Normally I have only one, but this has been an extraordinary week. Thanks to the conflict of interest so aptly and unashamedly demonstrated by the IPCC and Greenpeace, warmist Mark Lynas has publicly embraced “denialism”.
Here’s his stunning statement:
Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.
His eyes, opened.
View,
To answer your question, No, nobody in the USA can explain that statement, though some before me have described the situation pretty well. This is something we’ve become accustomed to here in the USA.
To those who responded, thanks. I think I get a feel for it now.
Um … yes Mark, “integrity of the scientific process” has been pretty much the default “denier” position for some time now. Glad to see you have finally caught up.
Incidentally Mark, I fear you may have been deleted from rantin’ Joe’s Xmas list this year along with “disinformation McIntyre”, Revkin (who probably hunts Hobbits out of season or some such) and of course our gracious host. Not to worry – that’s what you get fur askin’ awkward questions about the proposed path from here to Unicorn Utopia. Here in the cold dark caves we welcome newcomers (just don’t grab at the Mammoth rissoles) .
Full rant from Uncle Joe’s green rubber asylum here
How can we possibly have 80% renewables by 2050 given the abysmal state of renewables?
It would take cutting the population by 90% and covering the Sahara with NASA grade solar receivers to give us 80% renewables.
It jus isn’t logical, unless their plan coincides with planned forced population reduction.
Bushy says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:20 am
Like I said in my last post. “OK then, here we have a model of a new super duper aircraft. We are unfortunately leaving out the details and function of the left engine, tail fin and right wing that we do not have right now but, trust us, just build it, wait until 2100, and you will see that it flies just fine.”
A good analogy, but perhaps not the best example – “The Fairchild A10 Thunderbolt is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II – and it’s a 40 year old design…
From Mark Lynas’ column:
“But what I don’t want are recycled campaign reports masquerading as ‘proper’ science leading the assessed scenarios – and the media – because their originator has managed to lever himself into a pole position on the team of lead authors. That stinks. And it stinks doubly because the Greenpeace report was originally co-authored by the European Renewable Energy Council – an industry lobby group whose prospects depend on state subsidies which can be expected to be further increased once its views are given the ‘official’ stamp of approval from the IPCC.”
Now THAT, my WUWT friends, is a solid indictment of the products, processes, and participants in the incestuous world of the AGW activists; UN-IPCC, GreenFleece, etc. !!!!!!!!!!!!! Coming from Mr. Lynas, it emphatically shows that the topics raised here on WUWT by the host of most excellent contributors (a Lynas h/t to Steve McIntyre!) are getting far broader exposure and consideration. Individually and collectively, by focusing on honesty, integrity, open disclosure, and independent replication or falsification of claimed analyses, YOU are having a major impact in the scope and direction of weather, climate, atmospheric, solar, and exosolar research and discussion.
I humbly stand in awe and applaud you all !!!
WUWT – The little engine, that could…..
Err… “Evidence of a politically unstable world in which those in the bubble, Charles being just a minor one, continue to test to destruction the patience of the victims of the greatest theft in human history”.
Perhaps Charles might spend a couple of years living anonymously on an English HMG pension and thereby demonstrate his commitment to
all things greendying alone in the cold, another anonymous victim of the the robbery. No, I guess he got his answer from HMG and whipped out the royal credit card to pay for the fuel. Must be nice to have that option.I can’t believe that anyone in Aus is listening to this scammer (or his useful Aus idiots). I guarantee that your newly closed (carbon tax and all that) wealth mines will re-open within a decade under new ownership and Charles, for one, will be a major shareholder in the newer world order. Contracts with China intact – Charles gets to carry on giving “green” speeches using his newly (Aus) wealth backed bank account.
Try it this way – a guy wandering the streets of London with his opinions would be just another “cardboard box citizen” without the backing of his mother and their collectively stolen wealth.
They named him correctly – Charles – and he should remember his family name sake… and his eventual fate.
I see Mr Lynas punching nails into thick oak boards covering the windows trying to save his people from the heretic horde out there in the big scary, and utterly doomed, world. Only to find out that, while frantically hammering crooked nails into obviously rotten boards, shutting out the, non warming, sun light, he’s freely walling himself in with the eaters of rationality, the hippie climate communizt zombie horde. And it’s hungry!
Prince Charles’s green credentials and the family business:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030611/Prince-Charles-converts-beloved-Aston-Martin-green-machine–run-English-wine.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/queen-set-to-earn-millions-from-windfarm-expansion-2115629.html
@View from the Solent says:
June 17, 2011 at 8:08 am
OT, but can someone in USA explain the meaning of “The White House stands opposed to changes in the subsidies or tariffs, so they will likely go untouched before they expire at the end of the year” to an Englander…
—–
REPLY: What that means is, even though the US Senate has approved a law to rescind these subsidies and tariffs placed upon imported ethanol, Pres. Obama won’t sign or act on the legislation as it will die a natural death on its own, after which time it is unlikely that the subsidies & tariffs shall be renewed. He’s straddling the fence on this one.
