Prepare for business as unusual

Here’s something thought provoking for a Friday: The ultimate roller coaster ride: a brief history of fossil fuels, a five minute encapsulation of humanity’s flirtation with coal and rock oil. Narrated by Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute, animated by Monstro Design. Worth five minutes of your day.

58 thoughts on “Prepare for business as unusual”

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Prepare for business as unusual -- Topsy.com

  6. So why don’t you nut jobs lead by example and stop using fossil fuels? Give up driving your cars and walk to work instead (and I hope you’ve got jobs that also don’t require using fossil fuels because that would be inconsistent and show a complete lack of commitment to your mad cause!).

    But I’ll let you use electricity at home if you can demonstrate it originates from hydro, solar or wind as opposed to gas, oil or coal. Otherwise that’ll have to go too. No TV! No internet! No hot water! So get your candles out. NO! Wait! Candles give off CO2 and other evil carbon-based particulates into the atmosphere as well! So I’m afraid you can’t use candles either. You’ll just have to hit the sack when the sun goes down.

    Go on. Lead by example.

    1. Dreary, unimaginative, abusive, small-minded? Did anybody miss Joe? Didn’t think so!..

      So why don’t you, in turn, simply sod off altogether? You’re contributing nothing of value whatsoever. Seriously. You are a waste of space.

    3. I think you’re confusing preparing for climate change with luddism.

      Just because we cannot achieve 100% non-reliance on FF by ourselves, does not mean that trying to do what we can to save 10% is not worthwhile.

  7. An excellent comeback! Well done. In other words, you have no answer to counter my argument. If you’re committed to your anti-fossil fuels dogma, then give them up.

    You’re no different to that other nut-job Pentti Linkola who thinks the human race should be eradicated to “save the planet” from some imagined menace. But if he truly believed his own mad dogma, he’d lead by example and jump off the nearest bridge. That way he’d show us the way and prove his commitment to the cause at the same time. Fair enough don’t you think? But he won’t because he’s too comfortable telling everyone else what to do from the comfort of his lazy-boy while sipping a martini. You guys are the same. You bleat about fossil fuels and how evil they are, but you won’t give them up. What’s that about?

    1. Oh, hello, Joe!

      I see you haven’t made any progress in your two major problems from last time you were around.

      Firstly, you are a very angry man, and immediately descend into insults and abuse. That’s regrettable, but very revealing. As I’ve pointed out before, it says much more about you than about anyone you’re addressing. You’re in danger as being seen as a nutcase for your repeated irrational outbursts.

      The other problem is that you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about. You are scientifically ignorant. It’s not worthwhile discussing things with you because you aren’t interested in decreasing your ignorance.

  9. No Johnmacmot, you’re wrong sorry. I’m not “angry” at all. Why would I be when I have so much fun winding you guys up? I’ve tried many times to engage in debates on this blog on the scientific case for AGW, but I quickly found we just go round in endless circles. No matter what I, or anyone else says, or how compelling the argument, it’s pretty obvious that any disagreement with the AGW hypothesis will be dismissed as non-valid simply because it disagrees with the so-called “consensus” view (which is really just another name for the “fashionable” view). For example, a while ago I made some statements and was asked for sources which I duly supplied – names like Lindzen et al – only to have them dismissed out of hand by Gareth whose own argument amounted to no more than statements like “Lindzen is wrong!” Hence it was clearly pointless going any further. If even the top names in the game are completely dismissed out of hand, what’s the point? It’s a waste of everyone’s time because what you’re really saying is that you only want believers yes-men commenting on this blog. Any disagreement will be shouted down. Full stop.

