Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 4911 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostTue Sep 12, 2017 10:12 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
No, truth has never been defined by consensus. If it was, Wegener, Bretz, and all the rest could never have been right.

You've got the wrong end of the stick. Truth is not a result of consensus. Consensus is the result of proper method revealing truth.

My alternative? To ignore consensus, particularly fake consensus in this case, and examine the basis of the arguments. It doesn't require a degree in modeling or rocket science to know models are not evidence.

Yet they are the sole unique linchpin of the entire issue.

So you ignore the scientific consensus in favor of your own opinion.

You are entitled to do that,  but it is hardly a convincing argument.

Your opinion is just your opinion, there is no way to absolutely determine whether it is true or false.  Of course you believe it to be the truth as fervently at Ptolemy believed that the earth was the center of the universe.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1166 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostWed Sep 13, 2017 8:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Quote:
Consensus is the result of proper method revealing truth.

Which is exactly what this consensus is. The core of that truth is based on science that is approaching 200 years of effort.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 4911 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 13, 2017 6:32 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Reducing fossil fuel usage has other benefits beyond reducing the greenhouse effect.  Oth er aspects of emissions have negative health effects.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/08/one-the-biggest-criticisms-of-renewables-might-have-just-been-debunked
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9746 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:14 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Australia...one of the worlds crash test dummies for 'green' energy. Market distortions favoring farcical energy sources lead to Kafkaesque outcomes. This is why examining the ideas underpinning your assumptions and values matters.

Quote:
Last week the AEMO (which controls our electricity grid) said we needed 1,000MW of spare power to keep the lights on in SA and Victoria this summer. Didn’t that light a fuse?

Then AGL (a major energy player in Australia with coal, gas and wind assets) dug in and repeated that it was going to be hero and definitely close another coal plant (called Liddell) in 2022. At this point, the Prime Minister, no less, had to suddenly enter into talks to convince AGL to sell Liddell or keep it running a bit longer — anything but a shut down. (Figure how screwed up a market has to be for the owner of an asset to need to be talked into perhaps, maybe selling it for money instead of throwing it away? Isn’t any money better than none? Well, maybe not in a river of subsidies… more on the games going on in AGL soon.)

Desperate, Turnbull even offered to buy a stake in Liddell (with tax dollars). So the government may have to buy up exactly the kind of project the government has been working to close with RET schemes and clean energy targets. It’s emergency nationalization to repair the damage from the unnecessary, mindboggling government schemes to control weather with power stations. The bandaid on a leech.

Amongst this mess, finally, this week the National Party got the mojo to vote to axe all subsidies for renewable energy. And not a moment too soon. (For foreign readers, the “Nats” are a part of the coalition goverment with the Liberals. )

The Nationals have voted to remove all subsidies for renewable energy providers over a five-year period and to freeze them at their current level for the next year.

There is a big pie for people to fight over:

Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are set to receive subsidies of up to $2.8 billion a year up to 2030, according to research by economic consultancy BAEeconomics commissioned by the Minerals Council of Australia.

A predictable fustercluck occurring where nonsensical choices to subsidize intermittent 'renewables' has led to a fundamentally unstable grid, costing consumers and industry millions upon millions

And all to pay a lot more money for a commodity...electrons which are no different than any others. Paying more for what is identical to what you had powering the toaster before, is not progress.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9746 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:21 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
So you ignore the scientific consensus in favor of your own opinion.

You are entitled to do that,  but it is hardly a convincing argument.

Your opinion is just your opinion, there is no way to absolutely determine whether it is true or false.  Of course you believe it to be the truth as fervently at Ptolemy believed that the earth was the center of the universe.

Yes, exactly. I ignore what is not evidence, in favor of my own judgement which is that logical fallacies known to be so for millennia, have not turned valid because global warming claims.

*Everyone* has an opinion, yup. And some opinions are empirically true. Opinion is not an invalidation of an idea on empirical matters...empirical falsification is.

No one can falsify my opinion that Coke is better than Pepsi via empirical testing, because it is not testable.

But my opinion that pi is an irrational number whose first digits are 3.14159... is testable. So is my opinion that a circle has a fixed radius.

Attempting to claim I'm wrong because I have an opinion is the wrong tree to bark up. The correct one is to show my opinion is empirically false. But that's too difficult, isn't it, because I'm making empirically true arguments.

