Conservatives and climate change

[jj]

Clearly any infidel blaspheming such should be assaulted with the label of Denier by any and all of the Faith who chooses. You, Clinger, may be rightfully accused of backsliding.

Have you any answer whatsoever to the simple, testable, verifiable measurements and tabletop experiments I have described? Until you do, you are obliged to either be hypocritical or support the idea of AGW to some extent.

 

[BenBurch]

...

Wind farms cannot accomplish this. And solar panels can't do it, either.

...

You err in thinking that a solution must be homogeneous.

Is there a potential role in out energy future for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, heat-shifting, and biomass.

Many of these are less expensive over their lifetimes in terms of total energy produced divided by total costs that any nuclear.

We only need enough nuclear to provide the bridge, to fill the gaps these cannot.

Thorium Energy Amplifiers, a technology I have been suggesting to people since the 80s, ought to be a part of the nuclear side of the equation because they can be used to degrade high level nuclear waste while extracting its remaining energy, and can be used to destroy existing stockpiles of plutonium and highly enriched uranium which is an essential step to world nuclear disarmament.

Other nuclear technologies are in the offing as well.

Boron-11/p fusion is a distinct possibility with the Polywell, and that is getting some (not enough) funding from the US Navy.

ITER is coming along, and there have recently been advances at JET that address stabilization of the plasma and which will feed into ITER design pretty much directly.

And of course there is the nightly reminder that we have a source of He-3 only a quarter-million miles away, and also the reminder, as a particular bright satellite passes overhead, that we might have to fight a war for it.

But Solar makes a lot of sense in many places, and even without subsidies will pay for itself in many applications. And where it will strictly not pay its own way, it might still be cheaper than the provision of new power generation or distribution infrastructure by the local utility. Especially as it provides peak output on sunny summer days when cooling loads are highest.

With regards cooling costs, there is the concept of heat-shifting. If you can make ice when it is cooler, and energy rates are lower, and then use that use for cooling during the day, you can show large economies. This is done right now in Chicago.

And you can heat shift from season-to-season. The 19th century frozen water trade shows that model. You harvest ice from northern lakes and river impoundments and then store it in insulated buildings until it is needed to assist cooling in warmer weather, and transport it to where it is needed via rail.

Wind is just an obvious resource that give amazingly large gains when implemented properly, and we are closing in on optimal design for wind power. Like solar, it functions only in the correct weather, but when you average it out over a very large area, you can get a fairly consistent input. Site selection is key.

Biomass is utterly essential for those things we can never do without liquid fuel, and also for recovering value from things like scrap and garbage. Biomass can be burned directly, of course, or can be processed into liquid fuels for powering aircraft and those few terrestrial vehicles which cannot feasibly be electric.

So, as usual, MHaze, you err in thinking that knowing a little about one idea allows you to shoehorn everything into that idea. This is a common intellectual failing on those who have not studied enough; Keep studying!

 

[mhaze]

You err in thinking that a solution must be homogeneous.

Is there a potential role in out energy future for wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, heat-shifting, and biomass..... MHaze, you err in thinking that knowing a little about one idea allows you to shoehorn everything into that idea. This is a common intellectual failing on those who have not studied enough; Keep studying!

I don't have to study various types of green tech. I only note that they ALL can be brought into play by individuals in the free market. Those people can study them. They can try, and succeed, or try, and fail.

And there isn't much homogeneous about my plan, it had multiple sources of energy. Also, note it did allow for solar and wind, but with proven cost effectiveness required for use as utility generators. For R&D, of course, no such qualification should be required.

Tell you what, though, I'll add a line item to triple funding for say "unconventional and alternative energy" on a R&D basis by DOE, and make that government sponsored and paid for.....but still, no large scale implementations without serious cost effectiveness studies.

I think what that means is that the list previously cited comprises the actual available energy sources now, that can be used to achieve energy independence.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Thanks for a mostly civil response.

Dyson does not deny the reality of AGW.

Although Freeman Dyson has not actually performed relevant calculations, he is certainly capable of doing so, and I respect his identification of possible contributors to uncertainty in those calculations. Dyson's main argument, however, is that technological and social progress will overcome the AGW that Dyson accepts as real. From Dyson's "Heretical Thoughts about Science and Society", written in 2007:

Dyson isn't an AGW denier. He's an AGW optimist, however, because he thinks we can overcome AGW through genetic engineering and social policies such as land management.

