Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Moonbox]

Many existing coal installations operate cheaply because of grandfathered in regulations; which, are far less stringent than new installations. This article compares the cost of new wind to new coal in South Africa. http://www.iol.co.za...35#.UI7lnW_BF8H

Wind: 89 cents/kwh

Coal: 97 - 120 cents/kwh

That gave me quite the chuckle. I can understand why you might be in favour of wind if those numbers were true. I obviously would be myself. Unfortunately, your source is complete bunk. What did you do, Google "Wind Power Cheaper than Coal." ???

Here's a better source, from the Royal Academy of Engineers.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/cost_generation_commentary.pdf

Anyways, ask yourself this:

If wind power was cheaper than coal, why the hell aren't our energy bills going down? Why are we still burning coal at all?

The answer is obvious, but blind, naive ideologues have decided that the simple answer is not the right answer. No, it's not that wind power is prohibitively expensive, it's that the evil oil industry has bribed everyone into somehow thinking that it's BETTER to use coal, which is apparently more expensive, and pollute the environment rather than use this magical source of cheap new power....

[Sleipnir]

Thanks for admitting you cannot refute the data provided.

I noticed you completely avoided what I told you earlier

The place were the data was posted online is quite irrelevant.

Then why did you post it?

I am not going play your stupid "authority" games. If you wish to refute the points I make you need to actually address the points.

The points have been addressed in countless of studies, oh here's an idea - try GOOGLE SCHOLAR for starters.

http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/resources/globalwarming/documents/oreskes-chapter-4.pdf

http://biophilosophy.ca/Teaching/2070papers/crist.pdf

^^^These are 2 of hundreds of papers out there.

Waving your hands and saying you refuse to look at the data because you don't like the site simply shows that you are an ideological fool that knows nothing of science.

I only do scientific journals, articles and paper - not some opinionated blog (which I always disregard).

[TimG]

^^^These are 2 of hundreds of papers out there.

ROTFL. The two papers you linked are not scientific papers - they are political manifestos written by people who are not even scientists.

I only do scientific journals, articles and paper - not some opinionated blog (which I always disregard).

Well then you are choosing to be uniformed. If you make no attempt to understand the counter arguments then your opinion on climate change is worthless.

I gave you the data that shows that the "more extremes" claim is a myth. Now you can try to pretend that the data does not exist but you don't fool anyone.

Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

they are political manifestos written by people who are not even scientists.

Did you even look into the authors

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sleipnir

[cybercoma]

You didn't even checked the authors

Haven't you noticed? When TimG is losing an argument, he resorts to epistemological nihilism.

[Sleipnir]

Haven't you noticed? When TimG is losing an argument, he resorts to epistemological nihilism.

Well...now that you mention it

I was trying to understand the logic of Tim's argument which, unfortunately, isn't making any sense to me. When he keeps telling me that I failed to refute it...well it gets me more confused

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Pliny]

Haven't you noticed? When TimG is losing an argument, he resorts to epistemological nihilism.

That's a good one. Is Tim giving you a taste of your own medicine?

[TimG]

Did you even look into the authors

Yes - did you?

Naomi Oreskes is an American science historian, and Professor of History and Science Studies

Eileen Crist received her Bachelor's degree from Haverford College in sociology in 1982 and her doctoral degree from Boston University in 1994

Please explain why you put forth papers by a historian and a sociologists as "authorities" on climate science?

Is it perhaps because you are an ideologue who does not care about credentials despite your pathetic posturing?

The only thing you care about is whether the "authority" says stuff which you agree with.

Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Haven't you noticed? When TimG is losing an argument, he resorts to epistemological nihilism.

So where do you stand on GMOs, Nuclear Power and Fracking? Are you a sniveling hypocrite that discards the scientific consensus whenever it makes claims that don't agree with your ideology? Given past behavior my guess is you will respond with some unrelated comment but refuse to actually answer the question because answering it honestly would require that you confront awkard truths about yourself. Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG

[Sleipnir]

Yes - did you?

Naomi Oreskes is an American science historian, and Professor of History and Science Studies

Eileen Crist received her Bachelor's degree from Haverford College in sociology in 1982 and her doctoral degree from Boston University in 1994

Please explain why you put forth papers by a historian and a sociologists as "authorities" on climate science?

Is it perhaps because you are an ideologue who does not care about credentials despite your pathetic posturing?

The only thing you care about is whether the "authority" says stuff which you agree with.

You're definitely right about that Cybercoma

[cybercoma]

So where do you stand on GMOs, Nuclear Power and Fracking? Are you a sniveling hypocrite that discards the scientific consensus whenever it makes claims that don't agree with your ideology? Given past behavior my guess is you will respond with some unrelated comment but refuse to actually answer the question because answering it honestly would require that you confront awkard truths about yourself.

I love how pissed you get when you're confronted with your epistemological assumptions. You all of a sudden care about credentials when other people post things, while you get your information from blogs on the internet. You take a relativist stance on the issue of climatology, saying all opinions are equally valid, while ignoring everything that discredits your stance. You criticize the scientific method and academic peer review, but turn around and demand people provide responses backed up by people with authority on the subject.