So you attack opinion. But only some opinion.

In a real science, you'd simply show the empirical falsification, and this 700 page thread wouldn't exist. That you can't do so is why the methods used to argue for AGW, are used. No mathematicians go to ideological war over theorems...they simply show they're false or true, case closed, no consensus used as evidence. And before you claim that's different...the fact is, that *all* science rests upon logic as used in mathematics, and the *philosophy* of logic is at the core. Waving numbers and claims around doesn't mean diddly without the purely philosophical underpinnings that give science it's value.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 4911 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
From the above article it's not clear to me what the motivation was to keep the coal plant operating past 2020 vs the plan to shut it down.   Was the push to keep it open coming from the concerns that sell the coal to the plant?  It's not clear -- the stated reason is wanting to maintain a 1000MW reserve capacity -- but is that reserve actually needed ?   Have black outs or brown outs actually occurred ?

I seem to recall Enron using a scheme to artificially create power shortages and drive up the price of electricity and increase profits.   I wonder if some sort of similar manipulation is at play here.

Also reading about the site for the article -- it's clear that the site is an opinionsite that is owned by Rupert Murdoch -- so I'm sure you are finding yourself in agreement with the slant.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Joanne_Nova
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9746 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:27 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Heck yes they've occurred, and disastrously so.

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/rolling-blackouts-ordered-as-adelaide-swelters-in-heatwave/news-story/13394f19db1ee94a59f4036fccdc1ba7

The machinations necessary to shove wind power down everyone's throats, while attacking coal plants, has left SA a mess of counterincentives, blackouts, and energy instability.

at least prices have gone through the roof.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 9746 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
Which is exactly what this consensus is. The core of that truth is based on science that is approaching 200 years of effort.

Observing CO2 in a jar is a lot different than making planet wide claims you cannot test based on a bunch of different models you can't get your hands on to examine, all using theories which don't even include a single comprehensive published version. The thinking is 'we know we're wrongish, so we'll merely argue that a zillion flawed models must tend towards being right if we combine them

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 4911 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:33 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Heck yes they've occurred, and disastrously so.

http://www.news.com.au/national/south-australia/rolling-blackouts-ordered-as-adelaide-swelters-in-heatwave/news-story/13394f19db1ee94a59f4036fccdc1ba7

The machinations necessary to shove wind power down everyone's throats, while attacking coal plants, has left SA a mess of counterincentives, blackouts, and energy instability.

at least prices have gone through the roof.

Gee that seems almost exactly like the kind of rolling blackouts that Enron created to purposely manipulate the power market.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 4911 | TRs
Location: Greenlake
RandyHiker
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:43 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
*Everyone* has an opinion, yup. And some opinions are empirically true. Opinion is not an invalidation of an idea on empirical matters...empirical falsification is.

There is no such thing as "empirically true"

Science is based on "Coherence theory"  -- which is one form of truth listed here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth

I think you believe that what you view as "emphirically true"  you are asserting "Correspondence Theory" truth and you believe that you have superior insight compared to the 97% of climate scientists -- whom you believe to be "on the take" is some manner.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 377 | TRs

CC
cascade curmudgeon
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 2:45 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Denier in wonderland, 6 impossible things he believes before breakfast:

1)  Basically all of the hundreds of scientists, from dozens of countries, and multiple disciplines, working in the area of climate science are either incompetent, or are committing scientific fraud.
2)  The incentive for the fraud is not personal financial gain, but obtaining research funding and/or having a one-world-government ideology.
3)  It is possible to perpetrate a scientific hoax, involving hundreds of scientists, for decades without anyone from within the hoax, or any major scientific organizations or journals, exposing it.
4)  It is, however, easy for a perspicacious layman (which I surely am) without any scientific training or background to expose scientific fraud.
5)  Any propaganda sponsored by energy companies denying AGW is motivated purely by their civic responsibility to inform citizens, and has absolutely nothing to do with any effects potential AGW mitigation efforts might have on their profits.
6)  My simple ideology explains all known phenomena.

--------------
No matter how cynical you become, it's not enough to keep up.  Jane Wagner/Lily Tomlin
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday ahumblefool, Lightning_bug, cpc!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy