Guest essay by Eric Worrall
It must be Christmas; the climate grinches are trying to convince everyone to ditch the Christmas lights, and green intellectuals like Peter Ellerton of the University of Queensland are providing helpful hints on how to win the climate battle of the Christmas dinner table.
I’m a critical thinking expert. This is how you win any climate change debate like Greta Thunberg
The Conversation By Peter Ellerton
Posted Wed at 2:59pmAs bushfires rage and our cities lie shrouded in smoke, climate change is shaping as a likely topic of conversation at the family dinner table this Christmas.
…
Back to the dinner table
We may not have Thunberg’s natural aptitude for staying on topic. But we can apply the lessons to our own conversations with friends and family.
Let’s say I’m having an argument with a cranky uncle about renewable electricity. I might argue that we should transition to wind and solar energy because it generates less carbon dioxide than burning fossil fuels.
My uncle might respond by saying I shouldn’t use any energy at all. Maybe he’ll say “then stop driving cars” or “don’t turn on your TV”.
But this response is not addressing the point at issue – that renewable energy generates less carbon than fossil fuels. It is talking about something else: that any use of power is bad. Really, it’s not so much about using power as how that power is generated.
Moving off the point at issue is a classic “strawman” attack, when the argument is misrepresented and argued from that point.
…
If you need extra help, my colleagues and I have produced a paper to help analyse the rationality of climate denial claims. It also helps you find the point at issue, and stay on it.
…
Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/how-to-win-a-climate-change-debate/11787486
Back in 2014, Google engineers discovered to their horror that there is currently no viable path for replacing fossil fuel with renewable energy.
Other serious climate action advocates have made the same discovery, ranging from David Attenborough, who quietly advocates for a renewable Apollo project to solve currently insurmountable problems, to Bill Gates, who in 2015 set up a green tech fund to try to find a way to make renewables viable (though by 2019, Bill Gates had given up).
When Trump hating film maker Michael Moore decided to investigate why there was so little progress retiring fossil fuel, he thought he would find a big oil conspiracy, a network of corrupt oil executives blocking the rise of a new industry. Michael Moore did discover a dark swamp of lies and corporate greed, but not where he expected.
Former NASA GISS Chairman James Hansen’s renewable energy skepticism upset Naomi Oreskes so much Oreskes called James Hansen a “denier”. Hansen is no climate skeptic, he believes if we don’t stop global warming, the oceans will boil and render the Earth uninhabitable. Hansen is a hero and progenitor of the modern climate movement – his senate testimony in 1988 was a pivotal moment in the raising of public awareness of climate issues.
But even James Hansen believes renewable energy is not a viable solution to the rapid reduction in anthropogenic CO2 emissions he believes is needed to save the world from global warming.
Peter Ellerton, what do you call an expert on critical thinking who encourages readers to parrot green talking points on renewable energy, without addressing the substantial evidence that renewable energy is a false hope?
Just a remark on the UK General Election result. Given the impending climate catastrophe, the number of votes for the Green Party is nothing short of pathetic. Grind their noses in it.
I am sure Griff and others like him in the UK are on their knees screaming and howling at the skies “Not my PM!” right now! I understand that a huge number of new, young first-time voters, voted in favour of the Tories and Boris and by extension, in favour of Brexit.
“I am sure Griff and others like him in the UK are on their knees screaming and howling at the skies ”
LOL! I can see it now! 🙂
How long till they try and blame it on the Russians?
“encourages readers to parrot green talking points”?
Thats not what he did. He made a factual statement: “renewable energy generates less carbon than fossil fuels”
Meh, factual statements, biased talking point, whats the difference, says Eric.
“Loydo December 13, 2019 at 12:14 am
Thats not what he did. He made a factual statement: “renewable energy generates less carbon than fossil fuels””
Complete bollox!
It is not a fact because neither process produces carbon. The use of the word carbon instead of carbon dioxide is a propaganda tactic because carbon is considered dirty and an attempt is to equate a colorless, orderless, building block of all life as something dirty and awful! That’s one thing that makes it a biased talking point.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that he really meant to write carbon dioxide. Even then it is still a biased talking point because it is irrelevant. It is similar to pointing out that the Titanic was making really good time. That’s true, but irrelevant!
