How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[Michael Hardner]

Citizen X, you are the one who lost out on this thread by succumbing to the urge to insult.

Wild Bill now has a valid reason to ignore you and move on, and so none of us have got to the bottom of the questions here: for my part, I'm still wondering where he gets his information on AGW - given his condemnation of sheep-like thinking.

[M.Dancer]

So, think about it. Everyone supports a greener Earth but what is your price?

The same or less as I would pay for blue.

I look at it this way. Earning money creates a carbon foot print. The more I need to earn to pay for energy, the bigger the foot print.

[TimG]

I think both of these are recent examples of the breakdown of our process.

Why is the process broken because people can't agree?

Seems to me the only way around an impasse created by different values is to arbitrarily give one side the power to impose it on the other. This is what happened in the past but people are much less willing to accept such outcomes today. Is that really a bad thing?

Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why is the process broken because people can't agree?

Seems to me the only way around an impasse created by different values is to arbitrarily give one side the power to impose it on the other. This is what happened in the past but people are much less willing to accept such outcomes today. Is that really a bad thing?

That's an interesting point. My view is that sometimes compromise doesn't solve the problem, just pushes it off into the near future. But you're right - if people can't agree perhaps the status quo IS the solution, at least for now.

[Wild Bill]

That's an interesting point. My view is that sometimes compromise doesn't solve the problem, just pushes it off into the near future. But you're right - if people can't agree perhaps the status quo IS the solution, at least for now.

Michael, this is another of those important points that illustrate scientific thinking. If it isn't so ingrained that it is instinctive then I don't believe it possible for someone to form a considered opinion on a scientific subject.

Science has nothing to do with consensus or compromise! Something is either true or it's false. A fact is or it isn't. One can form opinions on subjects which are still being explored but the debate is always a search for what's true or what's false, NOT on what we can compromise on!

A volt will shove an amp through an ohm. Force equals mass times acceleration. There is no compromise! The Universe has LAWS! Mother Nature doesn't give a damn how we feel about someone or if our feathers got ruffled arguing about it. You do things HER way or they won't work!

If someone deliberately falsifies a graph or data then their scientific credibility is forever ruined, no matter what the "nobility" of their goals, the importance of the subject or the justification of their ends.

There has been some research that if you don't teach someone the scientific method before the 7th grade he likely will never be able to fully comprehend it as an adult. From talking to people over the years I've come to believe it. That's why I rarely bother to try to change someone's opinion or even justify my own. Too often it's just a waste of my time! As I've grown older I find I husband my time more and more. It's quite precious!

[Michael Hardner]

Science has nothing to do with consensus or compromise! Something is either true or it's false. A fact is or it isn't. One can form opinions on subjects which are still being explored but the debate is always a search for what's true or what's false, NOT on what we can compromise on!

True enough - but theories can seldom be proven to be absolutely true or false in the physical world. But, ok, yes...

If someone deliberately falsifies a graph or data then their scientific credibility is forever ruined, no matter what the "nobility" of their goals, the importance of the subject or the justification of their ends.

Of course that is true IF someone falsifies data - but that never happened in Climategate, and in any case there are hundreds of corroborating studies that bear our the CO2 theories.

That's why I rarely bother to try to change someone's opinion or even justify my own. Too often it's just a waste of my time! As I've grown older I find I husband my time more and more. It's quite precious!

Right - well if you don't follow science then you're right: there's nothing I can do to convince you.

If you want to talk about qualifications, by the way, I'll be glad to. I don't think your experience in this regard will be instrumental in the discussion though.

[TimG]

Science has nothing to do with consensus or compromise! Something is either true or it's false. A fact is or it isn't.

The trouble is we often do not have the data that would allow us to determine if something is true or false. This creates a scientific culture where ambiguous data is massaged to tell a narrative that fits with the scientist's preconceptions. These manipulations are deemed acceptable if there is some pseudo-scientifist rational for them but this sets up a positive feedback loop where bad theories can last a long time because new data that contradicts the theory is presumed to be bad and adjusted until it fits the theory.

[bush_cheney2004]

...If you want to talk about qualifications, by the way, I'll be glad to. I don't think your experience in this regard will be instrumental in the discussion though.

Quite to the contrary...who is the "customer" in this process? Certainly not the climate change science hucksters.

If you wish to limit the discussion to the research space then ignoring laypersons is fine, but once there is an effort to design and implement policy then our expertise (and common sense) matters.

[TimG]

Of course that is true IF someone falsifies data

You are creating a false dichotomy. i.e. either someone has to be guilty of creating data from nothing or the data must be treated gospel truth. Reality is more complex.

The problem which climategate exposes is the insidious group think which infests the field. The group think means we can not be confident that contrary ideas are given a fair shake. This loss of confidence has implications for policy choices that we might make even if scientists declare that the 'science is sound'.

Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

If you wish to limit the discussion to the research space then ignoring laypersons is fine, but once there is an effort to design and implement policy then our expertise (and common sense) matters.

Yes, and we have said that umpteen times.

I just don't want to discuss policy with people who don't have a basic grasp of the scientific reality.

TimG is a good example of someone who puts his suspicions in the right place - policy. I'm not going to spoon-feed babies who believe that Rush Limbaugh is a trustworthy as a published climate scientist. The latter has far more to lose by lying, while Rush can actually make more money by making things up - as long as they get the right reaction.

[Michael Hardner]

You are creating a false dichotomy. i.e. either someone has to be guilty of creating data from nothing or the data must be treated gospel truth. Reality is more complex.

The problem which climategate exposes is the insidious group think which infests the field. The group think means we can not be confident that contrary ideas are given a fair shake. This loss of confidence has implications for policy choices that we might make even if scientists declare that the 'science is sound'.

There are respected research scientists who do a great job of keeping the "man made warming" question open - even if their logic is tenuous. The point is that they are still scientists and so their stock in trade is scientific truth.

If we collectively stop believing them - and replace them with Al Gore, Alex Jones and other court jesters then we are truly finished. If we're going to engage in dialogue around policy, I'd rather exclude people who don't know the difference between these parties.

[TimG]

The point is that they are still scientists and so their stock in trade is scientific truth.

I am more optimistic than I was 6 months ago. I am seeing signs that the group think hold on scientific discourse is loosening but there is still a long way to go. However, I would say this change is result of the public shaming brought on by climategate.

If we collectively stop believing them - and replace them with Al Gore, Alex Jones and other court jesters then we are truly finished.

Yahoos exist on both sides. Many AGW types are like CitizenX and base their opinions on platitudes and respond with insults when faced with rational counter arguments to their policy prescriptions. Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[mimortgageloans]

Excellent topic. This is a hot topic nowadays. If green energy give us a better future then I think I'll be willing to pay anything.

[thepatrickblack]

The problem which climategate exposes is the insidious group think which infests the field. The group think means we can not be confident that contrary ideas are given a fair shake. This loss of confidence has implications for policy choices that we might make even if scientists declare that the 'science is sound'.

I believe Climategate was proven untrue.

[Michael Hardner]

I am more optimistic than I was 6 months ago. I am seeing signs that the group think hold on scientific discourse is loosening but there is still a long way to go. However, I would say this change is result of the public shaming brought on by climategate.

Climategate should have told the scientists that they have a social responsibility to explain themselves, and a legal obligation to respond to FOI requests.

That's not how Climategate is still seen by many, though. They still seem to think data was faked, for example, but that didn't happen. I would like to see scientific journals provide a forum to explain the facts - maybe by having grad students support public forums and so on.

[thepatrickblack]

The same or less as I would pay for blue.

I look at it this way. Earning money creates a carbon foot print. The more I need to earn to pay for energy, the bigger the foot print.

Would you voluntarily earn less in order to produce a smaller footprint?

[TimG]

I believe Climategate was proven untrue.

Only to people who don't have a clue what the issues were and why they matter. Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[TimG]

Climategate should have told the scientists that they have a social responsibility to explain themselves, and a legal obligation to respond to FOI requests.

Unfortuantely, the stonewalling on FOIs continues. The fact that UEA was allowed to set up sham inquiries that worked really hard to avoid looking at the points of contention has shown them they can get away with breaking the FOI law.

[Michael Hardner]

Unfortuantely, the stonewalling on FOIs continues. The fact that UEA was allowed to set up sham inquiries that worked really hard to avoid looking at the points of contention has shown them they can get away with breaking the FOI law.

The inquiries were not a sham. Skeptics wanted to invite non-scientists to grill the scientists on their theories, but that makes no sense at all: the science was and is sound - the bloggers will never accept that and it doesn't make sense to have unqualified people criticizing qualified people.

That said, there's a missing link there between the public and the scientists - and that's a void we need to fill.

[TimG]

The inquiries were not a sham. Skeptics wanted to invite non-scientists to grill the scientists ...

