Cancel Peak Oil

Post by **clv101** » 04 Oct 2011, 10:20

My reference to the IPCC was related to their anthropogenic emission scenarios, and how they are based on:

…neither hydrocarbon resource availability nor costs are likely to become forces that automatically would help wean the global energy system from the use of fossil fuel during the next century.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 04 Oct 2011, 12:18

Of course, I assumed that, but then as the quote I attached explains, concerns about anthropogenic CO2 belong in the church of climate change.

RGR · Post by **RGR** » 05 Oct 2011, 00:47

clv101 wrote:
RGR wrote:Tell me Chris, have you ever seen anywhere in the sciences the idea that it is best to make certain that those who have a new or different idea, or are pretty good at defending old ones, are the people you need to make sure get eliminated from participating as soon as possible? Sound like science to you? Or more like what a church does to heretics?

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Oct 2011, 19:23

I've just come back here after being away for a few weeks.

Myself and Kenneal in particular, have been vocal in allowing so-called "disruptive" posters to continue here.

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with both RGR and AIC with all of this "Church" bollocks. Trawling through it is incredibly tedious. In fact, MeeMoe's stuck-record performance on us all being "religious twitteresque idiots" is what led to his ban.

I now feel as though I've made a mistake. Sorry guys.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 09 Oct 2011, 22:30

Well that was mature (zeroing your own posts) wasn't it RGR?
Banned

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 10 Oct 2011, 09:33

RGR wrote:Tell me Chris, have you ever seen anywhere in the sciences the idea that it is best to make certain that those who have a new or different idea, or are pretty good at defending old ones, are the people you need to make sure get eliminated from participating as soon as possible? Sound like science to you? Or more like what a church does to heretics?

Sounds quite like the practice of science to me. It is not the "ideal" of science, but that's how (some) people are, whether priests or scientists,

Peter.

An Inspector Calls · Post by **An Inspector Calls** » 10 Oct 2011, 19:21

Bandidoz wrote:I've just come back here after being away for a few weeks.

Myself and Kenneal in particular, have been vocal in allowing so-called "disruptive" posters to continue here.

I have to say, I'm very disappointed with both RGR and AIC with all of this "Church" bollocks. Trawling through it is incredibly tedious. In fact, MeeMoe's stuck-record performance on us all being "religious twitteresque idiots" is what led to his ban.

I now feel as though I've made a mistake. Sorry guys.

I don't see the word "church" as bollocks at all, it had a perfectly sensible connotation as applied to environmental groups and has been frequently used as such - yes as a derogatory term, much like denier has been used as a counter derogatory term. And as for Mee-Moe, back and forth, well you don't have to look far for some quite good practicioners amongst the admins. The 'trouble' with RGR was that he gave as good as he got. Stop being so precious.

I agree with Blue Peter, though, about the conduct of science. I found science in academia quite corrupt and was glad to get away from it into industry.

Bandidoz · Post by **Bandidoz** » 10 Oct 2011, 19:55

Keep digging....

Would you like a petard?