The Tories' War On Data

[-1=e^ipi]

There is lots of truth to the adage is left-wing academics love diversity in every aspect except for thought. In that domain they demand conformity.

Pretty much. Judith Curry recently did a blog post on this. http://judithcurry.com/2015/09/15/heterodox-academy/

Without that ability to definitively disprove something, wrong ideas can persist for decades simply because the entrenched interests come to depend on them.

Even in fields where you can do tests to definitively falsify certain positions, bad ideas can still persist for decades.

Look at the refusal of physicists to accept Einstein's theory of relativity. The following quote by Max Plank is very relevant:

"A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Do the social mechanisms you describe also apply to e.g. Friedmanites in the field of economics and Straussians in political philosophy?

Those are also good examples.Many in the neoclassical school of economics are dogmatic in their beliefs and refuse to accept empirical evidence to the contrary. Look at the criticism of Card & Krueger.

At least these fields are moving in the direction of being more empirical and following the scientific method. Though the same cannot be said for fields such as gender studies (where feminism and patriarchy theory remain unopposed, unchallenged and independent of empirical data).

The tribal nature of academics is only a problem in fields when only one school of thought exists and I am only aware of left wing examples but I would not be surprised to find some fields where the dominate school is right wing. I will adjust my framing of the problem if you have any examples.

I would say that tribalism and the very existence of schools is problematic. People should be open minded, follow the scientific method, and test competing hypothesis. They shouldn't dogmatically try to support an ideology. In economists, these 'schools' have been of great detriment to the field because for the most part (at least historically) they have been unfalsifiable belief systems.

[On Guard for Thee]

Don't. But I have been a close watcher of politics and the media for about thirty years now, and I know that the reaction of the chattering classes to Harper is far different than it was of Chretien, Mulroney or Trudeau. Nor can this be explained by a change of government policies under Harper.

Policies to a point, but certainly actions. Just read a Party of One for starters.

[-1=e^ipi]

Energy drives climate. Increasing the energy in the climate does more than simply change it, it makes it more chaotic. It creates stronger storm systems, it changes rain belts and general precipitation patterns.

Wow, that's not how physics works at all.

Look, the Earth's weather events are primarily heat engines which transfer heat from the equatorial regions to the polar regions.

The equatorial-polar heat gradient reduces as CO2 levels increase. This means that there is less temperature different to perform work and drive various weather phenomena.

Please learn the basic physics of heat engines: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnot_cycle

Why is it that you don't want to admit CO2 emission increases are bad?

Shouldn't the people claiming its bad try to demonstrate that it is bad using empirical evidence and reason? Determining whether or not CO2 emissions are of net harm is not something that can be trivially demonstrated.

Not even a little bit. CO2 emissions in the quantities that we have been producing since the Industrial REvolution are bad.

You can keep repeating that it is bad, but that doesn't make it more or less true. Maybe demonstrating that it is bad would be a more productive use of time.

and the sooner we wean ourselves of the use of fossil fuels, the better.

And where is the proof for this bold claim? So if I understand this right, the best policy is for everyone to stop using all fossil fuels today?

Because in the long term, the effect of shifting rain belts and other climate changes due to those emissions will outweigh the rather modest costs of moving to alternative energy production schemes.

Again, please demonstrate this.

[On Guard for Thee]

Something in the order of 90+ % of qualified environmental scientists worldwide have concluded climate change is happening, and that human's are the cause. There are differing opinion on how fast it's happening, and when we hit the tipping point. I think in light of all the evidence, the naysayers are pretty much ignored these days.

I wonder how many drive VW's?

[-1=e^ipi]

There are differing opinion on how fast it's happening, and when we hit the tipping point.

There is no 'tipping point'.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is no 'tipping point'.

Well, hope springs eternal, but scientists disagree.

[-1=e^ipi]

The position that the strength of positive feedbacks are not even close sufficiently strong to cause a 'tipping point' is the mainstream scientific position.

but scientists disagree.

I can also find people that claim to be scientists that don't believe in evolution.

[On Guard for Thee]

The position that the strength of positive feedbacks are not even close sufficiently strong to cause a 'tipping point' is the mainstream scientific position.

I can also find people that claim to be scientists that don't believe in evolution.

I'm sure you can. But I'm actually talking real scientists.

