What do you think of climate change?

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Academic integrity be damned, apparently.

Apparently not. Just because a lot of money is being spent that does not automatically mean that academic integrity is compromised. You would first have to show that the money in question comes with strings attached that require such a compromise.

This is an interesting reply.

Wouldn’t it be even MORE important to show that the compromise is in the actual academic integrity such as when data is tampered with, ignored, or greatly exaggerated?

Why would it be necessary to first show money with strings attached?

Also, it seems funny how the same standards – i.e., show with proof that the money in question comes with strings attached – don’t apply when fossil fuel interests are involved. The mere sniff of money coming from a corporation with fossil fuel interests is sufficient to convince you, for example, that the academic integrity of the researcher is compromised, but no amount of data showing how many billions of dollars per day flowing into the renewable energy/climate change narrative is sufficient to convince you that academic integrity MIGHT BE compromised in that case.

This appears to be your position based upon past threads…
Money from fossil fuel = corruption
Money from renewable energy interests = “You would first have to show that the money in question comes with strings attached that require such a compromise.”

Why isn’t the value of fossil fuel energy to the world’s energy needs taken as a possible reason for why the fossil fuel companies might fund research questioning the climate change narrative? Why is the default to corruption to be assumed in that case?

Why not let’s also let’s assume corruption in the climate change research owing to the vast amounts of money now at stake in that sector?

 

[HarryStotle]

The Alt-Right Playbook: The Ship of Theseus - YouTube

“…We don’t often smuggle environmental messages into militaristic language, though some people who are not me think we should…”

What is a "healthy climate?’ How is that to be quantified relative to CO2?

500 000 000 years ago during the Cambrian explosion CO2 levels were 10X to 20X the current levels, yet it was the largest explosion of life on earth, the period when most major animal species appeared, when modern phyla came to be, and when the most significant diversification of organisms occurred.

That would appear, by objective standards, to be a very “healthy climate” for the earth, unless, of course, you wish to be very species-centric and define “healthy climate” purely as a function of what doesn’t frighten climate alarmists and children prone to being terrified.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Wouldn’t it be even MORE important to show that the compromise is in the actual academic integrity such as when data is tampered with, ignored, or greatly exaggerated?

That would do it. But that has not been done - only claimed. And that by people not qualified to make the claim.

Also, it seems funny how the same standards don’t apply when fossil fuel interests are involved. The mere sniff of money coming from a corporation with interests is sufficient to convince you, for example, that the academic integrity is compromised

It is quite reasonable. A fossil fuel company makes profits for selling that fuel. The conflict is obvious. Academic institutions make a profit by educating and by doing research that is deemed well-supported. There is no difference in profit if they conclude one thing vs. another.

Money from renewable energy interests = “You would first have to show that the money in question comes with strings attached that require such a compromise.”

I don’t believe I said this. I think money from an actual renewable energy business (as opposed to the government) is just as tainted as money from Mobil Oil. I would suspect any research that was funded exclusively by the makers of wind turbines.

 

[HarryStotle]

It is quite reasonable. A fossil fuel company makes profits for selling that fuel. The conflict is obvious. Academic institutions make a profit by educating and by doing research that is deemed well-supported. There is no difference in profit if they conclude one thing vs. another.

Except that there is profit to academic institutions.

The Nickolas Drapela and George Taylor cases show just how profitable research is for academics.

Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University – Watts Up With That?

Five years ago, Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor went around quietly saying that he was not a believer. Then Governor Ted Kulongoski and many faculty at OSU including Dr. Jane Lubchenco made life impossible for Taylor, and he retired. (Lubchenco is now head of NOAA in the Obama administration.) Under those currently in charge, OSU climate research has grown to be a huge business, reportedly $90 million per year with no real deliverables beyond solid academic support for climate hysteria. A small army of researchers ponder the effects of Global Warming on all sorts of things from tube worms living along the Oregon Coast to butterflies inland. When the climate refuses to warm (as it has for the last twenty years), they just study ‘warming in reverse!’ Most of us call that “cooling,” but they are very careful not to upset their Obama administration contract monitors with politically incorrect terminology.

 

[HarryStotle]

I don’t believe I said this. I think money from an actual renewable energy business (as opposed to the government) is just as tainted as money from Mobil Oil. I would suspect any research that was funded exclusively by the makers of wind turbines.

Good. At least we have some common ground.

Wouldn’t you further suppose that money FROM government could also be tainted if there are “strings attached?” I mean if the government is left leaning and is committed to growing government control over various aspects of the economy, health care, etc., etc., that strings might also be attached to that source of funding?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/27/obama-backed-green-energy-failures-leave-taxpayers/

We aren’t speaking of peanuts here.

This was 2015…

Nearly $1 billion in loans have already defaulted under the Energy Department program, which included the infamous Solyndra stimulus project and dozens of other green technology programs the Obama administration has approved, totaling nearly about $30 billion in taxpayer backing, the Government Accountability Office reported in its audit.

Even in 2012 Obama had spent in his first term $154 billion on renewable companies that pretty much lost the complete amount.

Fail: US Has Wasted $154 Billion on 'Renewable Energy'

It seems to me that a government “ordering” companies to research renewable energy is ideologically “tainted” since it already has a position on whether or not global warming is occurring. I mean try applying for “renewable” funding by making a case for fossil fuels to the agencies controlling those funds. That would be the definition of “strings attached,” no?

Why the endangerment finding on CO2 when the science still hasn’t actually proved endangerment?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Why not install solar panels if it’s cheaper in the long run?

The cost of solar panels is not cheaper than traditional sources; it is significantly more expensive and can exist solely when it receives massive subsidies.

all the suggestions being made are so mind numbingly obvious as a means to a sustainable lifestyle that I am completely and utterly bemused by anyone who could suggest that it’s not something that they could support.