    So the idea behind my last post was to point out the inconsistency of your dogmatic approach to the issue. Hence my comparison between you guys (who collectively demonize “fossil fuels”) and Pentti Linkola (who thinks the human race should be eradicated to “save the planet”), ie., you all agree that everyone should give up using fossil fuels because they are supposedly destroying the planet, but you won’t do so yourselves. So my challenge to you alarmist guys, including Mr. Linkola, is to lead by example and show your commitment to your own cause: you stop using your cars, and everything else that utilizes fossil fuels, and Linkola jump off a bridge. And then I’d have more respect for your cause. I still wouldn’t agree with it, but at least I’d respect it.

    What could be fairer than that?

  10. Can’t imagine how the “Unusual” element in the title to this particular post is worth the five minutes of my Friday reading’s time, any more than Fred Krupp’s treatment as related by the guestie at TP.

    Which is to ask you good people to go take a look.

    Besides, if the Joe Fone joker only comes here to “wind” folks up, there’s call for he, too, to be cautious. Or – you tell me – should that be curious.?

  11. Tomfarmer, if you had read my post, you would have learned that I originally came here to argue the toss and debate the science of AGW but, as I explained, that achieved nothing because of your entrenched habit of roundly dismissing anything and everything that any and all skeptics say about it, regardless of merit. A rather pointless exercise wouldn’t you think? So there’s nothing much for it now than to resort to mockery, sarcasm and ridicule. Besides which, I’ve always enjoyed mocking other people’s religions of which this is one.

    1. OK Joe. I’ll set aside the fact that I can’t recall a single comment by you which has attempted to make a scientific case against the need for action to reduce emissions or the reality of global warming. So, just this once, why don’t you describe the single most compelling piece of real science that supports your views. Not politics, not accusations about religion, but real scientific argument.

      Go ahead, make my day.

  12. Gareth you already know (or you should know by now!), the arguments against the manmade global warming/climate change theory – scientific arguments put forward by myriad well known sceptical scientists, from Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas et al., to de Freitas, Carter et al., as well as from Watts and others, all of which you automatically dismiss as invalid. So is there any point my repeating them for your benefit, citing assorted web sites and papers written by these individuals, all of whom are far more qualified than you on the subject? I’ve already done that and found I was just flogging a dead horse. It’s all been said before to no avail. You clearly insist on remaining trapped in your ignorance and devotion to the AGW cause, regardless of what anyone says. Hence my opinion that your belief in AGW is nothing short of a staunch fundamentalist religious conviction, making it utterly impervious to reason and argument of any sort.

    I feel sorry for you though because you’re now stuck in the mire and can’t extract yourself. You know the science is unravelling, but you and many others just as staunch have stuck your necks out on the issue so you’d all look pretty silly now if you started having doubts about it and had to admit you were wrong. Ironically others far more qualified than you have had the strength of character to do just that!

    1. Just the one compelling scientific argument, Joe. The one that is your favourite. No foaming at the mouth about religions, just the science.

      Go ahead, make my day.

  13. Gareth, what did I say? You didn’t even read it did you?

    So here it is again (but without my entirely valid comment about your religious conviction):

    You already know (or you should know by now!), the arguments against the manmade global warming/climate change theory – scientific arguments put forward by myriad well known sceptical scientists, from Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas et al., to de Freitas, Carter et al., as well as from Watts and others, all of which you automatically dismiss as invalid. So is there any point my repeating them for your benefit, citing assorted web sites and papers written by these individuals, all of whom are far more qualified than you on the subject? I’ve already done that and found I was just flogging a dead horse. It’s all been said before to no avail. You clearly insist on remaining trapped in your ignorance and devotion to the AGW cause, regardless of what anyone says.

    Do you understand my point? We just go round in circles Gareth because you aint listenin!

    1. Just the one compelling scientific argument, Joe. The one that is your favourite. The one that you find the most persuasive. I am familiar with most of the arguments advanced by the people you cite, but do please just choose one. Then we can discuss that single issue.

      Go ahead, make my day.

  14. Tough luck Joe Fone, that you realise that recycling refuted arguments does not validate them. You can’t come up with a new one, so you’re busted. It’s as simple as that.

