Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Mighty AC]

The well funded opposition to science and rationality relies on the ignorance and selfishness of the general public. In order to be on the side of what were formally known as deniers one has to dogmatically adhere to a preferred belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The internet provides greater access to information than ever before, but it also makes it very easy to exist within a filter bubble. People on the "denier" side often think the science is split on this issue because they only read sources that cater to their preferred belief. People like to only see commentary that supports their beliefs. That's why the Fox News model is so profitable and why MSNBC is joining them.

The problem is from within the filter bubbles "deniers" honestly think the science is inconclusive or biased. They don't see the litany of articles debunking the bloggers they read....because the bubble prevents it. Read beyond your belief affirming blogs and you'll see the evidence isn't even close to even.

Keep this in mind: Scientists are always trying to disprove each other. More than 9 out of 10 are in agreement...something very rare in science. To be a "denier" you're taking the opposite position of the world's experts.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Mighty AC

[cybercoma]

Experts? They're no better than astrologers. haha

[Mighty AC]

Your signature line fits perfectly here. Great quote!

[cybercoma]

Your signature line fits perfectly here. Great quote!

You should read the link.

[Sleipnir]

Sleipnir, address his claim.

Not a science article, but a general overall summary of what is agreed by scientists that will happen.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

[cybercoma]

Not a science article, but a general overall summary of what is agreed by scientists that will happen.

http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

Darts at a dartboard! No more accurate than a wild guess!

[Sleipnir]

Darts at a dartboard! No more accurate than a wild guess!

A wild guess would be blizzards Dallol Ethiopia

[TimG]

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/why_are_environmentalists_taking_anti-science_positions/2584/

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?

We don’t have to be slaves to science. There is plenty of room for raising questions about ethics and priorities that challenge the world view of the average lab grunt. And we should blow the whistle on bad science. But to indulge in hysterical attacks on any new technology that does not excite our prejudices, or to accuse genuine researchers of being part of a global conspiracy, is dishonest and self-defeating.

We environmentalists should learn to be more humble about our policy prescriptions, more willing to hear competing arguments, and less keen to engage in hectoring and bullying.

Don't waste your time pointing out that I disagree with this guy on climate change. I read the article and know what he said. The point of linking to this article is to point out how environmentalists are sniveling hypocrites when it comes "trusting the science".

So don't waste your time with the 'holier than thou' crap. The only reason posters in this thread argue that the science is "right" on climate change is because the "solutions" are things that they like. If the "solutions" were something that they disliked then the science would be tossed out the window like it is with GMOs, fracking or nuclear power.

[Moonbox]

That's a pretty good article Tim. It sums up a lot of how I feel about the subject.

[Mighty AC]

So don't waste your time with the 'holier than thou' crap. The only reason posters in this thread argue that the science is "right" on climate change is because the "solutions" are things that they like. If the "solutions" were something that they disliked then the science would be tossed out the window like it is with GMOs, fracking or nuclear power.

Tim, some people evaluate the facts before taking a position. As more information becomes available you can allow your position to change. That's how science works.

For example there was a time when I thought nuclear power made sense and argued in favour of it. After reading more about the subject I learned that, when all costs are considered, it is simply not wise move economically. Instead of discarding this information I allowed my position to change. Science isn't like rooting for a sports team where bias and excuses are part of the fun.

[Mighty AC]

http://e360.yale.edu...positions/2584/

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?

Keep in mind that the three issues mentioned in the article come with a whole basket of concerns, many of which the author failed to address.

For example GM food crops currently being used may be safe to eat, but are they spreading into the wild and taking over natural populations? http://www.environme...e-and-grow-wild GM foods have great potential, but we may not have tested them fully. Will this be like releasing rabbits in Australia?

Nuclear power can generate energy on a large scale while producing less carbon, but when all costs and factors are considered it is already very damn expensive and getting worse. http://www.hoover.or...w/article/43316

Fracking to access shale gas is not just about the benefits gas vs coal like the author contends. The fracking process could be leading to serious contamination of ground water sources. http://www.truthdig....._201205/

http://www.newscient...king-water.html

The author takes a myopic view the 3 issues mentioned in an attempt to make his point.

[wyly]

Keep in mind that the three issues mentioned in the article come with a whole basket of concerns, many of which the author failed to address.

