Comments on: How to deliver a national mission to decarbonise the British economy

By: Leviathan

Leviathan — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 17:51:00 +0000

Yes, I agree absolutely

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 16:41:00 +0000

Suspicion and scepticism of scientific hypotheses and theories are part of the scientific method. The problem is when belief outweighs available evidence.

By: Leviathan

Leviathan — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 07:00:00 +0000

Few, I think, dispute the existence of climate change – the world has been steadily warming since the Little Ice Age. But you must know as well as I do that there is a raft of respectable scientific opinion that disputes its pace and its causes; the ‘Natural Geoscience’ article is just the latest in a steady stream. It joins the recent work of the Chinese Meteorological Office in postulating a slow-down in global warming since 2000.
With regards to a subject as complex as climate it is, as I implied previously, unsurprising that models are inaccurate and that opinions differ. I have not the expertise to deduce which side of the debate has the weight of scientific evidence but I know that the debate rages and, no, it does not consist simply of head-in-the-sand denial.
I also know that the stridency with which AGW-proponents proclaim ‘consensus’ makes this sceptic (yes, I am a sceptic; I am certain of very little) a little suspicious.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 06:46:00 +0000

There is a great difference between what you originally posted and suggesting pause for thought. Besides, the political community has paused for decades, and the vast majority of climate experts believe that this delay has been dangerous to the point of no return. Your claim that there is no scientific consensus is a lie.

By: Leviathan

Leviathan — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 05:42:00 +0000

Of course you’re correct: it is only one paper in a vast sheaf. But it does revive the debate about the veracity of many of the assertions of AGW climate change. Even prior to this there were enough dissenting, respectable, learned voices questioning the prophets of doom. At the very least new analysis like this should perhaps give us pause for thought before we continue on the ruinously-expensive decarbonisation path that threatens to throw the (economic) baby out with the bath water.

By: ANGRY_MODERATE

ANGRY_MODERATE — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 23:56:00 +0000

One article does not constitute mainstream scientific thinking. Your attitude shows through very clearly, that you dispute the scientific consensus about the evidence of global warming. And your choice of the verb “confirm” is no more than lying propaganda: it is the first and only (so far) peer reviewed article stating such.

By: Leviathan

Leviathan — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 20:30:00 +0000

I see that ‘Nature Geoscience’ has published an article confirming that climate change science has over-stated the pace of Global Warming and admitting that its models were (and indeed continue to be) inaccurate.
Maybe we don’t need all this de-carbonisation nonsense and we can just get on with using energy to improve lives?