The only problem is, they don’t.
Not when you consider all the factors.
Like the rest of the alarmists, Loydo is not a deep thinker and can’t handle any complex analysis.
“Colossal new investments in infrastructure, in science, using our incredible technological advantages to make this country the cleanest greenest on earth with the most far reaching environmental programme.
And you the people of this country voted to be carbon neutral in this election. You voted to be carbon neutral by 2050 and we will do it.”
Boris Johnson, in his first speech after his election victory…
Yep! Using the only technology that can achieve that goal; Accounting.
Creative Accounting?
I stand corrected.
„renewable energy“ does not exists because:
1. EROI is negative.
2. Energy delivered by solar and wind is not reliable enough. Because it doesn’t fulfill quality requirements, it isn’t energy at all as understood and required by clients/consumers of electrical energy.
Renewable is, in any case, a misnomer as used in the context of energy. To renew something means to make good so that it can be used again which is an impossibility with energy. The green mafia has, in effect, redefined renewable as meaning there is more where that comes from and that is also true of fossil fuels.
I have a prediction for Time’s “person of the Year”. When your NGO’s money dries up (in about 6 months) your history.
It’s genetics.. his cranky old uncle is very likely just as stupid as he is.
What I find to be the most disingenuous is how Leftists, advancing political agendas, won’t debate skeptical scientists but rather set up “stawman” arguments were they first put up some weak puke argument against CAGW and then proceed to knock it down. Then worse, arm children with such nonsense to go forth and make pompous arses of themselves ala GReta Thunberg, in front of their families, during the holidays. This guy should be arrested for child abuse.
As a cranky uncle I have argued that wind and solar have too many weaknesses to provide the energy needs of our economy as evidenced by how little they currently supply, the damage it would cause to the environment if we even attempted to transition more fully to them, their continued reliance on fossil fuel to support their function and maintenance, how unreliable they are, how they can never be called up on demand, and the devastating cost and energy loss of storing said energy for later use. I rarely have to go into the environment damage they cause to wildlife.
I have never once in a discussion on renewable energy argued “Oh yeah well practice what you preach and stop using anything that requires energy.” Only “Critically Thinking” (?) leftists use that argument by assigning it to people who never use it and then crowing about how they win arguments with cranky uncles.
“ But this response is not addressing the point at issue – that renewable energy generates less carbon than fossil fuels”
It’s interesting how the alarmists often call “carbon” the problem. Skeptics never say that.
So let’s examine the critical thinking skills of the “expert”, Peter Ellerton. First, the clueless niece makes an idiotic “argument” about why we “should” transition to “renewable electricity” (really? when did electricity become “renewable”, but I digest), and the knowledgeable uncle makes a sarcastic remark about her energy use in general, which is actually true – that if she’s so “concerned” about it, instead of waiting for a transition to “green” energy, why not limit her energy use RIGHT NOW? It points to her hypocrisy in other words. So what has happened? She made a dumb comment about “renewable electricity”, and instead of arguing with an idiot, he was sarcastic. That could actually be described as a rational response, because how do you argue with an idiot? But technically, his response is a non sequiteur, not a strawman as the so-called “expert in critical thinking” has claimed. But it is a tactical non-sequiteur, since there really isn’t what could be called a rational discussion taking place. Furthermore, the idiot who claims to be an “expert in critical thinking” has in fact, set up his own ACTUAL strawman with this faux “argument”, so he’s a hypocrite as well as a moron. QED.
Just tell them that the UK election result was a massive win for combating climate change. The British Prime Minister and cabinet will no longer need to fly to Brussels in order to find out how to govern the nation.
Think of all the aircraft miles saved.
Hansen is no climate skeptic, he believes if we don’t stop global warming, the oceans will boil and render the Earth uninhabitable. – article
Geezo Pete, I had no idea that Hansen was that abominably stupid!!!! What an idiot!!!
