LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
How am I supposed to be edified by listening to some people who hold the same opinion as you? It is still opinion.
- Status
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Happy Christmas Leaf,
Well, you first have to recognize that some opinions have more weight than others. Mine, for example, you can take or leave. Who am I, after all but a poor, humble country lawyer who dabbles in weighty subjects such as global warming and indulges in too much Christmas cheer (burp) and too many Christmas cookies.
But Pat Michaels is a real authority, and someone who cares about science, as you obviously are, should listen to what he has to say. Even if you don’t accept his opinions you should pay attention to the authorities he cites. They have very troubling things to say about science in general, not just climate science.
Here is perhaps a better introduction to his views than the radio interview:
youtube.com/watch?v=WpNzwzwm-xU
Well, you first have to recognize that some opinions have more weight than others. Mine, for example, you can take or leave. Who am I, after all but a poor, humble country lawyer who dabbles in weighty subjects such as global warming and indulges in too much Christmas cheer (burp) and too many Christmas cookies.
But Pat Michaels is a real authority, and someone who cares about science, as you obviously are, should listen to what he has to say. Even if you don’t accept his opinions you should pay attention to the authorities he cites. They have very troubling things to say about science in general, not just climate science.
Here is perhaps a better introduction to his views than the radio interview:
youtube.com/watch?v=WpNzwzwm-xU
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Once you start supporting your argument by an appeal to authority (and that’s not necessarily a bad thing to do!) you must also consider all the other authorities whose credentials are no worse than Mr. Michael’s. But I definitely agree about the “too many Christmas cookies” part! (Mmmmm…)
S
Secant
Guest
I have many issues with anthropogenic climate change, many too lengthy to be discussed here. However, there is one issue that no one really discusses. If we are to eliminate fossil fuel consumption, how would we transport goods?
Most of the US’s produce is grown in California. To travel from California to Boston is approximately 3,000 miles, give or take. An electrical car of the newest technology can travel 100 miles before requiring an eight hour recharge. If one assumes 60 miles an hour for all 3000 miles to make the math easy, that would make the trip approximately 50 hours long in travel time, or slightly over two days in constant travel, with no stops for food, rest, bathroom breaks or delivering of product. Now, if a car were to have to charge for 8 hours after each 100 mile increment, that is thirty stops for charging or an additional 240 hours. So what was a two day trip is now a twelve day trip. Assuming that there is not a charging station every 100 miles precisely, that drivers need food and potty breaks, and that there might be traffic slowing them down in metropolitan areas, and that there are other deliveries to make, that probably means that fresh produce leaving California would reach the north east coastal cities in two weeks. I wonder how healthy that produce would be to eat? Finally, these numbers are based on small cars, not semis, which get significantly less mileage from gasoline/diesel than cars do, so they would get less miles per charge. A large battery would provide more miles, but take longer to charge as well.
When someone addresses this problem rationally, then I will think about accepting technology that according to a rigorous MIT study will triple to quintuple my electric bill for household power, before charging my car.
Most of the US’s produce is grown in California. To travel from California to Boston is approximately 3,000 miles, give or take. An electrical car of the newest technology can travel 100 miles before requiring an eight hour recharge. If one assumes 60 miles an hour for all 3000 miles to make the math easy, that would make the trip approximately 50 hours long in travel time, or slightly over two days in constant travel, with no stops for food, rest, bathroom breaks or delivering of product. Now, if a car were to have to charge for 8 hours after each 100 mile increment, that is thirty stops for charging or an additional 240 hours. So what was a two day trip is now a twelve day trip. Assuming that there is not a charging station every 100 miles precisely, that drivers need food and potty breaks, and that there might be traffic slowing them down in metropolitan areas, and that there are other deliveries to make, that probably means that fresh produce leaving California would reach the north east coastal cities in two weeks. I wonder how healthy that produce would be to eat? Finally, these numbers are based on small cars, not semis, which get significantly less mileage from gasoline/diesel than cars do, so they would get less miles per charge. A large battery would provide more miles, but take longer to charge as well.
When someone addresses this problem rationally, then I will think about accepting technology that according to a rigorous MIT study will triple to quintuple my electric bill for household power, before charging my car.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Something is always wrong with every picture. That’s life.
I have wondered, Lynnvinc, who is the more ecologically responsible person, you or me. I don’t know the answer to that, and neither do you.
You have a lot of highly-subsidized devices for saving energy, but they were paid for by energy-users and took energy to produce. And I doubt any of it was due to alternate energy. But it’s true, your electric bill and gasoline bill are undoubtedly far smaller than mine.
On the other hand, I raise grass (pastures) and forests. I use quite a bit of fuel energy in doing it, though it’s less and less necessary all the time. How much carbon is sequestered in grass that I don’t overgraze, particularly in the root systems that go down many feet, die and reproduce all underground? How much is sequestered when I create room for the “fast growers” in a forest? Of course, the discarded trunks rot and release carbon, but the “fast growers” also take up a good deal of it. How much oxygen is released by the grass and the forest? Does it balance out the carbon releases? Probably, but nobody really knows.