Revisionist nonsense. The emails also specifically mentioned skeptics who were targeted by Jones and other. No attempt was made to get the skeptic side of the story.

The PSU inquiry consistent of asking Mann if he deleted the emails and then accepting his word.

The emails also specifically mentioned papers that were in contention. The enquiries never looked at those papers but instead used a list of papers picked by Phil Jones. It is no different from letting Bernie Maddoff choose which accounting books should be looked at by the auditors.

The entire process was shameful. I have said this before but it is worth repeating: you have no rational basis to form an opinion on these inquires until you read and understand what SteveMc and RossMc have to say on these inquiries. Reading what other people say they said is not enough.

Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG

[Oleg Bach]

And I haven't seen any reply from you either as to where you get your ideas about climate change.

I didn't start looking into the AGW question until after the climategate scandal broke. IN looking into that, I have satisfied myself that there is too far a bridge between the science and public knowledge for there to be a political answer to this. That said, the science itself is sound - and the noise from a thousand skeptic blogs and AM radio hog callers won't change that.

There are hundreds of papers published on this matter, and none of them have said that CO2 doesn't cause warming, so as I said I'd like to hear where you get your ideas.

He got his ideas when he looks at his not so bad bank statements. People have more vision than we grant them credit for - they know full well that if they are to clean up the planet that they might have to lower their wealth level a few points - most people would rather deny the problem and go down in flames.

[Michael Hardner]

He got his ideas when he looks at his not so bad bank statements.

This is just more noise around the issue: I need somebody to tell me that they know the difference between science and baffle-gab before I invite them to a discussion around policy.

I would gladly discuss art with you based on some things you have posted here, but there are other things I wouldn't discuss. Likewise, you shouldn't discuss certain things with me: hunting, dancing and fishing come to mind.

[Michael Hardner]

Revisionist nonsense. The emails also specifically mentioned skeptics who were targeted by Jones and other. No attempt was made to get the skeptic side of the story.

Nor was there any duty to get the skeptic's side of the story.

The PSU inquiry consistent of asking Mann if he deleted the emails and then accepting his word.

They did find that he deleted emails though, and admonished the department for not taking FOIA requests seriously enough.

The entire process was shameful. I have said this before but it is worth repeating: you have no rational basis to form an opinion on these inquires until you read and understand what SteveMc and RossMc have to say on these inquiries. Reading what other people say they said is not enough.

Nobody gets to demand a seat at the table. You couldn't do it, nor could I. There was a public accusation of fraud, manipulating data and so on. Those accusations were dismissed, and yet today we still hear people believe that they were real. How can these scientists regain their public reputations from such at thing.

If the bloggers have serious issues with the studies, can't they find a real scientist to dispute them in the journals ?

[Oleg Bach]

This is just more noise around the issue: I need somebody to tell me that they know the difference between science and baffle-gab before I invite them to a discussion around policy.

I would gladly discuss art with you based on some things you have posted here, but there are other things I wouldn't discuss. Likewise, you shouldn't discuss certain things with me: hunting, dancing and fishing come to mind.

Science...is a careful and repeated process that shows the truth in matters of physics -chemistry and so forth _ I totally agree with you _ I might not have a degree but I do have a natural nack for science and understand the basics...I think the problem you have here is something in regards to ethics and not science _ I have not read the thread by I can deduct that it is about those in the scientific field that allegedly took bribes to guarentee scientific results that would suit those that wish to continue to pollute with impunity? AM I close?

[TimG]

Nor was there any duty to get the skeptic's side of the story.

Sorry you are wrong. The issue at hand is how scientists systematically supressed skeptical points of view. In this example, there is most certainly a duty to get the skeptics side of the story. The fact that many in the scientific establishment take your point of view is why I have little respect or trust for the scientific establishment.

They did find that he deleted emails though, and admonished the department for not taking FOIA requests seriously enough.

You obviously did not read the report then. The PSU report claimed Mann did not delete nay emails based entirely on his assertion that he did not delete any emails. Many months later another scientist acknowledged that he had deleted the Mann's at the request of Mann which made it clear what a sham the inquiry was.

Nobody gets to demand a seat at the table.

The problem here is what people in power should be doing in order to get to the bottom of these issues. They should be getting the skeptic side. They didn't. That shows the people in power have no interest in the truth and are only interested in sweeping the issue under the table.

I find it extremely hard to believe that you would be willing to accept such low standards for inquires for any other issue like policing or media hacking. Why are you so willfully obtuse when it comes to the climate science issue?

Edited August 8, 2011 by TimG