  15. RW: “recycling refuted arguments does not validate them”

    Pot. Kettle. Black!

    And of course we never see Mann’s refuted hockey stick being recycled do we?

  16. Gareth, even Mann himself says his invented graph should never have been used as an icon by the IPCC:

    http://climatechangedispatch.com/green-affected/7401-michael-hockey-stick-mann-hides-atop-the-climate-change-ivory-tower
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/29/mann-says-hockey-stick-icon-is-misplaced/

    But he keeps recycling it anyway in the hope of salvaging something, ANYTHING, from his [snipped] disaster:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2768/Mann-at-it-again-Very-erroneous-conclusions-Michael-Manns-newest-invention-The-Hurricane-Hockey-Stick

    1. I’m disappointed in you Joe. That’s not a scientific argument. I mean, digging up some Watts & Morano posts doesn’t make any sort of case about paleoclimate reconstructions, does it? Perhaps you’d rather argue something else?

  17. Joe Fone @ November 18, 2010 at 9:22 am

    “Argue the toss” – very arguable if you were to ask me. Pertains, however, to a bet. Usually taken to mean heads/tails. In this context, however, where is the head, where is the tail ??

    Imprecision like that, Joe, on this topic, makes for your dilemma. Of not being taken seriously.

    Nor indeed does lumping this blogsite’s ‘attitude’ onto little ole me alone – “your entrenched habit” – assist matters. One thing being how I consider myself and comment thusly as an independent spirit.

    As more names and their supposed (by you) packdrills – a figure of speech – you may care to recognise how Lindzen is presently asserting his former colleagues and their adherents to be “overt cheats”. Go figure why for your goodself.

    Spencer, for whom there is deserved respect, has likewise found a need to assert adherents, supporters and such over-the-top in what they take to be honest representations. Methinks that on the face of this there are significant problems arising in the credibility of scientific disbelievers. Please note, I do not say skeptics. To do so would require adequate reasoning and systematic logic of which there are too many gaps, discontinuities, incoherences etc.

    Soon, old-school. Too old, outdated. Outmoded. Irrelevant. Not as a person you understand, but for pertinent skills, knowledge, capability. Baliunas, likewise, though more hopeful of resuming dependence on the US military spend. PBO being in the way, and withdrawal from overt conflict/s the strategic means, one would have to say that her skillset needs climb out of the used-by-date basket.

    So you see, Joe, how difficult your own position. Best you stick with the knitting of argument.. relevant argument.. of which Gareth has obligingly asked you to do..

    That is if you’ve gotten one.. or mebbe two..

  18. Oh right I get it… you won’t accept anything that Watts, Morano, McKitrick, McIntyre or anyone else has already said about Mann’s invented hockey stick graph because it’s already been said right? In other words, the moment it’s out there, it’s “old” and should be ignored. Either that, or you don’t count as an argument anything that’s not personally, specifically and originally owned and devised by the person you’re arguing with, in this case myself. That is, unless what I’m saying is entirely from my own personal individual research carried out entirely on my own without reference to anyone else, it doesn’t count. Because the moment I refer to someone else (like say Watts or McKitrick or McIntyre or any other sceptic of note), I’m “recycling” old material. But you on the other hand ARE allowed to repeat the arguments of characters like Mann, Hansen et al. because the rules don’t apply to you.

    How does THAT work?

    I’ve heard that sort of thing before… someone once said I was “repeating old facts”, as though they have a use-by date.

    1. I’ve simply asked you to present the argument you consider most compelling. It doesn’t have to be your own work. All you’ve done so far is fling a few names around.

      So what is it Joe? You seem to think you have lots to choose from — perhaps the embarrassment of riches is causing you difficulty?

      Where’s the big hole in the science Joe, the one that makes you so confident you’re right, and the entire scientific establishment of the world so badly wrong?

    2. Oh, go away, you goose! You’ve called your own bluff – you cannot raise even one scientific argument, you can only cut and paste bits that have got herd approval over at WUWT! I think we have good reason to suspect you don’t understand them even then. ‘What a joke, mate!’

  20. Nice try Bill, but I’m afraid that doesn’t let you off the hook. I’m still waiting for your “smoking gun”, the evidence that categorically links mankind’s CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels to global warming/climate change. The onus of proof on you since it’s you making the claim. So come on. Put up or shut up. Just parroting Al Gore or Hansen or Mann doesn’t make it true. Evidence Bill. Not more theory, conjecture, hearsay or computer models. I want evidence.

    1. Still no scientific argument, Joe? Still ducking and weaving…

      And you have the onus of proof exactly the wrong way round. We have a huge mass of evidence that suggests it would be prudent to cut emissions. To persuade the world not to act, you need to provide compelling evidence that there is no danger.

      Good luck with that.

    3. In other words, Joe, you have nothing, eh? All that bluster doesn’t cover the complete lack of anything of substance. I wonder, though, do you really believe the silliness you’re posting? It’s possible, I guess.

      It’s very clear that you don’t understand the science, and your position is political, idealogical and strongly, bitterly emotional.

      But, it’s still possible you might astonish us. Get on with it, though.

  21. “Not more theory, conjecture, hearsay or computer models”

    What about all the scientific observations that are reported daily in scientific journals? Accelerated glacial melting, rising atmospheric moisture, species migrations/extinctions…. does that not count as evidence? If CO2/GHG isn’t driving it then what is it? Do you have an alternative theory? If so tell us what it is.

  22. No Gareth, you’ve got it completely a.se about face. That’s like saying the defendant in court has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser having to prove his guilt. So obviously the onus of proof is on you to prove the case against CO2. It’s not my responsibility to prove its innocence. All you’ve done is make the claim that it’s “destroying the planet” (yawn!) and then sat back and demanded that the sceptics prove you’re wrong. Sorry mate but that’s your responsibility. And until you, or someone of your alarmist ‘Chicken Little’ ilk, can prove the case against mankind’s CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels, I’ll continue to increase my so-called “carbon footprint” while mocking your silly little faddish claim.

    So get on with it and stop bleating about “fossil fuels”. You claim they’re bad and destroying the planet, but I bet you drive a car and take flights here and there when it suits. All fossil-fuel-burning activities. So you’re not only negligent and lazy about proving your case, you’re also inconsistent.

    1. 1: Balance of evidence

      2: Risk assessment in the light of that evidence.

      You’d never make a (successful) actuary.

      But still no single argument Joe? Lots of shuffling around and attempts to distract, but you seem incapable of telling us what single scientific factor makes you so confident that you are right.

  23. “Balance of evidence”

    But what evidence would that be Gareth? Computer models perhaps? Or Al Gore’s tragie-comedy movie? Or the occasional accidental correlation when temperature and CO2 emissions just happen to be in sync (until they’re not… in which case you’ll ignore the discrepancy)? The arbitrary selection of start and end points on your temperature graph? The habitual and ubiquitous cherry-picking of data that can be manipulated and twisted until it confesses? Or maybe the odd bush fire in Australia that’s necessarily caused by your carbon footprint?

    And you didn’t answer the question. Is that because it was too close to the bone? So do you drive a car Gareth? Do you take the occasional flight to give pep talks on the evils of fossil fuels?

    1. Feeble, Joe. You’re still dodging the question I’ve been asking for a whole day now. What makes you so convinced you’re right? The science, please Joe, not the bluster.

      I won’t play your game until you give me an answer.

  24. Very slippery of you Gareth. Nice. You refuse to come up with the evidence for AGW, as requested, and instead indulge in silly game-playing, asserting the onus of proof is on me. Sorry but that doesn’t wash mate.

    Evidence Gareth. Evidence. Stop squirming and come up with clear unequivocal evidence for your claim that fossil-fuelled CO2 is ruining the planet and causing “catastrophic” global warming. When you can do that, I’ll take you seriously.

