Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Posts tagged 'Evan Keith Beaver'

Tag Archives: Evan Keith Beaver

Is the future a skate on thicker ice?

bears_146

I found this piece in the Oz due to an Irate Warminista on twitter:

So naturally I checked out the link only to find a quite interesting argument suggesting that the evidence supports the notion that its variation in solar activity that drives climate change rather than changes in the composition of the atmosphere:

Yet during the past 20 years the US alone has poured about $US80 billion into climate change research on the presumption that humans are the primary cause. The effect has been to largely preordain scientific conclusions. It set in train a virtuous cycle where the more scientists pointed to human causes, the more governments funded their research.

At the same time, like primitive civilisations offering up sacrifices to appease the gods, many governments, including Australia’s former Labor government, used the biased research to pursue “green” gesture politics. This has inflicted serious damage on economies and diminished the West’s standing and effectiveness in world ­affairs.

University of Pennsylvania professor of psychology Philip Tetlock explains: “When journal reviewers, editors and funding agencies feel the same way about a course, they are less likely to detect and correct potential logical or methodological bias.” How true. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its acolytes pay scant attention to any science, however strong the empirical evidence, that may relegate human causes to a lesser status.

This mindset sought to bury the results of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark’s experiments using the Large Hadron Collider, the world’s most powerful particle accelerator. For the first time in controlled conditions, Svensmark’s hypothesis that the sun alters the climate by influencing cosmic ray influx and cloud formation was validated. The head of CERN, which runs the laboratory, obviously afraid of how this heretical conclusion would be received within the global warming establishment, urged caution be used in interpreting the results “in this highly political area of climate change debate”. And the media obliged.

But Svensmark is not alone. For example, Russian scientists at the Pulkovo Observatory are convinced the world is in for a cooling period that will last for 200-250 years. Respected Norwegian solar physicist Pal Brekke warns temperatures may actually fall for the next 50 years. Leading British climate scientist Mike Lockwood, of Reading University, found 24 occasions in the past 10,000 years when the sun was declining as it is now, but could find none where the decline was as fast. He says a return of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830), which included “the year without summer”, is “more likely than not”. In their book The Neglected Sun , Sebastian Luning and Fritz Varen­holt think that temperatures could be two-tenths of a degree Celsius cooler by 2030 because of a predicted anaemic sun. They say it would mean “warming getting postponed far into the future”.

If the world does indeed move into a cooling period, its citizens are ill-prepared. After the 2008 fin­ancial crisis, most economies are still struggling to recover. Cheap electricity in a colder climate will be critical, yet distorted price signals caused by renewable energy policies are driving out reliable baseload generators. Attracting fresh investment will be difficult, expensive and slow.

Only time will tell, but it is fanciful to believe that it will be business as usual in a colder global climate. A war-weary world’s response to recent events in the Middle East, Russia’s excursion into the Crimea and Ukraine and China’s annexation of air space over Japan’s Senkaku/Daioyu Islands has so far been muted. It is interesting to contemplate how the West would handle the geopolitical and humanitarian challenges brought on by a colder climate’s shorter growing seasons and likely food shortages. Abundance is conducive to peace. However, a scenario where nations are desperately competing for available energy and food will bring unpredictable threats, far more testing than anything we have seen in recent history.

Source

I don’t know if this line of argument is correct but it does suggest that when it comes to addressing any future change in our climate that we would be better served by not assuming that the climate is going to be hotter into the future if it were to swing the other way though what would it mean for this country? I don’t think that we would have too much trouble in terms of our agriculture  but we may have to change what we grow where.  In terms of our energy sources we are quite well placed because we do have extensive reserves of fossil fuels but on the downside much of our housing stock in the northern parts of the country are not well suited to the cold. The thing is though no matter which way the climate may change we have to be prepared to cut our coats according to the cloth and the most important thing that will enable us to do that is flexible minds that are good at problem solving. The trouble with so many AGW true believers is that they are utterly inflexible in their thinking and they feel very threatened even by the possibility that their profits may be wrong so how do you think that they would go in a cold future rather than a hot one?

Cheers Comrades

Is the future a skate on thicker ice?

Is the future a skate on thicker ice?

