Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostTue Sep 12, 2017 10:12 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostWed Sep 13, 2017 8:23 am 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostWed Sep 13, 2017 6:32 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:14 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:21 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:24 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:27 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:31 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:33 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Sep 14, 2017 12:43 pm 
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 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
CC
cascade curmudgeon



Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 647 | TRs | Pics
CC
cascade curmudgeon
PostSun Sep 24, 2017 2:45 pm 
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.

First your legs go, then you lose your reflexes, then you lose your friends. Willy Pep
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Sep 25, 2017 10:12 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
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.
Of course there is such a thing as empirically true, or else there wouldn't be a universe or a reality. There are things probably very much like electrons as we conceive of them, fulfilling the role we think electrons fulfill, and these things are in existence right now with whatever characteristics they have and this is true regardless of what we know about them, think about them, or get wrong about them and regardless of anyone's correct or flawed opinions about them. That is empirical reality. The issue is as you know, knowing which ideas about reality are the empirically true ideas. I don't claim to know who is on the take or any of the millions reasons to to be wrong, but I do argue they're wrong and I've explained why.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Sep 25, 2017 10:13 am 
CC wrote:
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.
Why go to the effort to put arguments in someone else's mouth and then get them all wrong? Are you actually judging other people's arguments, on the basis that they actually make and hold these specific arguments and ideas? You can bluster and strawman and complain and attack all day long every day day in day out, if you wish...but until you can falsify my actual arguments as I actually make them, you're still at square one for flail. It was funny seeing the 'well our models run a lil hot' mea culpa last week. This layman has been making that point for quite a while now, and it's nice to see warmists admit I was right. The rest will follow over the next few decades. It's not rocket science, I am not arguing with an expert on the details of some estoterica...I'm noting the gaping lapses in the basic practices of science, things like claiming 'consensus' has any scientific standing whatsoever as evidence, in order to stand in for the fact that the models aren't actual evidence. Stuff like that. Criminy, you can't even get the code for the models published so critics can scour it.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostMon Oct 16, 2017 9:57 am 
Never should have been tolerated in the first place...
Quote:
“The days of regulation through litigation are over,” Mr. Pruitt said in a statement. “We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney’s fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle.” Sue and settle, which became commonplace during Mr. Obama’s tenure as his EPA developed tight-knit relationships with top environmental groups, essentially is a way to circumvent the formal rulemaking procedures. Under the practice, sometimes called “friendly lawsuits,” an outside group would sue a department or agency — in this case, the EPA — and ask that certain regulatory steps be taken, or that entirely new regulations be put in place. Often, the agency would agree to settle the case outside of court, and the settlement agreement would provide a legal loophole for the EPA to simply enact the changes the outside organization sought without having to go through the traditional rule-making process, which requires public comment, draft proposals, and a host of other steps designed to keep the public informed. Numerous Obama-era environmental policies were initially put in place as a result of sue and settle. They include: the Mercury Air Toxics Standards for Utilities rule; Regional Haze rules; Chesapeake Bay Clean Water Act rules; and many others related to air quality and energy exploration, according to a list released last month by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Critics of sue and settle say that regardless of one’s opinion on climate change and environmental regulation, the practice itself is highly secretive and one of the worst examples of government colluding with outside groups.
EPA to end Obama-era ‘sue and settle’ practice

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Oct 16, 2017 10:20 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
Never should have been tolerated in the first place...
MtnGoat wrote:
EPA to end Obama-era ‘sue and settle’ practice
It will be interesting to see how things develop, I would expect environmental groups to still sue. So when lawsuits go to trial and a judge or jury makes a determination and imposes a settlement.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
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