Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

Remove this Banner Ad

Partridge said:
Whatever. Clearly all faked. Thousands upon thousands of scientists all in an elaborate plot obviously. Among the more moronic ideas bandied about by our astonishingly stupid species, this is right up there.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...y_shows_they_don_t_publish_actual_papers.html

The sooner everyone is dead the better.
Click to expand...
A consensus amongst scientists or any group is not in itself infallible or balanced. Quite the contrary once any group is created for a particular purpose it is not in their interests to suddenly declare evidence which might contradict the very justification for their existance.

So the transport accident commission is never going to say that its safe to have even a single drink of alcohol. Nor will they be content with 60 km zones, or 40 km zones. They will continually find reasons why we should drive slower and slower. The Quit campaign is never going to say that 5 cigarrettes a day has no health risk for someone who exercises and eats a balanced diet. The heart foundation is never going to admit that the odd burger and chips or soft drink is harmless.

I seriously doubt these peer reviewed journals would even publish a thesis which denies Climate Change caused by man. I doubt any PHD student, at any university, proposing to submit a thesis opposing Climate Change would receive much encouragement - what do you think? I suspect the proposal would be recieved with the same antipathy as any phd student in cultural studies proposing to submit a thesis denying any evidence of racism or sexism in this country.

There seems to be a consensus that because its scientists and its science, it is somehow immune from bias, myopia and self serving error. The world was believed to be flat by most intelligent people well before and after the advent of Christianity. The history of science is the history of overturning consensus.

There is no denying that mankind is degrading the environment, endangering species. Is this in itself not sufficient to justify change? How does foreshadowing 7 metre sea level rises actually help anything but create despair or attract ridicule? The clamouring by scientists to declare evangelically the inevitable end of mankind has not served its cause well. Any rational human is left with one or two sensible options - deny or despair.

All the while there are real things which can be done but delayed because we argue over these global emission schemes and targets. The technology is here now. Increasing investment in this technology is the only scheme necessary. Once the tech is cheap enough, the fossil fuel industry will die quicker than Betamax video recorders.

Absent cheaper technology to disrupt the fossil fuel industry and our behaviour, nothing real will happen and no amount of schemes, recycling programs, fines, or bicycle lanes will do anything but cause endless meaningless argumentation.
 
yebiga said:
A consensus amongst scientists or any group is not in itself infallible or balanced. Quite the contrary once any group is created for a particular purpose it is not in their interests to suddenly declare evidence which might contradict the very justification for their existance.
So the transport accident commission is never going to say that its safe to have even a single drink of alcohol. Nor will they be content with 60 km zones, or 40 km zones. They will continually find reasons why we should drive slower and slower. The Quit campaign is never going to say that 5 cigarrettes a day has no health risk for someone who exercises and eats a balanced diet. The heart foundation is never going to admit that the odd burger and chips or soft drink is harmless.
Click to expand...

Yebiga, no one, least of all any scientist, would suggest a consensus was "infallible" so that is a strawman. Whether a consensus among scientists is "balanced" or not depends on whether you accept scientific method as a useful way of understanding the world. If you do then you need to explain to me in what way a consensus among scientists applying scientific method is not the apotheosis of "balanced".

Your examples are telling. As far as I know the TAC has never said a single drink of alcohol is "unsafe" in itself. Please link. Nor am I aware of that the TAC have a campaign to reduce vehicle speeds to zero, as your comment witlessly suggests. AFAIK the scientific evidence is that 5 cigarettes a day does have a health risk, in itself and in its addictive capacity to lead to increased smoking. Feel free to correct me. I am quite sure that "the heart foundation" (whoever that is) would happily concede the odd burger and chips or soft drink is not only harmless but can from time to time have benefits when quick easily digested calories are needed. I think maybe you have taken your Mummy a bit too literally.


yebiga said:
I seriously doubt these peer reviewed journals would even publish a thesis which denies Climate Change caused by man. I doubt any PHD student, at any university, proposing to submit a thesis opposing Climate Change would receive much encouragement - what do you think? I suspect the proposal would be recieved with the same antipathy as any phd student in cultural studies proposing to submit a thesis denying any evidence of racism or sexism in this country.
Click to expand...