For example GM food crops currently being used may be safe to eat, but are they spreading into the wild and taking over natural populations? http://www.environme...e-and-grow-wild GM foods have great potential, but we may not have tested them fully. Will this be like releasing rabbits in Australia?

now there are studies linking GM crops and the decline in bee populations...it appears bees are experiencing a rise in what appears to be colon cancer, is it a coincidence that humans are also seeing a rise in colon cancer?...there are already some types of bees that have gone extinct and others on the verge, with 30-40% of our food supply relying on bees we're really playing with fire...

when we screw around with nature there will always be repercussions we don't/can't anticipate...

[wyly]

here's a bit of denier fraud from the Cato institute in regards to climate change...

from an article in the Scientific American http://www.scientifi...dum-by-contrari

"It's not an addendum. It's a counterfeit," said John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota who studies clean power sources. "It's a continued effort to kick the can down the road: A steady drip, drip, drip of fake reports by false scientists to create a false sense of debate."

Edited October 23, 2012 by wyly

[cybercoma]

now there are studies linking GM crops and the decline in bee populations...it appears bees are experiencing a rise in what appears to be colon cancer, is it a coincidence that humans are also seeing a rise in colon cancer?...there are already some types of bees that have gone extinct and others on the verge, with 30-40% of our food supply relying on bees we're really playing with fire...

when we screw around with nature there will always be repercussions we don't/can't anticipate...

We've been screwing around with nature for the better part of 10,000 years. Problems have solutions, but those solutions create new and different problems. The struggle we're going to have going forward is that those problems are becoming increasingly more frequent.

[wyly]

but now we could be creating problems at a genetic level...if life were to be compared to a pyramid, we're screwing around with the building blocks at the base, the consequences could be far more extensive...introducing rabbits to Australia would be messing around with the top of the pyramid...

[cybercoma]

but now we could be creating problems at a genetic level...if life were to be compared to a pyramid, we're screwing around with the building blocks at the base, the consequences could be far more extensive...introducing rabbits to Australia would be messing around with the top of the pyramid...

No buts. That's exactly the situation. Going forward we'll need to respond to the problems that this creates, which will create a whole new set of issues that science will need to deal with.

Edited October 23, 2012 by cybercoma

[Sleipnir]

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?

Don't waste your time pointing out that I disagree with this guy on climate change. I read the article and know what he said. The point of linking to this article is to point out how environmentalists are sniveling hypocrites when it comes "trusting the science".

So don't waste your time with the 'holier than thou' crap. The only reason posters in this thread argue that the science is "right" on climate change is because the "solutions" are things that they like. If the "solutions" were something that they disliked then the science would be tossed out the window like it is with GMOs, fracking or nuclear power.

You don't seem to grasp the concept of environmentalism and scientism if you are using those two terms interchangeably.

[Moonbox]

Nuclear power can generate energy on a large scale while producing less carbon, but when all costs and factors are considered it is already very damn expensive and getting worse. http://www.hoover.or...w/article/43316

That's moving the goal-posts, and a rather galling argument for environmentalists to make. It illustrates fairly clearly how non-sensical a lot of their positions are. How can you cricitize coal for being dirty, but cheap energy, and turn around and criticize nuclear, which is clean but expensive, and still FAR FAR FAR cheaper than wind/solar.

It's hilarious watching environmentalists laud Germany for planning to shut down their nuclear reactors and to invest more in 'clean' energy, when the net result of that decision is going to be that they're going to burn more coal than ever.

[WIP]

http://e360.yale.edu...positions/2584/

Why Are Environmentalists Taking Anti-Science Positions?

All I need to see is that your kind of environmental science link doesn't mention fugitive gas from fracking operations, nor the fact that the drilling companies are not required to inform the public about what's mixed in with the water pumped down into the rock layers, to know that this is another industry hack getting payed to regurgitate propaganda for public consumption.

On a related note, since you keep moving goalposts and changing issues every time one of your so called "proofs" that rising greenhouse gas levels don't cause global warming goes poof, and it's on to the next so called proof, I want to backtrack to that story that you and the official oil and gas-funded lobbyists were presenting last month...the one about ice increasing in the Antarctic and balancing out the Arctic sea ice melt that you guys can longer deny any more. We already covered the fact that ice loss in the Arctic is far greater than any increases in the Antarctic, but now we know what has been suspected for at least 10 years now -- that the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting faster than the increase in ice in the East Antarctic. So, even the Antarctic itself is melting:

190m tonnes of ice a day has sea rising 1mm a year

Antarctica is shedding an average of 190 million tonnes of ice every day, according to a landmark study that used satellites to ''weigh'' the vast landmass.

Although parts of East Antarctica are growing, glaciers in West Antarctica are melting faster, leading to a net loss of ice across the continent, according to the study published in the journal Nature.