 

Evan Keith Beaver , RET and Twitter

solar-panels-being-installed-on-a-residential-roof

I never wanted to be the sort of blogger who writes about their Tweeting stoushes but the exchange that I had yesterday was both amusing and revealing about the nature of the devotees to the Green religion,

Evan Keith Beaver@evcricket 

We’re in a democracy, so now to hold the LNP to account we get organised and stick a fork in them. If you want renewables TELL THEM LOUDLY

@evcricket why should I be paying for your renewables through my power bill

@evcricket because if you want them then you should pay for them

@evcricket Now you are copping out! Either justify the subsidies for renewables or admit its unfair to bankroll the Green vanity

@theiainhall Or option 3: don’t debate obstinates on twitter.

@evcricket You assume that renewables are a virtue if so what do they even need subsidies?

@theiainhall Look, you don’t think carbon pollution is a problem so I really couldn’t care less what you think of energy policy

@evcricket whay should what I do or don’t believe oblige me to pay for Green vanity?

@theiainhall Iain, are you impaired? I think I’ve made it pretty clear I’m not going to waste my time on you

@evcricket In the last decade my energy bills have more than doubled, some due to gold plating & Green subsidies. Zero effect on climate

@theiainhall Okay you won’t answer the question. Thanks for playing.

@evcricket Evan, the collapse of renewables energy subsidies coming for a long time, it has become too popular&expensive and unsustainable

@theiainhall Whatever. Like I said, I don’t care what you think of energy policy

@evcricket but you still want ME to subsidize renewables??

@theiainhall Exactly. Same reason you pay for cancer research yet know nothing about it. Experts do, let them make decisions

@evcricket your faith in “EXPERTS” is so delicious in its naivete, If an expert suggests you suicide for the sake of the planet would you?

@theiainhall What is a suicide expert Iain? Anyway, can you answer my question?

@evcricket your “question” is no question btw

@evcricket A question has to have a particular form and your tweet is no question

@theiainhall ok I get it. Being a dickhead just comes naturally.

Evan Keith Beaver@evcricket 13h @theiainhall What evidence would convince you that we need to do something about CO2 emissions?

@evcricket AT Last! Strewth that was worse than pulling a bad tooth with rusty pliers!

@evcricket Firstly I would need to know what that “something” is and that the act would be more than just symbolic.

@evcricket secondly I would need to be convinced with empirical evidence that the “something” would be cost effective.

Iain Hall@theiainhall

  • @evcricket Thirdly that enduring global cooperation for the next millennium (or longer) could be achieved

Isn’t the attitude of my interlocutor just so cute? He really believes that everyone should be happy that policies like the Renewable Energy Target raises the cost of energy for ordinary people, I have no doubt from previous writings of the author that he believes that the Carbon Tax is the best thing since sliced bread and its immanent repeal will be a terrible sin against Gaia. But most sadly amusing is his intense faith in “Experts” and is total suspension of any reasoning when it comes to what they say. Its what the faithful used to say about the clergy when they held far greater sway over the lives of the people the sad thing is we are consonantly told by the trendies and social media wonks that this is the age of the individual who is both connected and contribution to our collective wisdom through the wonders of social media.  To the likes of Evan Keith Beaver though all that matters is that those  with the “correct” political orientation, the cultural elite that he sees himself as part of, should impose their ideas and values upon the rest of us. Notions of social democracy go straight out the window so  his “experts” are to remain unchallenged.

I actually like the idea that social media can be an important tool in a vibrant and active democracy but it saddens me that so many of the leftists who have been its early adopters now think that it should forever be their instrument of control, that their clicktavissm should be supreme and anyone who dissents from their orthodoxy is to be derided and ignored. The irony is that the review of the Renewable Energy Target has been scheduled since before the last election, in fact its part of the legislation under which the target was created in the first place so there is no reason at all to think that it means that this article of faith for the Green religion is, of necessity , going to be abolished. Personally I think that having a diverse variety of energy sources has great virtue. However the quest to achieve this through subsidies and overly generous feed in tariffs and other incentives   has had some rather nasty consequences for those who are least able to afford them. I am talking about those who rent, those who can not afford to put the solar panels on their roof, the poor who struggle to pay their energy bills all of these people subsidise the likes of Evan Keith Beaver ‘s religious belief in Climate Change while he and his Latte sipping cronies think that they are “doing their bit” for climate change the poor and downtrodden in our country are struggling to pay those ever increasing energy bills. Its not just , its not fair and the hypocrisy of minions of the left who think like this is just breathtaking.

Cheers Comrades

Pay for your own bloody renewable energy!!!

Pay for your own bloody renewable energy!!!

%d bloggers like this: