Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Sleipnir]

Yes. Unfortunately, "environmentalists" tend to reject the idea of nuclear power for dubious unscientific reasons.

Not all environmentalists reject the idea of nuclear power. Let's be honest here, with the high demand of energy out there - wind and solar combined isn't gonna cut it.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Sleipnir

[TimG]

Not all environmentalists reject the idea of nuclear power. Let's be honest here, with the high demand of energy out there - wind and solar combined isn't gonna cut it.

Well - the hysteria whipped up by anti-nuclear fear mongers is not going away any time soon. The result will be more fossil fuels consumed as rate increases force governments give up on renewable fantasies.

[Bonam]

Not all environmentalists reject the idea of nuclear power. Let's be honest here, with the high demand of energy out there - wind and solar combined isn't gonna cut it.

No, not all, but enough that it is essentially a political impossibility in most Western countries.

[Moonbox]

Great. You believe coal should be phased out, renewables are a requirement and are not opposed to subsidies.

What is the point of subsidies for industry? To encourage or catalyze the production or use of something desirable that is not yet cost effective. Getting the new tech to market is important, and we're doing it. The subsidies are doing exactly what they are designed to do.

You're right. They're doing exactly what they're designed to do. What they're designed to do, in this case, is prop up a fundamentally broken value proposal and make a certain few rich while fleecing taxpayers. The magic of the whole thing is that the taxpayers have been tricked into feeling good about it!!!

We don't want the current tech in the market. It's enormously inefficient, fundamentally flawed and has ZERO hope of solving our energy needs. Let me highlight the ZERO hope part for you. If the tech was good and it was a simple matter of industries of scale etc, the short-term pain wouldn't be a problem. This isn't the case. This tech is in its infant stages and is nowhere the stage it needs to be at for widespread production and adoption. The reason we shouldn't be rolling this crap tech out right now is the same reason we're not building industrial-scale fusion reactors. We've been able to generate net energy via nuclear fusion already, but the tech's not ready for commercial use. New materials/methods need to be put together to make it work, not economies of scale.

It's interesting to see how the argument has shifted now. First you were trying to say that wind/solar should be adopted because it's cost efficient, and now that you've been shown otherwise you're trying to tell us why cost shouldn't matter. I'll tell you why it does matter. We're diverting resources that could be better used elsewhere to achieve superior immediate and long term results. Instead of lining the pockets of rich people who had the foresight to know how stupid the average taxpayers are, we could actually be measurably reducing our emissions with nuclear and spending extra money on research for future viable sources of electricity, whether that be solar, wind, fusion or whatever.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Moonbox

[Pliny]

Why is this thread in the Federal Politics column and not the science and technology section?

Is there a consensus that "Climate Change" is not a scientific issue and is just a political issue?

[eyeball]

Why is this thread in the Federal Politics column and not the science and technology section?

Is there a consensus that "Climate Change" is not a scientific issue and is just a political issue?

No, the general consensus is that the denial is unscientific and political.

[Moonbox]

The implications of climate science are extremely political.

[Pliny]

No, the general consensus is that the denial is unscientific and political.

Probably not since the "deniers" are not calling for political action. Activists and proponents are demanding political action now - on a global level. So science is more or less out of the picture now unless a study forwards the political agenda.

I don't know why science tolerates Skeptics or governments.....well, governments do supply research grants so that makes a little sense - but Skeptics?

Skeptics seem to be the wanna-be scientists that must think they are doing research or something and have to make the same assumptions about truth as the scientist. The scientist in doing his work to extrapolate knowledge or determine practical application from theory must assume the theory to be true. As long as there are still things to learn from the theory it may prevail but if there are stubborn anomalies the theory may not be entirely correct.

One of the essays Sleipner cited, I think it was from Orestes, gave an example of this from the 19th century. A doctor had concluded that cadaverous material spread disease and hand washing would go a long way in lessening the spread of disease in hospital and medical practice settings. The theory worked in practical application but several decades later the germ theory proved a better model of understanding and had broader practical application. The germ theory may not even be correct but it works.

I think real scientists understand what they are accepting as truth is only for practicality. The Skeptic thinks the science is truth and forwards all sorts of condemnations, insults, refutations and general disgust for contrary views that are vital to science if they are going to ask questions. It isn't the Scientist that follows the consensus that will make important discoveries, it is the scientist that still questions the theory as long as it remains in the realm of theory.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Pliny

[Sleipnir]

The implications of climate science are extremely political.

How is it 'extremely political'?

[Moonbox]

That's not even worth answering. Look up what implication means in your dictionary.

[WIP]

Judth Curry is a hurricane researcher with plenty of peer reviewed papers on the topic. Yet you dismiss her claims because they do not pander to your end of the world mythology.

If she is explaining why a one foot increase in sea level over the last hundred years, the 7% increase in atmospheric moisture levels, a five degree temperature increase in the Gulf Stream waters, and the increase in North Atlantic high pressure blocking fronts have nothing to do with a late October hurricane being spawned and deflected right back into the Atlantic coast, then I won't bother reading her research. There are enough propagandists working on behalf of the oil companies out there without adding more excuses and propaganda to the list!

