Weekend reflections


It’s time again for weekend reflections, which makes space for longer than usual comments on any topic. As always, civilised discussion and no coarse language.

35 thoughts on “Weekend reflections

  1. If scientists are saying that carbon emissions are going up year-after-year but there is not the comparable increase in global climate temperatures, then does this not suggest that it is a far more complex collection of issues than carbon emissions?

  2. Fielding has made a clear statement of intent with respect to the evidence. Nothing I have heard from Fielding indicates he has anything other than incorrect information with respect to climate change. This is not a moral or philosophical issue but a scientific one. He cannot walk away from his claimed intention to abide by the evidence. It will be interesting to see how he responds this week to the mountains of evidence against the Heartland position.

  3. Fielding will eventually side with the Government… if only to save his own skin and not to be seen as some sort of odd-ball.

    To what extent is climate change natural and to what extent is it caused by man?

  4. SJ #24, you are of course correct. The HADCrut3 global average temperature anomaly graph makes it pretty clear just how large a discrepancy there is b/n 1934 and pretty much any year since the mid-90s (allowing for error bars). Anyone can have a gander at the HADCrut3 data, including graphs.



  5. SJ :Shorter SeanG: Blah, blah, blah.

    Very droll. How about answering the question?

    If only a proportion of climate change is caused by man then our environmental policy and risk management apparatus is built upon the false argument that once we sort out man-caused environmental change than that would be the end of it. This means we will lack the flexibility to deal with the fact that no matter how much we try – climate change will still occur.

    If carbon emissions is a leading cause of climate change (global warming) than low-carbon emitting technologies must get a look in including nuclear energy. Do you want nuclear plants or are you one of these green chappies who believes that renewable sources are the only way to go despite their lack of efficiency and effectiveness?

  6. Peter Rickwood @1,

    If you were to take out the ‘pros and cons’ bit in your request I might be able to suggest some literature.

  7. @SeanG #31: are you suggesting a thought process along the lines of, “I am against nuclear energy, therefore there is no global warming”? I believe this is called wishful thinking, and usually classified as a logical fallacy. Global warming has to stand on the scientific evidence, irrespective of any policy consequences.

  8. Martin, I was not suggesting that. Maybe if you re-read my comments you would come to see what I meant was that if you are very concerned about man-made climate change due to high carbon emissions, then nuclear energy would be an acceptable source of power.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s