You're the single most dishonest debater on this forum. You can't apply your own standards to your position because that would require you to accept all positions as relative, making everything meaningless. In other words, when you're backed into a corner, you resort to the assumption that no one can possibly know anything--there is no one truth or shared reality. However, you fail to realize that taking this stance means your position too is not any more true than the environmentalists position. That's why you have to tuck tail and hide, saying nothing should be done, and no position can be taken, because you've backed yourself into a corner where nobody can know anything about anything.

So, no. I will not answer your questions because based on your epistemological assumptions, it quite simply does not matter to you what I believe or how I support my arguments. When it comes to knowledge, at the end of the day you're nihilist who doesn't believe we can know anything. There is absolutely no point in having any kind of rational discussion or debate with someone that takes that kind of a stance, which is why, as I said before, I absolutely refuse to go digging up sources for you or answering any of your questions. The latter are simply rhetorical anyway, since your theoretical framework undermines the answers before they are even given, while at the same time you're not realizing that it means your answers are equally meaningless.

Some of us prefer having discussions in the real world where people actually do share knowledge.

Edited October 30, 2012 by cybercoma

[TimG]

You all of a sudden care about credentials when other people post things, while you get your information from blogs on the internet.

You are apparently are incapable of understanding the arguments I presented. I was mocking Sleipnir because he is being all self righteous about using proper sources and he links to propaganda papers by historians.

demand people provide responses backed up by people with authority on the subject.

No I don't. I demand that people provide some rational refutation that addresses the points I raise. This requires that one read and understand the argument enough to respond. It does not require sources but they help. It is quite pathetic to see alarmist sheep simply refusing to discuss an argument because they 'don't like the source'. This is a discussion board after all.

In other words, when you're backed into a corner, you resort to the assumption that no one can possibly know anything--there is no one truth or shared reality.

A strawman you fabricated. The issue in this thread is simple: I have seen posters claim that the scientific consensus cannot be disputed on climate change yet they turn around and dispute the scientific consensus on GMOs. I point out this hypocrisy and I get denial, evasion and ad homs - you are one of the latter. I respond to your ad hom and I get a diatribe that simply shows that your are so wrapped in your delusions that you cannot comprehend that people who you disagree with might have a point.

I will ask again: why do you think the scientific consensus should be ignored on GMOs but followed without question on climate?

It is a simple question. Refuse to answer and we will both know who the dishonest poster is and it is not me.

Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

I don't think strawman means what you think it means.

[Mighty AC]

To illustrate your jaw dropping hypocrisy I present two statements issued by the AAAS:

http://www.collide-a...f-two-sciences/

One on Climate Change and one on GMOs.

Why do you accuse me of doing something wrong when I dispute the first but you have no problems disputing the second?

It may seem similar to you but it is actually quite different. You are opposing something supported by nearly 100% of the world's experts based on a flood of peer review studies, yet supporting something that has not been studied extensively. I don't dispute the second tiny passage about GM crops being safe for consumption. As far as we know right now, they may be. However, scientists asked to review the research on GM crop testing have commented on the low volume and short term nature of the studies done.

Due to the very limited scope and short term focus of the testing that has been done we are now experiencing several potential problems with GM crops including: Super Weeds, Super Bugs, Collateral Damage (say it like Awnold), they are spreading into natural populations and they have further limited genetic variation in planted crops. When something will turn up in the diets of everyone and has the potential to severely harm agricultural production it should require long term testing.

[TimG]

It may seem similar to you but it is actually quite different.

Only because you wish to rationalize your contradictory positions.

From the AAPS statement:

The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: “The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies.

Yet you seek to minimize the significance of this research and instead focus on those few studies which happen to confirm your prejudices.

OTOH, when it comes to climate you exaggerate the certainty. A peer reviewed paper has recently been published on how this certainty exaggeration has taken place and its effect on the policy discussion: http://judithcurry.c...s-on-consensus/

Students of science are taught to reject ad populam or ‘bandwagon’ appeals, a sentiment is articulated by the motto of the UK Royal Society: ‘nullius in verba’, which is roughly translated as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a scientific consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the consensus-supporting scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG

[Moonbox]

Due to the very limited scope and short term focus of the testing that has been done we are now experiencing several potential problems with GM crops including: Super Weeds, Super Bugs, Collateral Damage (say it like Awnold), they are spreading into natural populations and they have further limited genetic variation in planted crops. When something will turn up in the diets of everyone and has the potential to severely harm agricultural production it should require long term testing.

That's a rather peculiar logic-twist isn't it? GMO research is unreliable because of the short time-frame, but climate science, and its similarly short-time frame, is perfectly reliable? I mean, we're told over and over again that it's the trends that matter when it comes to global warming, but the science itself is still in its infant stages, has only been going on in earnest for the last 10-15 years, and that's apparently enough to account for all of the trends?