    Oh, and yet again, do you drive a car Gareth? Take flights to give pep talks on the evils of fossil fuels? But ok maybe the question is too subtle for you so I’ll rephrase it: Do you use fossil fuels yourself Gareth?

    1. Worse and worse, Joe! You don’t get to turn the tables, I’m afraid. I asked you a perfectly civil question that you seem unwilling to answer.

      I’m not going to speculate why that might be, though other readers have already drawn their own conclusions, but I am sincerely interested in why you are so sure of your position but seemingly unable to support it with a single line of argument.

  25. Joe, you and your cronies are the ones who believe you know better than mainstream scientific understanding.

    You need to come up with new data and theories that will stand up to the full weight of scientific examination to change understanding of climate.

    Shuffle and spin as you will, you have not even started to do that. We know you have no scientific abilities yourself, and that there are no coherent alternatives to the mainstream understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate. That’s why we get all the silliness that you and other denialists spout on here.

    Come on, Joe, front up with your best shot at what Gareth has asked, and cut out the shuffle and waffle.

  26. “No Gareth, you’ve got it completely a.se about face. That’s like saying the defendant in court has to prove his innocence rather than the accuser having to prove his guilt.”

    But just a minute Joe. The point is that alternative theories have been looked at and largely debunked. There are only so many things that can warm the earth. One is solar activity, and people have tried hard to make the sun’s activity match the observations of a warming earth with no correlation found.

    So what’s left? Are you saying that there may be yet another forcing phenomenon that the smartest physicists in the world might have missed?

  27. You’re impressively slippery Gareth. Why don’t you stop obfuscating and answer the question?

    It’s very simple: Do you use fossil fuels yourself Gareth, while at the same time claiming they are destroying the planet? Yes or no?

    Do you drive a car or indulge in other activities that involve the burning of said fossil fuels, and thereby contribute to your supposed “catastrophic” planet-destroying “problem”?

    Yes or no?

    1. Joe, if a Doctor tells an obese person to cut down on the fast food, it doesn’t invalidate the message if that same Doctor has Fish and Chips every now and then. It’s getting the usage down to a level that the earth-system can handle that is the issue.

    2. Joe, are you perhaps twelve years old physically as well? So sadly starved for attention you’re reduced to going ‘nyaah nyaah nyaah’ at the grownups, eh?

      It’s rather hilarious having an abusive boor who’s clearly cannot string a coherent argument together accusing someone who has written a book and tens of thousands of words in hundreds of posts on his blog site of being unable to provide any evidence for his cause!

  28. Slippery seems to be the hallmark of the alarmists, so you’re in good company Gareth:

    ‘How the Climategate weasels wriggled free’

    “…the science of “Climate Change” is a means to an end – and that end is advancing the goals of the liberal Left through ever more involved and constrictive policy-making.

    Like the Bourbons, the watermelons of the global green movement have learned nothing and forgotten nothing from Climategate. For them, AGW has never been about science or objective truth. It has always been just a pretext.”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100064075/how-the-climategate-weasels-wriggled-free/

    1. Let’s interpret these latest fumings, shall we, Joe?

      Point One: No attempt at providing any kind of scientific argument and evidence. Not a surprise – you don’t have any abilities in that direction.

      Point Two: Plenty of polemic and empty rhetoric. It’s not a surprise that you quote that prize turkey, Delingpole. He’s very good at empty insults and angry abuse.

      Point Three: You have no self-awareness or sense of irony. Let’s try this:
      You’re impressively slippery, Joe. Why don’t you stop obfuscating and answer the question?

      (You see what I did there?)

      Bluster and insults won’t cut it, Joe. They’re just evidence of a complete lack of meaningful content. Well, fresh evidence – haven’t seen any worthwhile content in anything you’ve posted here before either.

Leave a Reply