India Boosts Coal Production 400 Million Tons

Nice bunch of maybes, what if’s and nice to haves.
Meanwhile EU continues to burn down forests for energy.
Democracies like to vote on changes. Do you think they will stick with burning wood pellets for electricity and counting it as renewable energy?

From the linked article
"Late Tuesday in Brussels, a committee of the European Parliament voted to make substantial changes to both how the union subsidizes biomass, and how it counts emissions from burning it — policies with major consequences if passed by the full Parliament. It’s part of a broad package of climate policies that would alter not only the way Europe generates electricity in coming years, but also how the European Union meets its targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

“This vote is a historic breakthrough,” said Martin Pigeon, a forests and climate campaigner with Fern, a nonprofit group focused on European forests. “For the first time, a major E.U. regulatory body makes clear that one of the E.U.’s most climate-wrecking policies of the last decade, incentivizing the burning of forests in the name of renewable energy, has to stop.” "
 
Democracies like to vote on changes.
Yes, which is why they should be given all the information so as to be able to make informed decisions.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.
 
Yes, which is why they should be given all the information so as to be able to make informed decisions.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.
All of it? No filter? No review? Green cheese and little green men?
 
Mainstream scientists put the blame for climate change almost entirely on greenhouse gases, but scientist-skeptics differ widely in terms of their alternative explanations. Some, such as Tim Patterson, a paleoclimatologist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, emphasize natural “forcings” on the climate, especially solar cycles that affect how much radiation strikes the earth. Others cite man-made influences including industrial emissions of black soot, which warms the air by absorbing sunlight. Still others propose that multiple factors—black soot, land use changes, and more—compound the effects of greenhouse gases on global and regional climate.




Personally I believe it is because of the UHI and deforestation which is changing the earth's albedo.
 
I suspect because it's well known within the climate community of which Claire Parkinson is a part of and a proponent of AGW. So she is a credible witness.
How do you know its well known within the climate community if the climate community suppresses dissenting opinions?
 
No dissenting opinions are allowed in their reports. They have a goal to speak from one voice.
I'm asking if YOU think there should be no filters, no review, if absolutely every opinion should be disseminated with equal weight
 
How do you know its well known within the climate community if the climate community suppresses dissenting opinions?
That's not contradictory. It's well known withing the climate community that the climate community suppresses dissenting opinions which is why climate scientists are afraid of speaking out.
 
I'm asking if YOU think there should be no filters, no review, if absolutely every opinion should be disseminated with equal weight
I think there should be no fear of speaking one's opinions and I think people's opinions should not be dismissed due to bias. That every opinion should stand on its merit. The weight given to an opinion should be decided by the reader. I do believe both sides should be presented if it's going to be used for policy decisions.
 
I think there should be no fear of speaking one's opinions and I think people's opinions should not be dismissed due to bias. That every opinion should stand on its merit. The weight given to an opinion should be decided by the reader. I do believe both sides should be presented if it's going to be used for policy decisions.
I agree there should be no fear of speaking one's opinions.
I agree that people's opinions should not be dismissed due to bias.
However, I believe that the opinions of people who can't support them in the face of an objective review do not deserve to be given hedence or disseminated as if they were equivalent to objectively supported opinions.
If every reader were an expert on the subjects under discussion, you could rely on them, but you know that is not the case. All three branches of our government must make decisions on an almost infinite set of topics about many of which they do not have sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions. Thus they are forced to rely on the opinions of experts in the various topics. Then you have to trust that these government folks are able to accurately judge who is and is not an expert in all these various fields. And since, for example, we have congressman like James Inhofe, who rely on people like Richard Lindzen, Christopher Monckton, Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg, Roy Spencer and Fred Singer - it is obvious that such trust can easily be misplaced.
 
I agree there should be no fear of speaking one's opinions.
I agree that people's opinions should not be dismissed due to bias.
However, I believe that the opinions of people who can't support them in the face of an objective review do not deserve to be given hedence or disseminated as if they were equivalent to objectively supported opinions.
If every reader were an expert on the subjects under discussion, you could rely on them, but you know that is not the case. All three branches of our government must make decisions on an almost infinite set of topics about many of which they do not have sufficient knowledge to make informed decisions. Thus they are forced to rely on the opinions of experts in the various topics. Then you have to trust that these government folks are able to accurately judge who is and is not an expert in all these various fields. And since, for example, we have congressman like James Inhofe, who rely on people like Richard Lindzen, Christopher Monckton, Judith Curry, Bjorn Lomborg, Roy Spencer and Fred Singer - it is obvious that such trust can easily be misplaced.
I don't trust any agencies that exclude dissenting opinions.
 
Name one you do trust.
SCOTUS. They issue dissenting opinions. So while I may not trust them to always do the right thing. I can trust that there will be a dissenting opinion on record to say I told you so when they don't do the right thing.

It takes away the "we didn't know" excuse.
 
Yes, which is why they should be given all the information so as to be able to make informed decisions.

This drive to present a single “scientific consensus” on issues has given the IPCC epistemic authority in matters of climate policy” (Beck et al. 2014). Many researchers have noted that this has been achieved by suppressing dissenting views on any issues where there is still scientific disagreement (Beck et al. 2014; Hoppe & Rodder 2019 ¨ ; van der Sluijs et al. 2010; Curry & Webster 2011; Sarewitz 2011; Hulme 2013). As a result, an accurate knowledge of those issues where there is ongoing scientific dissensus (and why) is often missing from the IPCC reports. This is concerning for policy makers relying on the IPCC reports because, as van der Sluijs et al. (2010) note, “The consensus approach deprives policy makers of a full view of the plurality of scientific opinions within and between the various scientific disciplines that study the climate problem” (van der Sluijs et al. 2010). This suppression of open-minded scientific inquiry is hindering scientific progress into improving our understanding of these challenging issues.
If you're not allowed to question the answers, it's not science -- it's a cult.
 
Democracies like to vote on changes. Do you think they will stick with burning wood pellets for electricity and counting it as renewable energy?

From the linked article
"Late Tuesday in Brussels, a committee of the European Parliament voted to make substantial changes to both how the union subsidizes biomass, and how it counts emissions from burning it — policies with major consequences if passed by the full Parliament. It’s part of a broad package of climate policies that would alter not only the way Europe generates electricity in coming years, but also how the European Union meets its targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.

“This vote is a historic breakthrough,” said Martin Pigeon, a forests and climate campaigner with Fern, a nonprofit group focused on European forests. “For the first time, a major E.U. regulatory body makes clear that one of the E.U.’s most climate-wrecking policies of the last decade, incentivizing the burning of forests in the name of renewable energy, has to stop.” "
EU moved to burning down forests to try to meet their envirowhacko goals.

And to this day they burn more.
 

Forum List

Back
Top