I raise cattle. Yes, they belch methane. But they also drop a lot of carbon on the ground that gets uptaken by plants. They return 80% of the nutrients to the soil. They are then consumed by human beings who live, die and are buried in the ground.
So, who sequesters more carbon through their activities? You or me? I don’t know and am confident you don’t either. But the bottom line here is that notwithstanding my use of fossil fuels (which you would consider prodigious) making fossil fuel energy needlessly expensive (as promoted by Obama) may not be the answer to anything at all.
E
Exiled_Child
Guest
There are interesting stories almost every day about the melting permafrost.
Have you guys ever seen a lake fall off a cliff before?
news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/timelapse-video-shows-lake-falling-off-a-cliff-in-northwest-territories-creating-a-large-temporary-waterfall
Have you guys ever seen a lake fall off a cliff before?
news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/timelapse-video-shows-lake-falling-off-a-cliff-in-northwest-territories-creating-a-large-temporary-waterfall
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Happy Christmas Leaf and blessed New Year!
The binging continues and my paunch grows. I will do penance by taking my high performance huntin dawg on a long romp on the Norddakotah tundra [later].
I am certainly open to what contrary opinions there are. Any suggestions? Until then, we all should be very concerned about what Shekman and Fanele have to say about the state of science in general and what Michaels, Lindzen, et al have to say about the sorry state of climate science.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Hi Ridge (and welcome Secant and Exiled child),
I agree. Our search for environmental quality is uncertain, and not enough attention is given to downside of all these “solutions.” There are plenty of “no regrets” things that individuals can do (e.g. what Lynn has been practicing), and that is fine and laudatory. But all these top-down, wholesale, government mandated changes that have been coming our way are doing real damage and don’t do a lick of good in addressing “the problem.” My favorite example are ethanol mandates. As a result we now put almost half of our corn crop into our gas tanks in the form of ethanol, an inferior fuel. In order to do so we burn a lot of diesel fuel, spread a lot of chemicals and fertilizer (which pollute our water), and increasingly plow up a lot of marginal land (which spills untold tons of carbon into the air), and take food out of the mouths of hungry tortilla eaters in Mexico City.
And here is the kicker: There is no reasonable justification for believing there is a problem to begin with. Mainstream climate science led by the IPCC is corrupt and not worthy of belief. It is not rational to make public policy based on their conclusions.
BTW, I have a lot fondness for cows and have eaten many in my lifetime. I believe they are unjustly vilified by the vegan-warming-industrial complex. Maybe we need to emulate the animal rights crowd and agitate for the cow’s right to belch and flatulate freely! I would love to help draft the manifesto (but I still reserve the right to eat them!).
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I eat them too, and find it enjoyable as well as nutritious. My one bias is in favor of grass-fed. I raise my own, so I don’t have to pay the shocking prices the “grass fed” stores charge.
I recall reading that the number of cows in the U.S. today is approximately the same as the number of buffalo was before Columbus. Buffalo are nothing but mean cows that won’t “head”, so the “methane problem” was there before “manmade global warming” was ever thought of.
And that doesn’t count the elk, antelope and deer that also belched.
T
Theo520
Guest
There are a significant number of scientists that disagree with the IPCC conclusions. It’s actually contrary to the principles of science to blindly follow a hypothesis, especially when it is evolving rapidly.
Personally, I don’t like being lied to, even if you think it’s for a good cause. See below link for example of such.
Paris missed 99% of climate change
You seem to be arguing for a sort of world govt, with the US providing the bulk of the infrastructure redevelopment budget?
Going with your example, I would argue that the Philippines has more than ample knowledge and resources to improve their building codes to better survive the perennial typhoons etc. Having lived in the Philippines, I can confirm their low standards enable much of the storm damage and they also have the resources to rectify and respond. Asking for money from the US won’t solve their problems with corruption and graft in local govt.
My experience is that well place bribes allow people to circumvent meeting their existing building codes. I don’t see how funding from the US will change this problem.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
There is an even more significant number of scientists that agree with the IPCC conclusions. Why should that larger group be ignored?
You mean like the hypothesis that IPCC surface temperature historical readings have been unjustifiably adjusted to show more warming than there really is? Or the hypothesis that the U.S. Government is pushing biased scientific conclusions only to have an excuse to increase regulations? Or the hypothesis that global warming cannot be happening if I don’t personally see it in my own backyard? I would love to see these hypotheses given the same level of skepticism as is given to global warming theory.
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Leaf, Theo, Ridge and all: Happy New Year!
The original poster’s threshold question was “can we simply trust what the [climate] scientists say?”.
There are three principle reasons why we would be derelict in our epistemic duty if we just simply trusted them. First, they have given us ample reasons to distrust them by their bad conduct. Second, the institutions of which they are a part are compromised. Third, the form of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change driving the radical proposals for remaking our world has been falsified. The climate system is just not very sensitive to higher concentrations of CO2.