''We're confident that the ice cover is shrinking, and the rate along the Amundsen Sea coast is accelerating,'' said the lead researcher Professor Matt King, of the University of Tasmania.

Rapid melting in some parts of the continent is partially offset by heavy snowfalls elsewhere, meaning that the net loss of ice per year is about 69 billion tonnes.Previous studies had struggled to accurately map the land mass under most of Antarctica's huge ice shelves, and this knowledge is crucial to measuring the thickness of the ice.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/190m-tonnes-of-ice-a-day-has-sea-rising-1mm-a-year-20121022-2817w.html#ixzz2A9IVMgQZ

[cybercoma]

All I need to see is that your kind of environmental science link doesn't mention fugitive gas from fracking operations, nor the fact that the drilling companies are not required to inform the public about what's mixed in with the water pumped down into the rock layers, to know that this is another industry hack getting payed to regurgitate propaganda for public consumption.

On a related note, since you keep moving goalposts and changing issues every time one of your so called "proofs" that rising greenhouse gas levels don't cause global warming goes poof, and it's on to the next so called proof, I want to backtrack to that story that you and the official oil and gas-funded lobbyists were presenting last month...the one about ice increasing in the Antarctic and balancing out the Arctic sea ice melt that you guys can longer deny any more. We already covered the fact that ice loss in the Arctic is far greater than any increases in the Antarctic, but now we know what has been suspected for at least 10 years now -- that the West Antarctic ice sheet is melting faster than the increase in ice in the East Antarctic. So, even the Antarctic itself is melting:

190m tonnes of ice a day has sea rising 1mm a year

Antarctica is shedding an average of 190 million tonnes of ice every day, according to a landmark study that used satellites to ''weigh'' the vast landmass.

Although parts of East Antarctica are growing, glaciers in West Antarctica are melting faster, leading to a net loss of ice across the continent, according to the study published in the journal Nature.

''We're confident that the ice cover is shrinking, and the rate along the Amundsen Sea coast is accelerating,'' said the lead researcher Professor Matt King, of the University of Tasmania.

Rapid melting in some parts of the continent is partially offset by heavy snowfalls elsewhere, meaning that the net loss of ice per year is about 69 billion tonnes.Previous studies had struggled to accurately map the land mass under most of Antarctica's huge ice shelves, and this knowledge is crucial to measuring the thickness of the ice.

Read more: http://www.theage.co...l#ixzz2A9IVMgQZ

So what?

We'll just have to wait and see if that's actually a problem. Nobody knows anything until we observe the problems it causes. There's no need to utterly destroy our entire economy for something that could just be part of the normal climate cycles.

Yeah, that was all sarcasm.

[Mighty AC]

That's moving the goal-posts, and a rather galling argument for environmentalists to make. It illustrates fairly clearly how non-sensical a lot of their positions are. How can you cricitize coal for being dirty, but cheap energy, and turn around and criticize nuclear, which is clean but expensive, and still FAR FAR FAR cheaper than wind/solar.

Nice straw man. The comment wasn't comparing nukes to coal or renewables. It simply shows that the author had to ignore many concerns in order to make it seem like he had a valid point.

But to address your misdirection: Coal is dirty and not near as cheap as it seems. Nukes are a horrible investment and both continue to rise in cost. Renewables are now cost competitive and have a continually falling price tag.

Going forward it is obvious that renewables are the answer but, Germany should not prematurely close nuclear plants if they are safe and viable. The construction and decommission costs are astronomical (and typically hidden from per kwh cost estimates) so they should maximize the energy output while they can. The decision was likely political. As a taxpayer I'd be happy about the direction they are going with energy production but pissed about wasting money on plants that were already built. However, this is like not the thread to argue the economics of energy production.

[Mighty AC]

Yeah, that was all sarcasm.

Where was the tilde damn it? I read a story about a guy trying to get a font style to catch on called sartalics. It would be like italics but slant left to symbolize sarcasm.

[wyly]

Going forward it is obvious that renewables are the answer but, Germany should not prematurely close nuclear plants if they are safe and viable. The construction and decommission costs are astronomical (and typically hidden from per kwh cost estimates) so they should maximize the energy output while they can. The decision was likely political. As a taxpayer I'd be happy about the direction they are going with energy production but pissed about wasting money on plants that were already built. However, this is like not the thread to argue the economics of energy production.

how often do Germans make irrational technical decisions? Germany is a highly technologically advanced country if they've made a move toward new energy sources they have considered all their options carefully...the new coal plants are significantly more efficient than older plants plus they are not meant to replace the nuclear power plants being shut down...these new coal powered plants unlike older designs have the ability to be fired up quickly if/when solar and wind options fail to meet energy demand at peak consumption periods...this is all been discussed earlier in the thread but moonbox wants to play stupid and pretend he doesn't know it, it's all part of the tedious denier world - deny,deny,deny...