For a related reason, I suspect the motives of AGW theorists. One of them spoke at UH and during the Q&A, when asked about biological sequestration through fertilization of equatorial ocean "deserts", said that this was a stop-gap measure that would only buy us a couple of centuries. That's lots of time to find better solutions. So why the recommendations of wrenching transformation of the world's industrial system?

I can assess the behavior, as revealed in the denial of raw data to Steve McIntyre, the manipulation of the peer review process, and the smearing of critics by the Hockey Team (and it's defenders here).

What would convince me? To start, drop the relentless barrage of insults.
Then, support transparency in research and policy discussions.

Your repetition of thoroughly debunked allegations has contributed to my assessment of your behavior.

I guess we have arrived at an impasse. That Mann and Jones withheld their raw data and statistical methods from McIntyre is established (and granted by participants in this discussion, on the (demonstrably false) grounds that these data were proprietary). That they conspired via email to evade FOI is revealed in the leaked emails. That they continue to undermine transparency is plain from this recent Climate Audit post. That they mislead public opinion on the reasons for withholding data, as revealed in leaked emails, McIntyre makes clear here. And these are just the most recent Climate Audit posts.

 

[DC]

I guess we have arrived at an impasse. That Mann and Jones withheld their raw data and statistical methods from McIntyre is established (and granted by participants in this discussion, on the (demonstrably false) grounds that these data were proprietary). That they conspired via email to evade FOI is revealed in the leaked emails. That they continue to undermine transparency is plain from this recent Climate Audit post. That they mislead public opinion on the reasons for withholding data, as revealed in leaked emails, McIntyre makes clear here. And these are just the most recent Climate Audit posts.

Nothing of that disproved the scinece. There are many more scientists on this planet that have confirmed the science over and over again.
unless you believe they all conspired to misslead the public fro some reason.

 

[jj]

I don't have to study various types of green tech. I only note that they ALL can be brought into play by individuals in the free market. Those people can study them. They can try, and succeed, or try, and fail.

Unlike the current situation where they are economically banned by electricity rates, electrical codes, etc, you mean?

If you support the "free market" you are ensuring more coal and oil plants. That's what the people who have the monopoly on your power suppy want. If you look at the goings-on here, people with methane generators are being charged for supplying gas to the gas company. Payback for electricity back tothe power company is at a rate of 1/10 their cost.

That's what you're supporting.

Finally, do you have any answers to those tabletop experiments I mentioned? The ones that show your quack-science claims to be uttelry dismissed?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Nothing of that disproved the scinece. There are many more scientists on this planet that have confirmed the science over and over again.
unless you believe they all conspired to misslead the public fro some reason.

Are you granting, then, that the behaviors I alleged did, in fact, occur?

 

[DC]

Are you granting, then, that the behaviors I alleged did, in fact, occur?

not entierly sure, i have not read the curent mails yet. Didn't see it as worht it after i spend days reading the context of the mails from Climategate 1.0

my point is, even if they were doing the things you say, it does not falsify the theory of AGW.


btw: would you mind answering post #1052?

 

[mhaze]

Unlike the current situation where they are economically banned by electricity rates, electrical codes, etc, you mean?

If you support the "free market" you are ensuring more coal oil plants. That's what the people who have the monopoly on your power supply want. If you look at the goings-on here, people with methane generators are being charged for supplying gas to the gas company. Payback for electricity back tothe power company is at a rate of 1/10 their cost.

That's what you're supporting....

Nope. Here where I live, a consumer supplying solar to the grid is paid back something like 3x the rate he is charged for electricity. One county over, it is equal, but with no payment if you supply more than you use. These schemes are all over the place, go figure....

Oh, and people I know in power utility companies don't "want to ensure more coal and oil plants". They have all different kinds of opinions.

So I don't know what you are complaining about. That each utility can set it's own policy on grid connect power? Or that there should be some type of uniform rules or what? Whatever your complaint is it doesn't seem related to the plan I laid out.

 

[jj]

Nope. Here where I live, a consumer supplying solar to the grid is paid back something like 3x the rate he is charged for electricity. One county over, it is equal, but with no payment if you supply more than you use. These schemes are all over the place, go figure....

Oh, and people I know in power utility companies don't "want to ensure more coal and oil plants". They have all different kinds of opinions.