Your expressed "serious doubt" informs of your poverty of understanding of "scientific method". The recent experimental discovery of the Higgs particle, confirming its theorised existence, was both a thrilling confirmation of scientific method and a real disappointment to those who were hopping and are continuing to hope for anomalies in the data (unexplained bits) so that more theory can be developed and further understanding. Improving our understanding of the world by applying scientific method actually requires someone to come along and show that current scientific theory is inadequate to explain some known feature of the world and to propose a better theory. Scientific method, far from being beholden to the past is in fact a method seeking constantly to tear down or current understanding of the world. That is how scientists make names for themselves and win Nobel prizes.

yebiga said:
There seems to be a consensus that because its scientists and its science, it is somehow immune from bias, myopia and self serving error. The world was believed to be flat by most intelligent people well before and after the advent of Christianity. The history of science is the history of overturning consensus.
Click to expand...
Your third sentence above is correct and IMO refutes your first sentence above. Would you care to explain how otherwise?
[/QUOTE]
 
Windhover
You are attempting to engage me in some detailed analysis of my own post to prove some or all of my points are erroneous, inconsistent and the end point is to prove to yourself or to me that I am some kind of inconsistent nut.

Nothing I wrote in my previous post is outside the realms of common understanding, if in some detail or other you find objection, I can accept that and concede some level of sloppiness. My point is a general one, however, and in finding fault in the details of my analogies it does not negate the general point. Debating the infallibility, the consensus or balanced nature of the scientific discourse is again missing the point.

So I will concede being totally unfit for any disputation. You win, I lose.

Is not this exactly why no progress is possible?
I make some simple observation, you decide not to bother. To understand my point but to belittle the details.

Whatever
This binary understanding is really too dull for words
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The other day some climate scientists worked out that a nuclear war would plunge us into a drastic long term winter. The logical conclusion is therefore, that if it gets too hot we just need to let of some Nukes until it gets good again.

Nukes , is there anything they can't do?
 
yebiga said:
Windhover
You are attempting to engage me in some detailed analysis of my own post to prove some or all of my points are erroneous, inconsistent and the end point is to prove to yourself or to me that I am some kind of inconsistent nut.

Nothing I wrote in my previous post is outside the realms of common understanding, if in some detail or other you find objection, I can accept that and concede some level of sloppiness. My point is a general one, however, and in finding fault in the details of my analogies it does not negate the general point. Debating the infallibility, the consensus or balanced nature of the scientific discourse is again missing the point.

So I will concede being totally unfit for any disputation. You win, I lose.
Click to expand...

Yebiga, you accuse me of being picky about what to you are irrelevant errors in your post. I disagree. The major error in your post is a non-understanding about how scientists "learn" about the world (via scientific method). Your non-understanding of scientific method leads you to opinions that I find very strange.
You say your point is "a general one" and I agree. It is based on your apparent ignorance of scientific method. Insofar as you do not understand how scientists learn you are indeed "total unfit" to discuss the conclusions of climate scientists.

yebiga said:
Is not this exactly why no progress is possible?
I make some simple observation, you decide not to bother.
Click to expand...

Surely I can do no more than explain your "error". It is up to you to gain sufficient understanding of scientific method to explain why my own views are errant (as they no doubt are at many levels). I would be delighted if you could explain my errors to me. That is an easy way of learning. How about you?
 
Windhover said:
Yebiga, you accuse me of being picky about what to you are irrelevant errors in your post. I disagree. The major error in your post is a non-understanding about how scientists "learn" about the world (via scientific method). Your non-understanding of scientific method leads you to opinions that I find very strange.
You say your point is "a general one" and I agree. It is based on your apparent ignorance of scientific method. Insofar as you do not understand how scientists learn you are indeed "total unfit" to discuss the conclusions of climate scientists.



Surely I can do no more than explain your "error". It is up to you to gain sufficient understanding of scientific method to explain why my own views are errant (as they no doubt are at many levels). I would be delighted if you could explain my errors to me. That is an easy way of learning. How about you?
Click to expand...

You continue to be fixated with being right! As written earlier.

There is no denying that mankind is degrading the environment, endangering species. Is this in itself not sufficient to justify change? How does foreshadowing 7 metre sea level rises actually help anything but create despair or attract ridicule? The clamouring by scientists to declare evangelically the inevitable end of mankind has not served its cause well. Any rational human is left with one or two sensible options - deny or despair.

All the while there are real things which can be done but delayed because we argue over these global emission schemes and targets. The technology is here now. Increasing investment in this technology is the only scheme necessary. Once the tech is cheap enough, the fossil fuel industry will die quicker than Betamax video recorders.

Absent cheaper technology to disrupt the fossil fuel industry and our behaviour, nothing real will happen and no amount of schemes, recycling programs, fines, or bicycle lanes will do anything but cause endless meaningless argumentation.

