has been in any way harmful to the ecosystem ?? Interestingly every gubmunt on planet earth has mandated some kind of air & water controls on industry, applied a range of measures to minimize vehicular emissions, outlawed dated technology commercial aircraft and instituted a zillion other measures for SOME reason, seems like you believe all these are just stupid ideas some dumbcluck politician dreamed up to pass the time. Meanwhile, before these were put in place, individuals & businesses were merrily dumping who knows what wherever they thought they could get away with it, despite knowledge that the stuff being dumped wasn't exactly something one would ordinarily use to gargle with. But no, we won't describe that as vandalism will we because it just might offend the great god business profit.

The conclusion of nearly all the climate scientists is that AGW is real. Not only that they have demonstrated how and why this is likely. A consensus alone does not prove anything, but when it is open to rigorous testing by others over many decades then it becomes a whole new ball game. All the salient points have been checked and double checked to leave virtually no room for dissent, but that does not prevent numerous people with little or no understanding of the subject shouting from the rooftops ¨Its not true its not true¨.

I am sorry but the laws of physics will decide the issue and unless our understanding of those laws are totally wrong, we and particularly our descendants will pay an enormous price, for ignoring what at this stage is already patently obvious..

The only interesting question left is why otherwise intelligent people are absolutely determined not accept such a well established scientific theory despite it being so thoroughly tested.