So I don't know what you are complaining about. That each utility can set it's own policy on grid connect power? Or that there should be some type of uniform rules or what? Whatever your complaint is it doesn't seem related to the plan I laid out.

You argue for the free market. I've shown you the free market can't work. So deal.

 

[mhaze]

...even if they were doing the things you say, it does not falsify the theory of AGW.....

Hiding information that, in the hands of others, might cast doubt on some part of the Theorie of AGWy ... why no....that does not falsify the Theorie. It would be the scientific work that would be done with the information that was hidden that might do such a thing.

And we've already established that "doubt is not allowed".

• Originally Posted by Furcifer ....lol, and what are the "denialist arguments"?
  
• Originally Posted by uk2se ....Sowing doubts on the consensus of AGW for one.

 

[DC]

Hiding information that, in the hands of others, might cast doubt on some part of the Theorie of AGWy ... why no....that does not falsify the Theorie. It would be the scientific work that would be done with the information that was hidden that might do such a thing.

And we've already established that "doubt is not allowed".

• Originally Posted by Furcifer ....lol, and what are the "denialist arguments"?
  
• Originally Posted by uk2se ....Sowing doubts on the consensus of AGW for one.

pls don't expect me to reply to your crazy drivel.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

not entierly sure, i have not read the curent mails yet. Didn't see it as worht it after i spend days reading the context of the mails from Climategate 1.0¹.
my point is, even if they were doing the things you say, it does not falsify the theory of AGW.²btw: would you mind answering post #1052?
³

1. Just read the Climate Audit posts to which I linked. Or, refuse to look through the telescope.
2. True, but their pattern of deception undermines their credibility in general, and so undermines their assetions about raw data that they will not supply and computations that they will not reveal. We throw around "argument from authority" as though that's a conclusive rebuttal, but a lot of scientific work in complicated fields like climatology relies on trust (~authority). NO ONE has all the required expertise. Experts have to trust experts in other fields. Experts often have to trust experts in their own fields, since no one can personally construct field weather stations across the entire planet and monitor them all personally. No plant physiologist can dig centuries-old trees from riverbanks on all continents and measure all the tree core samples. Etc.
Mann and Jones have forfeited that trust.
3. It looks garbled. Please rephrase the question.

 

[DC]

1. Just read the Climate Audit posts to which I linked. Or, refuse to look through the telescope.
2. True, but their pattern of deception undermines their credibility in general, and so undermines their assetions about raw data that they will not supply and computations that they will not reveal. We throw around "argument from authority" as though that's a conclusive rebuttal, but a lot of scientific work in complicated fields like climatology relies on trust (~authority). NO ONE has all the required expertise. Experts have to trust experts in other fields. Experts often have to trust experts in their own fields, since no one can personally construct field weather stations across the entire planet and monitor them all personally. No plant physiologist can dig centuries-old trees from riverbanks on all continents and measure all the tree core samples. Etc.
Mann and Jones have forfeited that trust.
3. It looks garbled. Please rephrase the question.

no i usually don't read blogs. but i might look into climategate 2.0 the next weekend. maybe this time it is not a complete waste of time.

but still, even if Jones and Mann are excluded from the science, it doesn't falsify the theory. therefor scientific evidence would be needed. and not some hacked emails that are usually ripped out of context.

and pls don't foget to answer my question regarding your post about similar warmings of the past. thanks

 

[Bill Thompson]

There is something called "Pious Fraud". If climate change is something to be alarmed about or not (for the record, I think it is, now) it is clear to me that a number of people on the Global Warming side of the argument are guilty of Pious Fraud -- fudging the data a little to make their case. Just rent the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", and you will see. Al Gore makes a lot of mistakes and logical fallacies in this movie. But it is supposed to be all good because the ends justify the means. People are supposed to be concerned about the environment.

But I think this is what makes people scoff at climate change. If the messengers are making mistakes and commuting Pious Fraud, then the message falls on deaf ears.

I am surprised that George Will is one of the deniers. He is a pretty smart guy. I have met him. There must be enough information available for someone to formulate some sort of doubt in climate change.

 

[DC]

There is something called "Pious Fraud". If climate change is something to be alarmed about or not (for the record, I think it is, now) it is clear to me that a number of people on the Global Warming side of the argument are guilty of Pious Fraud -- fudging the data a little to make their case. Just rent the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", and you will see. Al Gore makes a lot of mistakes and logical fallacies in this movie. But it is supposed to be all good because the ends justify the means. People are supposed to be concerned about the environment.