Edited October 23, 2012 by wyly

[Moonbox]

Nice straw man. The comment wasn't comparing nukes to coal or renewables. It simply shows that the author had to ignore many concerns in order to make it seem like he had a valid point.

That wasn't straw man. Your critique of nuclear power was based on economics, yet you're supporting the expansion of the current, far less economical, renewable energy trend. Wind and solar are still nowhere near being on par with nuclear right now, despite the latter's massive capital investment costs. It's not even close, even if you ignore the fact that wind/solar are intermittent sources of power.

But to address your misdirection: Coal is dirty and not near as cheap as it seems. Nukes are a horrible investment and both continue to rise in cost. Renewables are now cost competitive and have a continually falling price tag.

Coal is cheap. It's the cheapest source of energy available. The only thing that could compete with it is hydro, which, although ideal, isn't feasible in enough places. Nukes are certainly expensive to build and have been mishandled in the past (ie. decommissioning/recommissioning shortly after), but they're still, by virtually all accounts, leaps and bounds cheaper than wind/solar. Your claim that renewables are now cost competitive is flat out not true.

The only way anyone's able to make wind/solar look to be in the same universe in terms of efficiency to coal/gas/nuclear is to massage the numbers. The wind/solar proponents do things like add massive carbon footprint costs to coal generation, or huge decommissioning and disposal costs to nuclear (decades away) while also failing to factor in the short lifespans of wind turbines and their replacement cost. This, of course, ignores the main problem with the technology, which is that it never operates near capacity. Wind, for example, operates at an average of 35% capacity. When the weather isn't cooperating (most of the time), you have to fire up the coal burning plants again anyways, which, if you're comparing to nuclear, is a massive added cost that proponents don't account for.

Going forward it is obvious that renewables are the answer

Agreed, but the technology is simply not there yet. This will be looked back at just like the bio-fuel boondoggle, where anyone who actually looked at it rationally could see that it was a terrible idea, but feel-good politics and short-sightedness allowed it to happen anyways. By all means, spend billions on clean energy, but spend it on the RESEARCH to make it FEASIBLE instead of wasting it on existing technology that we know can't even come close to meeting our energy needs and cost us a fortune.

As a taxpayer I'd be happy about the direction they are going with energy production but pissed about wasting money on plants that were already built. However, this is like not the thread to argue the economics of energy production.

Germany is going to be the Euro zone's biggest polluter, by far, in the years to follow. The shutting down of these plants will yield two notable results: more coal burning and a bigger carbon footprint, and billions in squandered money as you mentioned.

Edited October 24, 2012 by Moonbox

[Moonbox]

how often do Germans make irrational technical decisions?

This really made me chuckle. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I

The Germans are famous for poor technical decisions and inefficient designs. You ask them to build you a wheelbarrow and they'd come back with a hydraulic lifter, GPS, a radio and a $1000 price tag. Also, unlike a normal wheelbarrow, you'd have to take it in for a tune-up every season.

Germany is a highly technologically advanced country if they've made a move toward new energy sources they have considered all their options carefully...the new coal plants are significantly more efficient than older plants plus they are not meant to replace the nuclear power plants being shut down...these new coal powered plants unlike older designs have the ability to be fired up quickly if/when solar and wind options fail to meet energy demand at peak consumption periods...this is all been discussed earlier in the thread but moonbox wants to play stupid and pretend he doesn't know it, it's all part of the tedious denier world - deny,deny,deny...

This is the kind of moronic dispy-doodle that people like you like to pull on us all the time. We need to reduce our carbon footprint, so let's eliminate the only source of economical clean energy that's available, replace it with wind/solar that operates ~35% capacity, and then use dirty energy to make up the shortfall, which will be pretty much always. Wyly, I know you're not so good with numbers etc, but try and get a clue about what it would take to generate our power by wind/solar. The fact that they've both been receiving massive subsidies for the last 30 years and still aren't a relevant part of our energy mix should give you a hint.

New coal technology is also an idiot-trap. Anyone trying to sell you on the fact that it's cleaner or more efficient is still ignoring one thing. It's still, by far, the dirtiest source of conventional energy, by a long shot.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Moonbox