[-1=e^ipi]

I'm sure you can. But I'm actually talking real scientists.

Now how are you defining 'real scientist'?

If you were to define real scientist as someone who follows the scientific method, then I could make a good case that James Hansen doesn't satisfy that definition.

People are very capable of immense cognitive dissonance, so some are able to do good science while believing in nonsense.

Roy Spencer is a good example.

[ToadBrother]

Now how are you defining 'real scientist'?

If you were to define real scientist as someone who follows the scientific method, then I could make a good case that James Hansen doesn't satisfy that definition.

People are very capable of immense cognitive dissonance, so some are able to do good science while believing in nonsense.

Roy Spencer is a good example.

Spencer is a shill. I doubt he even believes what he writes, but he is paid very well by the Kochs and the WSJ.

[TimG]

Spencer is a shill. I doubt he even believes what he writes, but he is paid very well by the Kochs and the WSJ.

This is a perfect example of the narrow minded bigotry which has turned climate science into a field that simply cannot be trusted to produce credible science. Whether you like Spencer's politics or not he is a published climate scientist. I am pretty sure you don't describe Hanson as a 'shill' paid handsomely by various pro-CAWG groups because you like what Hanson says.

Frankly, I see nothing but psychological projection going on when you accuse me of being like a creationist when all I do is refuse to accept unsupported opinions and/or guesses as facts just because they come from a "scientist".

Edited September 23, 2015 by TimG

[Argus]

What is it explained by?

He's not one of them. He's from... you know... out there.. where those icky redneck types are. And he never played the game, the schmoozing and back patting and mutual admiration of the chattering classes in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. Plus you know he doesn't subscribe to their values. He's a Christian, and not a fake one like Trudeau or Martin or Chretien. He actually believes that stuff! He's also conservative, which might play in some board rooms but definitely marks him as an outsider among the glitterati of the media, artistic and academic circles who are the opinion makers Canadians wind up seeing on TV and reading in their papers.

[Argus]

Policies to a point, but certainly actions. Just read a Party of One for starters.

We've gone over this. Harper is a control freak who doesn't tolerate dissent. So was Chretien. So was Trudeau. So is Mulcair. And the new Trudeau is showing strong signs of being the same way. Canadians don't want nice guys to run this country. They want bastards. Every PM has been one except Clark, who was a weakling who barely lasted long enough to warm his chair.

[Argus]

Something in the order of 90+ % of qualified environmental scientists worldwide have concluded climate change is happening, and that human's are the cause. There are differing opinion on how fast it's happening, and when we hit the tipping point. I think in light of all the evidence, the naysayers are pretty much ignored these days.

I wonder how many drive VW's?

Actually, a lot of Lefties drove those diesel cars because they emit very little CO2. They do emit a hell of a lot of other pollutants, but not CO2.

I'm not going to argue with scientists that the world is warming. Why, doesn't seem awfully pertinent to me so I won't argue about that either. What to do, well, now there's the rub. Propose a solution which is doable and seems likely to work without making us worse off due to its cost than we'd be by ignoring climate change. So far, no one has found one. And I will continue to oppose things which will cost us an enormous amount of money which seem very unlikely to be of any real use.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Argus

[On Guard for Thee]

We've gone over this. Harper is a control freak who doesn't tolerate dissent. So was Chretien. So was Trudeau. So is Mulcair. And the new Trudeau is showing strong signs of being the same way. Canadians don't want nice guys to run this country. They want bastards. Every PM has been one except Clark, who was a weakling who barely lasted long enough to warm his chair.

He was there long enough and strong enough to bring in 60,000 Vietnamese people quicker than Harper could figure out which sweater vest to wear today. You can vote for your bastards if you like them. Good thing we have choices.

[Argus]

He was there long enough and strong enough to bring in 60,000 Vietnamese people quicker than Harper could figure out which sweater vest to wear today.

And then was booted out on his ass and lived off Mulroney's sufferance thereafter.

Nobody had to worry about the Vietnamese blowing up our buildings or machinegunning Jewish kids at daycare. Times have changed.

Oh, and by the way, one of the things our generosity brought us with the boat people was a crime wave and the origins of powerful Asian street gangs in a number of cities.

[ToadBrother]

Actually, a lot of Lefties drove those diesel cars because they emit very little CO2. They do emit a hell of a lot of other pollutants, but not CO2.