But I think this is what makes people scoff at climate change. If the messengers are making mistakes and commuting Pious Fraud, then the message falls on deaf ears.

I am surprised that George Will is one of the deniers. He is a pretty smart guy. I have met him. There must be enough information available for someone to formulate some sort of doubt in climate change.

Al is a politcster, i don't know why anyone would take his word for enything. i wich that twat never had made this movie. since then i always have to hear All this Al that.
he is not a scientist, he is a politicster. he can say whatever he wants, it doesn0t change scinece one bit.

 

[mhaze]

pls don't expect me to reply to your crazy drivel.

Okay, no problem. I'm really just having a bit of fun producing crazy drivel in post series A, then being totally serious in post series B. Ignore them all if you want to remain sane.

There is something called "Pious Fraud". If climate change is something to be alarmed about or not (for the record, I think it is, now) it is clear to me that a number of people on the Global Warming side of the argument are guilty of Pious Fraud -- fudging the data a little to make their case. Just rent the movie, "An Inconvenient Truth", and you will see. Al Gore makes a lot of mistakes and logical fallacies in this movie. But it is supposed to be all good because the ends justify the means. People are supposed to be concerned about the environment......

It's really curious....resident Warmers don't want us to bring up the subject of Al Gore. They are embarrassed by him. But just as they don't stand up and reject Ted Turner's "billions will die and the few remaining humans will be cannibals"...

they won't stand up against Gore's film being shown to kids in schools...

They sort of want their cake and eat it too...

You argue for the free market. I've shown you the free market can't work. So deal.

I guess that's why Soviet five year plans worked so well.

But I'm not saying the "free market" is perfect, by any means. I have shown how a comprehensive free market energy and economic plan could work to everyone's benefit, though.

So much for big nanny state carbon control schemes and scams...

 

[DC]

oh well we have Gore and the other side has Mhaze

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I can assess the behavior, as revealed in the denial of raw data to Steve McIntyre, the manipulation of the peer review process, and the smearing of critics by the Hockey Team (and it's defenders here).

What would convince me? To start, drop the relentless barrage of insults.
Then, support transparency in research and policy discussions.

Your repetition of thoroughly debunked allegations has contributed to my assessment of your behavior.

I guess we have arrived at an impasse.

Impasse would appear to be your goal. As documented below, you are still repeating allegations that have been debunked by several formal investigations.

That Mann and Jones withheld their raw data and statistical methods from McIntyre is established (and granted by participants in this discussion, on the (demonstrably false) grounds that these data were proprietary).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, the raw data is now very much available to McIntyre. The fact that McIntyre is making no use of that raw data supports the hypothesis that his requests/demands for that data were more theatrical than scientific.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review criticized CRU for its resistance to releasing computer files, but also found that "the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any competent researcher".

The Science Assessment Panel found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever".

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee criticized Jones's responses to FOI requests, but accepted that Jones had released all the data that he was able to.

That they conspired via email to evade FOI is revealed in the leaked emails. That they continue to undermine transparency is plain from this recent Climate Audit post. That they mislead public opinion on the reasons for withholding data, as revealed in leaked emails, McIntyre makes clear here. And these are just the most recent Climate Audit posts.

Climate Audit is Steve McIntyre's personal blog. If you want fair and balanced news, you'd do better to watch the Fox News Channel.

More authoritative and less partisan sources tell a radically different story.

The EPA investigated "unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy" and declared those allegations to be "not true".

NOAA criticized the handling of FOIA requests, but said NOAA scientists were following the legal advice they had been given.

 

[johnny karate]

It's really curious....resident Warmers don't want us to bring up the subject of Al Gore. They are embarrassed by him.

Resident science-deniers don't want to actually focus on the science. They're embarrassed by their lack of understanding.

But just as they don't stand up and reject Ted Turner's "billions will die and the few remaining humans will be cannibals"...

Your continual focus what random non-scientists have to say on the subject reveals the weakness of your position.

they won't stand up against Gore's film being shown to kids in schools...

Why should they? I understand people like you believe in "squashing dissent", but reasonable-minded people find it important to have open discussions about these issues.

But I'm not saying the "free market" is perfect, by any means. I have shown how a comprehensive energy and economic plan could work to everyone's benefit, though.

Yes, has long as the government steps to offer suppression of dissent and money. Great "free market" plan you've got there.