Focus on things we can do, not on being right or wrong. Apparently, I don't understand the scientific method. I am not fit to participate in this discussion. Wow!
 
yebiga said:
You continue to be fixated with being right! As written earlier.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are trying to imply by use of the word "fixated" but I certainly agree with you that I like to be "right" in the sense that what I post is factually based and logical. I can see neither of those conditions appears to be a high priority for you for reasons I will now set out. It would be useful for you to note that I provide reasons, not in furtherance of any contest between you and me that I might "win", but rather because unsupported assertions are worthless.

yebiga said:
There is no denying that mankind is degrading the environment, endangering species. Is this in itself not sufficient to justify change?
Click to expand...
Not in my opinion. Mankind has, throughout its history degraded the environment and extinguished species. We actively seek to eliminate some species, such as viruses like polio or bacteria like Ebola. Something more is required.

yebiga said:
How does foreshadowing 7 metre sea level rises actually help anything but create despair or attract ridicule? The clamouring by scientists to declare evangelically the inevitable end of mankind has not served its cause well. Any rational human is left with one or two sensible options - deny or despair.
Click to expand...

Not that it is predicted to happen any time soon, and certainly not in our lifetime, but if the polar ice caps melt (as they eventually would with unrestrained AGW) do you know what the expected rise in sea level would be? Do you disagree with those predictions? If those scientific predictions are accepted by you, why should that consequence not be shared with the global community so that action, not despair should be the result. And why should the messenger be ridiculed if you accept the accuracy of the message?

You raise a strawman when you allege scientists declare the inevitable end of mankind. AFAIK no such claim by any scientist, let alone the consensus constituted by the IPCC has ever been made. Indeed for scientists the whole point of explaining the consequences of unmitigated AGW is to motivate people and Governments to take steps to avoid such consequences, not despair that this might happen.

yebiga said:
All the while there are real things which can be done but delayed because we argue over these global emission schemes and targets. The technology is here now. Increasing investment in this technology is the only scheme necessary. Once the tech is cheap enough, the fossil fuel industry will die quicker than Betamax video recorders.
Click to expand...

In the one breath you claim "the technology is here now" and "once the technology is cheap enough". Do you see the inconsistency between these two statements? The other thing to note is the naive faith you have that "science" will find a solution to AGW through technological innovation even when you denounce scientists for being "evangelical". No one is suggesting that technological innovation is not an important part of the solution. Only idiots would think it is the whole of the solution.

QUOTE="yebiga, post: 34240994, member: 66782"] Absent cheaper technology to disrupt the fossil fuel industry and our behaviour, nothing real will happen and no amount of schemes, recycling programs, fines, or bicycle lanes will do anything but cause endless meaningless argumentation. Focus on things we can do, not on being right or wrong. Apparently, I don't understand the scientific method. I am not fit to participate in this discussion. Wow![/QUOTE]

It seems to me that you think "argument" itself is meaningless since you dislike any focus on whether what you say makes any sense at all ("is right or wrong" in your naive dialectic). I would contend argument enables both false ideas to be rejected and sensible ideas to be tempered and developed. Finally, although you certainly seem to be clueless as to scientific method it does not follow you are not fit to participate in this discussion. That is another illogical conclusion of your own. Clearly, since I am taking the time to "discuss" your contributions I do not regard you as "unfit" to participate. Which of course does not mean anything you say is sensible.
 
Todman said:
View attachment 70038
Planned coal power expansion in Germany
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't bother checking facts before posting. This is utter rubbish. Just to go through them:

Brunsbuttel - 2 proposals both abandoned in 2012.
Duisburg - operational from last year. It was proposed in 2005 p, way before renewables prices plummeted.
Dorpen - abandoned in 2009.
Datteln - partial construction but they've had planning permits revoked so who knows what's going to happen.
Berlin - abandoned in 2009.
Boxberg - has been operating for almost 2 years.
Dusseldorf - abandoned in 2009.
Emden - abandoned in 2009.
Kiel - abandoned in 2009.
Hamburg - currently under construction but experiencing significant delays.
Stade - 3 previous proposals have been abandoned. The current proposal is still applying for permits.
Lubmin - abandoned in 2009.
Hamm - should've been completed by now but suffering delays. Again it was planned well before the plummet in renewables costs.
Lunen - 2 different proposals. 1not officially cancelled but hasn't been pursued since 2007. The other has connected to the grid already.
Krefeld - abandoned in 2011.
Neiderraussem - apparently they're applying for permits though an extensive search reveals nothing more than that.
Neurath - already been operating for 2 years.
Mainz - abandoned in 2009.
Mannheim - construction was experiencing huge delays in 2012. No news since.
Karlsruhe - under construction.
Profen - been applying for permits since 2009.
Staudinger (hanau) - shelved in 2010.