I'm not going to argue with scientists that the world is warming. Why, doesn't seem awfully pertinent to me so I won't argue about that either. What to do, well, now there's the rub. Propose a solution which is doable and seems likely to work without making us worse off due to its cost than we'd be by ignoring climate change. So far, no one has found one. And I will continue to oppose things which will cost us an enormous amount of money which seem very unlikely to be of any real use.

There are plenty; solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, various kinds of reactor technologies. Most require little more than resources, but as long as oil and coal are given most favoured status, the resources don't end up there.

[TimG]

There are plenty; solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, various kinds of reactor technologies. Most require little more than resources, but as long as oil and coal are given most favoured status, the resources don't end up there.

Wrong. The math does not work out for any renewable technologies largely because of their unreliability. Nuclear is off the table because of the same people that fuss about CO2. The means the only viable options for power are fossil fuels and no amount of money is going to change that.

BTW: economics lesson: the resources are available for oil because the value of the good produced exceeds the cost of producing it. This is not true for any renewable power source. If that ever changes expect to see a rapid shift to renewables but before then 'resources' dumped into increasing market share for these technologies are wasted.

[Canada_First]

There are plenty; solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, various kinds of reactor technologies. Most require little more than resources, but as long as oil and coal are given most favoured status, the resources don't end up there.

Wind power ends up with us using more fossil fuels or other types of power due to wind being inconsistent. Plus wind turbinesare making people sick. But the province of Ontario is building them too close to people's homes. Ontario is building them 550m from people homes while in Australia it's 2000m unless people agree to closer.

[Argus]

There are plenty; solar, tidal, geothermal, wind, various kinds of reactor technologies. Most require little more than resources, but as long as oil and coal are given most favoured status, the resources don't end up there.

Solar and wind are not full time producers, and the cost is far higher. Nobody on the Left will allow more nuclear. I have no idea what tidal would cost but I bet it wouldn't be cheap.

[ToadBrother]

Solar and wind are not full time producers, and the cost is far higher. Nobody on the Left will allow more nuclear. I have no idea what tidal would cost but I bet it wouldn't be cheap.

We have these amazing things called batteries.

And wind and solar are not the only sources of energy. Geothermal, particularly in places like the northwest coast of BC, offer vast amounts of energy, we just need to invest in the infrastructure.

[TimG]

Geothermal, particularly in places like the northwest coast of BC, offer vast amounts of energy, we just need to invest in the infrastructure.

Show me the math based on geophysical surveys and demonstrate that these 'vast amounts' actually add up to something significant compared to our needs. Keep in mind that it takes energy to transport electricity long distances so the effective value of the resource is less than the theoretical value.

Same goes with batteries. Great in theory. Once you look at the costs given the expected battery lifetime they don't look so good.

Edited September 24, 2015 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

Show me the math based on geophysical surveys and demonstrate that these 'vast amounts' actually add up to something significant compared to our needs. Keep in mind that it takes energy to transport electricity long distances so the effective value of the resource is less than the theoretical value.

Same goes with batteries. Great in theory. Once you look at the costs given the expected battery lifetime they don't look so good.

http://www.cangea.ca/bc-geothermal-resource-estimate-maps.html

And yes, there are costs for energy storage technologies. But then again, there are significant costs to oil, too. The difference being that oil has had over a hundred years of intensive infrastructure investment.

[Argus]

We have these amazing things called batteries.

And wind and solar are not the only sources of energy. Geothermal, particularly in places like the northwest coast of BC, offer vast amounts of energy, we just need to invest in the infrastructure.

This is disingenuous, at best. There are no batteries which can store more than a tiny fraction of the power needed for the continuation of proper electrical power supplies when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.

[TimG]

And yes, there are costs for energy storage technologies. But then again, there are significant costs to oil, too. The difference being that oil has had over a hundred years of intensive infrastructure investment.

Good numbers. Some of them close to Vancouver. That said, geothermal should one of the 'always use if available' sources so the only reason it is not being used to is likely the capital cost. I would like to know why BC Hydro is not developing these projects and instead is looking to Site C dam. Don't bother with conspiracy theories - BC Hydro is not going to ignore a zero emission power source unless it was too expensive and/or risky.