[TimG]

If she is explaining why a one foot increase in sea level over the last hundred years

The sea level has only risen inches - and 6 inches of that was prior to GHGs having any significant effect.

the 7% increase in atmospheric moisture levels, a five degree temperature increase in the Gulf Stream waters, and the increase in North Atlantic high pressure blocking fronts have nothing to do with a late October hurricane being spawned and deflected right back into the Atlantic coast, then I won't bother reading her research.

Believing that the end of the world is coming is a pretty important to you. Really no different than a creationist who thinks the world was created 6000 years ago.

Here is fairly unbiased summary of the science when it comes to hurricanes:

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/11/there-will-be-fewer-sandy-like-storms-in-the-future/

Of course, you will just stomp your feet and shake your head while claiming he is obviously funded by Exxon because he failed to support your end of the world fantasies.

Edited November 4, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

Creationism is not a theory. Creationism is not considered to be science because it makes no testable hypotheses, is generally not falsifiable (and those parts that are falsifiable are rarely conceded by creationists) appeals to the supernatural. It is a pseudoscience at best, and religious dogma at worst.

I know. I used the scare quotes to delineate between the common "well, it's a theory" notion with what a theory actually is.

[Sleipnir]

That's not even worth answering. Look up what implication means in your dictionary.

I suppose that for societies to mitigate and adapt to climate change can be very sensitive topic among the political worlds - mainly because of the costs.

[TimG]

I suppose that for societies to mitigate and adapt to climate change can be very sensitive topic among the political worlds - mainly because of the costs.

Adapting is not politically sensitive at all. In fact it makes a lot of sense. The only time it becomes an issue is when various lefties start demanding that massive sums of money be transferred from the pockets of the middle class of the developed world into the swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world officials. Edited November 3, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

I suppose that for societies to mitigate and adapt to climate change can be very sensitive topic among the political worlds - mainly because of the costs.

bingo

[wyly]

Adapting is not politically sensitive at all. In fact it makes a lot of sense. The only time it becomes an issue is when various lefties righties start demanding that the continuation of massive sums of money be transferred from the pockets of the middle class of the developed world into the swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world officials. energy corporation CEOs

there, fixed it for ya...

[wyly]

I suppose that for societies to mitigate and adapt to climate change can be very sensitive topic among the political worlds - mainly because of the costs.

it's a shell game...not changing behaviour is going to cost more in the long run than accepting we need to change now while we still can...

[Moonbox]

So then let's build nuclear, which is the only short-term solution we have at the moment.

[Guest]

I don't think we can afford that much nuclear power. I think we have to spend the money on adapting to the coming changes, instead of tilting at the CO2 windmill.

(no pun intended)

[TimG]

not changing behaviour is going to cost more in the long run than accepting we need to change now while we still can.

This is common myth. 100 years ago only the richest of the rich would have a car. Now most people in Canada can afford them. This is not because cars are cheaper (they are actually twice as expensive in real dollars) but because people are wealthier. While it may be true that the cost of adaptation may be higher but people will be more able to pay. On top of that, people in the future will be dealing with real problems and will not have to wonder if they are pissing money away on an imaginary problem as we do today. Edited November 4, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

So then let's build nuclear, which is the only short-term solution we have at the moment.

Canada wouldn't need many nuclear power plant to satisfy the public energy demands as some provinces have their way to generate non-emission source of electricity.

Veering off topic a bit.

People who points to Japan as an example why nuclear power is bad does not look at the full picture. Japan basically reside in an earthquake, volcanic and tsunami zone - not exactly a safe place to build nuclear power plants. In Canada there are many regions inland that are not earthquake or tsunami zones and definitely no volcanic zone.

That saying, I believe that as long as nuclear power plants are built in the right region and periodically checked for structural/safety concerns - nuclear power can be just as safe as harnessing solar power.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Sleipnir

[eyeball]

Adapting is not politically sensitive at all. In fact it makes a lot of sense. The only time it becomes an issue is when various lefties start demanding that massive sums of money be transferred from the pockets of the middle class of the developed world into the swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world officials.

Actually the biggest threat to the middle-class is how the planet is being liquidated and deposited into the Swiss bank accounts of the uber-rich and powerful.

[Mr.Canada]

Actually the biggest threat to the middle-class is how the planet is being liquidated and deposited into the Swiss bank accounts of the uber-rich and powerful.

Of course the aristocrats are going to reduce the worlds population by 90% through food and medicine poisoning.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course the aristocrats are going to reduce the worlds population by 90% through food and medicine poisoning.

2nd claim today where you suggested a grand conspiracy. I was quite proud earlier today, because I felt like I had taught you (finally) the importance of providing evidence. And now here you are being a bad boy again.

Conspiracies that don`t have valid evidence are just paranoid fantasies. Now, paranoid fantasies are common in society, and maybe even on web boards, but a part of dealing with those should be realizing that they are irrational fears, and keeping them to yourself.