Normally we do trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of any given scientific discipline. But not so with climate science. The burden of proof has shifted. Given what we now know, the question is why should we trust them. Gimme some reasons .
The original poster’s threshold question was “can we simply trust what the [climate] scientists say?”.
There are three principle reasons why we would be derelict in our epistemic duty if we just simply trusted them. First, they have given us ample reasons to distrust them by their bad conduct. Second, the institutions of which they are a part are compromised. Third, the form of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change driving the radical proposals for remaking our world has been falsified. The climate system is just not very sensitive to higher concentrations of CO2.
Normally we do trust the collective and cumulative wisdom of any given scientific discipline. But not so with climate science. The burden of proof has shifted. Given what we now know, the question is why should we trust them. Gimme some reasons .
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Have climate scientists as a group acted less responsibly than scientists in other disciplines? And please, no anecdotes, since we are talking about a large group of people.
More so than other institutions? Since we are questioning the veracity of climate scientists we should also question the veracity of those who tell us those institutions are compromised. But if someone tells you something you really wanted to believe, it is hard to maintain that level of skepticism, isn’t it?
Which specific theory is that? And who has falsified it?
According to whom?
F
ferdgoodfellow
Guest
Happy New Year Leaf and all,
We are concerned about the trustworthiness of the climate science establishment led by the IPCC, not other folks. If we catch the IPCC cheating once, their credibility does not improve if, say, we learn that leading Alzheimer’s researchers cheated 1,000 times.
You want examples of bad conduct but no anecdotes. As Exhibit A I offer the sorry case of Michael Mann.
Michael Mann, principal author of the infamous Hockey Stick papers, was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.
Yet the establishment covered for him and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s criticism because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable.
But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.
We are concerned about the trustworthiness of the climate science establishment led by the IPCC, not other folks. If we catch the IPCC cheating once, their credibility does not improve if, say, we learn that leading Alzheimer’s researchers cheated 1,000 times.
You want examples of bad conduct but no anecdotes. As Exhibit A I offer the sorry case of Michael Mann.
Michael Mann, principal author of the infamous Hockey Stick papers, was patently guilty of misrepresenting his data and methods. He failed to disclose adverse results. He was guilty of impeding the all-important scientific function of replication. He was slow to release all his data, he refused to release his computer code for his statistical analysis until finally compelled to do so by a congressional subpoena, and he completely failed to release other critical details about how he constructed his graph. To this day some aspects of his methods are a still a mystery. In his testimony before a scientific panel he spoke falsely about his verification statistics.
Yet the establishment covered for him and aided and abetted his misconduct. The Climategate emails reveal that his own colleagues knew that Mann’s work was defective (one called it “sloppy”), but they still rallied around him. The prestigious journal Nature refused to publish Stephen McIntyre’s criticism because it was too long. Journal editors and even the National Science Foundation told Mann’s auditors that Mann did not have to release his computer code because it was “private property.” Journal editors flouted their own rules in an attempt to thwart McIntyre’s investigation and rehabilitate the Hockey Stick. The National Academy of Sciences panel convened to evaluate his work supported Mann’s conclusions even though it agreed with McIntyre that some of Mann’s data was unsuitable and his methods were unreliable.
But today Mann’s reputation is untarnished. He is showered with honors and speaking engagements. A scientific community with any integrity would have banished him.
T
Theo520
Guest
Well, not completely true, his reputation is being questioned (but for different reasons).
He’s recently been labeled a **CLIMATE DENIER **because of his position advocating nuclear, since the numbers show wind/solar won’t cut it.
**There is a new form of climate denialism to look out for – so don’t celebrate yet, Naomi Oreskes
**Using an Animal Farm analogy, **Snowball is being chased out of the barn.
**
T
Theo520
Guest
Speaking of the media working with ‘scientists’ to mislead, I found this alternative representation of the facts interesting:
Greenland has lost 0.3% of it’s ice in the 20th Century.
How it has been presented in the media, I always assumed it was a much higher percentage than 0.3%. This is 9,000 billion tons, if you want to make it sound scary (without perspective).
Greenland has lost 0.3% of it’s ice in the 20th Century.
How it has been presented in the media, I always assumed it was a much higher percentage than 0.3%. This is 9,000 billion tons, if you want to make it sound scary (without perspective).
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Talk about your misleading media, this article from wattsupwiththat is a case in point. This article goes to great lengths to emphasize an irrelevant characteristic of the ice loss in Greenland. That irrelevant characteristic is the percentage loss compared to all the ice in Greenland. The original citation in NordicScience was about the effect of the melting of that much ice on sea level. For that purpose the total amount of ice in Greenland is of no consequence. But rather than challenge the conclusion of the NordicScience citation, wattsupwiththat preferred to deflect the debate to the irrelevant percentages mentioned. Not a very good example of responsible media.
T
Theo520
Guest
So what % of ice are you claiming has melted in Greenland, if not 0.3%?
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
:clapping:
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
I doubt not driving an SUV would have changed any of that.
But it is a fascinating event.
- Status