The oceans are NOT going to boil and the Earth will NOT be uninhabitable until the Sun starts to swell into a red giant. That’s how it works, Hansen, you imbecile! I do wish I had a time machine so that I could drag his sorry backside back to the Carboniferous and watch while he faints from oxygen poisoning!!!
He knows better. What an IDIOT!!!!
Regarding wind power:
– Miller & Keith: Climatic impacts of wind power, Joule 2, 1–15 December 19, 2018
– Armstrong, A. et al.: Ground-level climate at a peatland wind farm in Scotland is affected by wind turbine operation. Environmental Research Letters 11(4): 044024, 2016
It’s not only unhealthy for birds/insects and inefficient, it also creates heat and drought!
“renewable energy generates less carbon than fossil fuels”
SO WHAT !!!!!!
Less or more Carbon this or that is the most meaningless measure of anything useful.
From the article: Peter Ellerton: “I’m a critical thinking expert.”
I don’t think so. If you were a critical thinking expert, you would not be an alarmist, you would be a skeptic.
Alarmists are famous for their *lack* of critical thinking.
Well spotted and well said.
Just another self-credentialed “expert” who is unable to spot even the internal inconsistencies in his own arguments.
I don’t understand why, but my comment from about an hour ago went to moderation, and appears to be lost. Sigh. There does seem to be something wrong with the system here. Commenting used to be a lot easier. Anyway, I essentially trashed the guy’s entire argument, and called him a moron. He’s certainly no “expert” in critical thinking, as his own skills are sorely lacking.
Easily solved—cook the turkey with solar and hope it’s done and there is not a cloudy day. Maybe your guests won’t get Slamonella. Start early or cut the turkey up in very small pieces. Only turn on the lights if your solar or wind charged battery can handle the load. If you don’t have a fireplace, you’ll have to eat with 100% cotton coats on by candlelight. No watching the game or anything else unless you have enough battery power. Since it’s a temporary thing, you can charge the batteries fully a day before, then only plug the charger in IF there’s sun or wind at a set speed. Your guests can help boil water on the wood stove to clean up the dishes, unless you have a cistern and enough battery to heat the water on your electric stove or run your dishwashers. One should ALWAYS honor the wishes of one’s guests, even if it’s not your idea of a fun day. Stop using electricity from the grid as your way of honoring your liberal fanatic guests.
Oh, and Forbes named Greta one of the WOMEN of the year, so you can now shred her. She’s NOT a child and Forbes says to.
Teeny-Bopper of the Year.
I am an expert spotter of dumb asses, liars, and academics who aint very smart.
This particular individual is perhaps the clearest example of a person who gets top marks in all three categories.
Not much more to say beyond that.
His arguments are as trite and completely lame as they come.
https://www.rebelnews.com/united_nations_reacts_greta_thunberg_garbage_filled_tesla
(Rescued from spam bin) SUNMOD
It is not Allerton’s uncle’s argument that is the strawman, it is Allerton’ uncle himself. Any cranky uncle of mine would easily defeated Allerton in an argument.
Count me in as a cranky old uncle. What I’ve observed is that my gullible nieces and nephews are completely flummoxed because my responses are never the ones the articles like this prepare them for. I always respond with facts and real science (helped by my degree in physics) .
Or don’t?
https://www.rebelnews.com/united_nations_reacts_greta_thunberg_garbage_filled_tesla
Nuclear can generate hydrogen whose waste product is…..water. Far cleaner than anything else available. And nuclear has never been safer. It is, however, not perfect just like any other “solution”. China has been slowly buying up the world’s supply of uranium though—so that could be an issue.
“This is how you win any climate change debate like Greta Thunberg”
Hug?
Greta said she wouldn’t debate at all. Presumably because anyone who disagrees with her must be too stupid to talk to.
“Hansen is a hero and progenitor of the modern climate movement – his senate testimony in 1988 was a pivotal moment in the promotion of “human-induced climate catastrophe” bullshit.
There, fixed it for you.