So of the 22 'planned' power stations, 10 have been abandoned or shelved and every one of them was proposed before the drop in renewable costs. Isn't it interesting that despite the sudden move away from nuclear in Germany there hasn't been a single new coal plant proposed since Merkel's decision. In fact 6 planned coal plants have been abandoned since then.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Footy Smarts said:
Clearly you don't bother checking facts before posting. This is utter rubbish. Just to go through them:

Brunsbuttel - 2 proposals both abandoned in 2012.
Duisburg - operational from last year. It was proposed in 2005 p, way before renewables prices plummeted.
Dorpen - abandoned in 2009.
Datteln - partial construction but they've had planning permits revoked so who knows what's going to happen.
Berlin - abandoned in 2009.
Boxberg - has been operating for almost 2 years.
Dusseldorf - abandoned in 2009.
Emden - abandoned in 2009.
Kiel - abandoned in 2009.
Hamburg - currently under construction but experiencing significant delays.
Stade - 3 previous proposals have been abandoned. The current proposal is still applying for permits.
Lubmin - abandoned in 2009.
Hamm - should've been completed by now but suffering delays. Again it was planned well before the plummet in renewables costs.
Lunen - 2 different proposals. 1not officially cancelled but hasn't been pursued since 2007. The other has connected to the grid already.
Krefeld - abandoned in 2011.
Neiderraussem - apparently they're applying for permits though an extensive search reveals nothing more than that.
Neurath - already been operating for 2 years.
Mainz - abandoned in 2009.
Mannheim - construction was experiencing huge delays in 2012. No news since.
Karlsruhe - under construction.
Profen - been applying for permits since 2009.
Staudinger (hanau) - shelved in 2010.

So of the 22 'planned' power stations, 10 have been abandoned or shelved and every one of them was proposed before the drop in renewable costs. Isn't it interesting that despite the sudden move away from nuclear in Germany there hasn't been a single new coal plant proposed since Merkel's decision. In fact 6 planned coal plants have been abandoned since then.
Click to expand...

Renewable energy is helping Germany reduce their massive electricity imports.
They are reducing nuclear electricity, which has pretty much stopped them from reducing the use of coal.

This describes some of the major issues.
. Large power stations cannot power up and down properly to match the wind/solar fluctuations.
. Large power stations are struggling with profitability, but are still completely necessary.

http://www.economist.com/news/brief...istential-threat-how-lose-half-trillion-euros

So is Germany's electricity strategy a result of "carbon tax" or "direct action"?
 
Stronzo said:
I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but I found this quite worrying:

http://mobile.news.com.au/technolog...e-climate-change/story-fnjwvztl-1227006746397
Click to expand...

Yeah I read that, and it is written in a way designed to alarm people.
The interesting thing about Methane is that its half life in the atmosphere is only 7 years.

I suspect that's why there is no push to prevent methane emission at the moment. It will help make the atmosphere hotter, which may jolt some people into action, but then stop it for a couple of decades, and you can actually improve things.
 
SaintsSeptember said:
Yeah I read that, and it is written in a way designed to alarm people.
The interesting thing about Methane is that its half life in the atmosphere is only 7 years.

I suspect that's why there is no push to prevent methane emission at the moment. It will help make the atmosphere hotter, which may jolt some people into action, but then stop it for a couple of decades, and you can actually improve things.
Click to expand...

at which point it oxidises to produce carbon dioxide and water vapour
 
Chameleon75 said:
at which point it oxidises to produce carbon dioxide and water vapour
Click to expand...

Therefore reducing its greenhouse affect.
There is very little effort being done to combate Methane emission. There are huge amounts coming from the natural gas industry. ( Defacto mining tax anyone )?
 
yebiga said:
The world was believed to be flat by most intelligent people well before and after the advent of Christianity.
Click to expand...

ha, no it wasn't. total myth.
the hilarious thing here though is that people who deny the obvious facts of AGW like to use the "world was flat" myth as an example of overturned consensus, when in reality it was only the uneducated that held this belief, and it was science that corrected it. so in this story, it's those that are denying the scientific consensus that are the flat eathers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

nut
The Nuclear debate
2 3
Replies
58
Views
2K
Cap
Cap
ibd77
  • Locked
World War III, Is It Inevitable?
Replies
5
Views
565
Gethelred
Gethelred
CM86
Society/Culture You cannot help them, just enjoy their company.
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
mr bagcroft
mr bagcroft
Footy Is The Win
  • Locked
Society/Culture What will be the false flag created to divert attention away from the Epstein leaks?
Replies
2
Views
550
Malifice
Malifice
Cmarsh
Society/Culture To what extent are Universities to blame for the current children's literacy crisis?
Replies
9
Views
807
FreoGirl
FreoGirl
Chief
Society/Culture "Sensitive Events" - Google tells advertisers they will mess with stuff...
Replies
4
Views
734
Number37
Number37
Carringbush2010
  • Poll
Society/Culture The seemingly growing anti 'western' sentiment in 'western' societies.
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
541
Views
13K
barreness
barreness

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top