= = = = = =
Mac the Knife ,
I second your sentiments about WUWT!!
But, reconsider . . . . WUWT is the new MSM . . . . so he is the big engine that could. Sorta. :^)
John
I recommend the blog from Babbage of the Economist on this topic. Much good explanation of how this works from the viewpoint of various people. And a wonderful interview of Ravendra Pachauri. RP asserts that extreme pronouncements signed by him are just great because they lead to dandy debates and intellectual activity. I’m not sure everybody expects that is what the IPCC is for, but in any case welcome to the site of some dandy debates and intellectual activity. http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/06/ipcc-and-greenpeace
Thanks CRS, Dr.P.H. A sunset clause; got it.
C.A， says:
June 17, 2011 at 11:22 am
How can we possibly have 80% renewables by 2050 given the abysmal state of renewables?
It would take cutting the population by 90% and covering the Sahara with NASA grade solar receivers to give us 80% renewables.
It jus isn’t logical, unless their plan coincides with planned forced population reduction.
It just isn’t logical, unless their plan coincides with mass murder and genocide.
There! Fixed it for ya.
philincalifornia says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:27 am
James Sexton says:
June 17, 2011 at 9:12 am
=====================
OK, maybe the actually reality of renewable fuels is a bit off-topic, but real quickly – there is still a 54 cents a gallon tariff on imported ethanol (which really PO’s the Brazilians).
======================================================================
lol, Ok, I appreciate the info……not only are we subsidizing, we’re also engaged in protectionism………strange isn’t it? We won’t protect our steel industry. Do we tariff PC’s? Automobiles? Or anything else that would be particularly useful and could add meaningful jobs? ……sigh…….. But yes, for those that may have been confused by my statement, I wasn’t stating that it isn’t a worthwhile discussion, but rather deserving of its own post. It goes to the heart of why some of us are engaged in the climate discussion. If our policy makers didn’t act on all of these absurd notions by the climatologists, then I would probably spend my extra time doing something else. 🙂
C.A says – “How can we possibly have 80% renewables by 2050 given the abysmal state of renewables?”
As I understand it, the statement on % renewables refers to supply, not demand. If renewables are currently, say, 1% of global energy supply, all you need to do to achieve the “80% renewables” target is to cut non-renewable energy supply by 98.7% (give or take a couple of nukes). ie, you don’t need to build new renewables, you only need to close non-renewables. The target is even easier to meet if you count nukes in renewables, but the hair-shirt brigade campaign vigorously against the word “easier”.
Is Mark Lynas’ comment an “I’m Spartcus” moment? Let’s hope we see a few more standing up
Seems to me that “climate change deniers” could fall into several categories:
Type one: “The Earth’s climate has never changed, and never will!”
Type two: “The Earth’s climate used to change, but it doesn’t any more!”
Type three: “The Earth’s climate never used to change, until humans came along and changed it!”
Types one and two seem extremely rare, if they exist at all. There does seem to be a group (some call ’em a “team”) which believes type three. So perhaps “climate change deniers” exist – but it ain’t us!
Best,
Frank
James Sexton says:
June 17, 2011 at 3:26 pm
=========================
I agree. It is an extremely worthwhile discussion, very well deserving of its own thread.
Furthermore, and in actual fact, there is a new revolution starting (started) in commercial synthetic biology that doesn’t involve bioethanol, mostly around here (no surprise).
Google “Solazyme IPO”.
Is anyone here old enough to remember biotech IPOs ?? Here’s one hit:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/2011/03/solazymes-ipo-turns-up-interesting.html
This wasn’t just a regular IPO. This was a full oversubscription, in a garbage market.
People who drop out of mind-control cults sometimes benefit from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, to help them sort out false beliefs about themselves, and to help them reintegrate into a predominantly reality-based society. I think that establishing an organization to promote the mental health of “Jack” Warmists would be a worthwhile project. But good luck in getting tax-exempt charitable status from the feds!
Lynas is a bit slow on the uptake. He should have reached this conclusion when the original hockey stick (still prominently used) was debunked and found to be a fabrication based on questionable statistics and gross statistical overweighting of a handful of tree rings purporting to show temperature.
To get to 80% renewable is easy. It involves two major parts:
1) Buy, at outrageously expensive prices, enough windmills and solar panels to meet 50% of our current energy needs. This would be done by the government and would require either much higher taxes to pay for it, or it would increase our collective debt by a rather substantial margin.
2) With the resulting depression for the financial mess the governments created, world energy requirements will fall by 1/3, allowing the newly ‘right sized’ global economy to survive on 80% renewable energy sources.