[WIP]

I've posted on this topic off and on, but I haven't even attempted to keep track of 77 pages so far. It just strikes me as ironic, considering the superstorm that has blasted through the eastern U.S. and done billions of dollars worth of damage, that this thread is titled "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong." Whatever they've got wrong, it doesn't compare to what the oil lobby and their political hacks have gotten wrong! Mitten's speech at the Republican Convention, mocking Obama for showing even a tepid concern for rising sea levels looks like words he may be eating on election day! Right now he and his budget expert - Paul Ryan, are busy trying to explain how their proposed cuts to FEMA would not compromise the kind of relief efforts that will be needed for some time in New York, New Jersey and other affected states.

[GostHacked]

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.

Nuclear generation might be 'clean' in generating power, however the highly radioactive waste that is produced needs to be properly stored and contained for a few thousand years which instantly negates it being classified as a clean source of energy.

[TimG]

It just strikes me as ironic, considering the superstorm that has blasted through the eastern U.S. and done billions of dollars worth of damage

You need to learn about the distinction between weather and climate. This superstorm was only so bad because three separate storm systems converged. It was a fluke. Nothing more, nothing less.

[GostHacked]

I've posted on this topic off and on, but I haven't even attempted to keep track of 77 pages so far. It just strikes me as ironic, considering the superstorm that has blasted through the eastern U.S. and done billions of dollars worth of damage, that this thread is titled "Climate scientists keep getting it wrong." Whatever they've got wrong, it doesn't compare to what the oil lobby and their political hacks have gotten wrong! Mitten's speech at the Republican Convention, mocking Obama for showing even a tepid concern for rising sea levels looks like words he may be eating on election day! Right now he and his budget expert - Paul Ryan, are busy trying to explain how their proposed cuts to FEMA would not compromise the kind of relief efforts that will be needed for some time in New York, New Jersey and other affected states.

From what I understand is that much of the infrastructure in the area had been neglegted over the past decade or so, according to some talk shows. So the storm not being really more powerful than other storms (aside from the water surge) will have a greater damage effect simply because of the condition the infrastructure is in.

Words you never want to hear: 'I'm from the government and I am here to help!'.

[Mighty AC]

Scientists say Hurricane Sandy likely linked to record Arctic Sea loss this year but fuck them they're just scientists what does the bible say?

- Just for fun.

[TimG]

- Just for fun.

Of course it always helps to look at what scientists actually said:

http://dotearth.blog...limate-context/

But with respect to the Arctic connection, I don’t believe it.

During the past ~600 years, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally. This rhythm in storm frequency may explain some of the recently observed increases in extreme precipitation events. If the pattern of millennial-scale variability that we documented through the Holocene persists into the future, New England storminess would continue to increase for the next ~900 years. Because climate synopses compiled from instrumental records cannot distinguish underlying natural increases in storminess from anthropogenic effects, detected increases in contemporary storminess may not be a reliable indicator of human-induced climate change.

Edited October 30, 2012 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

It was just a Bill Maher joke dude.

[Sleipnir]

Of course it always helps to look at what scientists actually said:

http://dotearth.blog...limate-context/

Said what exactly?

I have seen posters claim that the scientific consensus cannot be disputed on climate change yet they turn around and dispute the scientific consensus on GMOs. I point out this hypocrisy and I get denial, evasion and ad homs - you are one of the latter. I respond to your ad hom and I get a diatribe that simply shows that your are so wrapped in your delusions that you cannot comprehend that people who you disagree with might have a point.

Sheesh louise is this guy serious or ?

why do you think the scientific consensus should be ignored on GMOs but followed without question on climate?

Consensus regarding GMOs are not being ignored (it's a relatively new area of science with ongoing research and experiments to understand the topic better). Consensus regarding climate change isn't as new as GMO - but the sheer overwhelming of evidence that points toward the concept of climate change cannot be reasonably doubted by those with scientific knowledge in the science field relating to this topic. Also, why are you comparing GMOs to climate change? Sheesh.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Sleipnir

[Moonbox]

Nuclear generation might be 'clean' in generating power, however the highly radioactive waste that is produced needs to be properly stored and contained for a few thousand years which instantly negates it being classified as a clean source of energy.

No it doesn't. Burying it in bedrock deep in radioactive shield leaves it out of our atmosphere, so we don't have to deal with it, either now or in the forseeable future. I'd rather have nuclear waste holed up safely somewhere in the ground than emissions in our atmosphere for everyone to breathe and to warm the climate.

If we want to clean up the atmosphere, we need to look at our options. Wind/Solar can't generate nearly enough energy to meet our current needs for anywhere near a reasonable price. Our alternatives, therefore, are to axe our energy consumption to a fraction of what it is now and go back to living in the early 1900's, continue burning coal/oil/gas and maintain the status-quo, or ramp up nuclear and phase out coal etc.

Wind/Solar isn't an option yet. I sincerely believe it will/could be one in the next 15-20 years, but right now the tech just isn't there. That leaves us with nuclear or coal, so pick your poision (literally). Given the impact of carbon in our atmosphere and the apparent impending climate disaster, the choice should be simple, but a lot of people insist on the one option that doesn't exist. It's the sort of thinking that brings us "Pay down the debt, don't raise taxes and increase social services" logic that leads our election campaigns into monkey-poo flinging.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Moonbox