You have no perception of the scale of things. Spain went deeply into “renewable” energy and ran up huge debts. Germany tried it and even their economy cannot sustain the subsidies involved.

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/German-Green-Energy-Study.pdf

Gee, a study by the IER.

‘…IER, under the presidency of Robert L. Bradley Jr., the former director of public policy analysis for Enron’.

What a surprise that they deem renewable energy as unviable. You likewise have lost credibility as someone with whom a reasonable discussion could be had.

Just in passing, I travelled through Turkey a few years ago. And it wasn’t long before I noticed that almost every single house in every single village and town was fitted with roof top solar heating units. Ridiculously cheap to make and install and effectively free hot water whenever the sun shines.

I look forward to your comments on the lack of sunshine available in your neighbourhood.

 

[yankeesouth]

I think if climate alarmists want to get anywhere with the general Catholic population they are going to have to first deal with the obvious conundrum that is prevalent in much of climate alarmist world…save the planet/kill the unborn. Pope Francis even mentioned it in the encyclical…

“Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties? “If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away”.

Or put another way, if you can’t get it right at the beginning of life, marriage and end of life issues don’t expect me to trust you with other issues

Or as the words to a song puts it…but if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao, you ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

Although one wonders what’s up with the latest synod being funded by the Ford Foundation.

Anyway If we believe that life begins at conception and that preventing abortion at any stage of development in the womb is saving lives then that should take precedent because those are the lives that are presently at stake.

So instead of trying to convince Catholics to support global warming/climate change…whatever, why not use the time and energy to change the hearts of those like Bernie Sanders who supports abortion as a means to fight climate change and also politicians who identify as Catholic, that support the climate agenda but also support abortion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Except that there is profit to academic institutions.

I didn’t say there was no profit from research. I said there is no profit for that research to conclude one answer vs another. I don’t know of any reputable university that would even consider a research grant if that grant came with stipulation that they would only be paid if they concluded a specific result.

Wouldn’t you further suppose that money FROM government could also be tainted if there are “strings attached?” I mean if the government is left leaning and is committed to growing government control over various aspects of the economy, health care, etc., etc., that strings might also be attached to that source of funding?

I do not share your ideological commitment to the premise that the government is desirous of having research conclude there is a danger regardless of whether the danger is real.

Also, Watts Up With That, Washington Times, Breitbart, and realclimatescience.com. It is clear why you have the view you do, listening to these sources.

 

[HarryStotle]

Also, Watts Up With That, Washington Times, Breitbart, and realclimatescience.com. It is clear why you have the view you do, listening to these sources.

And it is clear the reason you have the view you do, NOT listening to these sources, but dismissing them outright.

Proves absolutely nothing, but that you assume certain sources to be false a priori. Circular reasoning.

 

[HarryStotle]

Just in passing, I travelled through Turkey a few years ago. And it wasn’t long before I noticed that almost every single house in every single village and town was fitted with roof top solar heating units. Ridiculously cheap to make and install and effectively free hot water whenever the sun shines.

I look forward to your comments on the lack of sunshine available in your neighbourhood.

This is hardly an argument to warrant solar or wind energy becoming the predominant sources of energy on a national energy grid.

Germany Runs Up Against the Limits of Renewables | MIT Technology Review

Renewables Rush Sends Germans Back to the Dark Ages: Blackouts Now Part of Daily Life – STOP THESE THINGS

Australia’s renewable energy target – STOP THESE THINGS

 

[Theo520]

Apparently not. Just because a lot of money is being spent that does not automatically mean that academic integrity is compromised.

I’m not sure academic integrity is compromised in most of the research per se. Researchers know what money is out there, so they apply. They take projected climate change as a given assumption ((name removed by moderator)ut) and do their analysis on what warmer temps will do within their field of expertise.

The potential impacts are good for alarmists but the researcher didn’t fake anything, nor did they validate the underlying IPCC projections.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Just in passing, I travelled through Turkey a few years ago. And it wasn’t long before I noticed that almost every single house in every single village and town was fitted with roof top solar heating units. Ridiculously cheap to make and install and effectively free hot water whenever the sun shines.

I look forward to your comments on the lack of sunshine available in your neighbourhood.

This is hardly an argument to warrant solar or wind energy becoming the predominant sources of energy on a national energy grid.

It wasn’t meant to be. It was an example of how blazingly simple technology can be utilised to reduce reliance on traditional energy sources on large scales even in very low income areas.

Imagine how simple it would be to incorporate the requirement for simple solar heating units to be fitted to all new buildings into the relevant building codes.

And one of your links regarding wind farms has this tacked on to it’s title: ‘We’re not here to debate the wind industry, we’re here to destroy it’.

I couldn’t have imagined a better example of the direction these discussions take. Not many people really want to debate it. They want to score points. Dig those heels in! Give no ground! Linking to that is actually harming your arguments, not strengthening them.

What do you do when you are discussing a topic with someone and they refuse to accept any of the points you are making to find common ground, however reasonable they might be? What if they effectively say: ‘I’m not here to debate, I’m here to destroy your views!’ I’d guess you’d ignore them.

Edit: And the first link is pointing out that Germany’s renewable systems are ridiculously efficient: ‘At one point this month renewable energy sources briefly supplied close to 90 percent of the power on Germany’s electric grid.’ But that there is (obviously) a problem in balancing the requirement for a continuous supply with the vagaries of wind and solar power.

So do we dismantle of this wind turbines and solar panels? Or do we investigate how to solve that problem?

 

[Freddy]

LeafByNiggle:

Apparently not. Just because a lot of money is being spent that does not automatically mean that academic integrity is compromised.

I’m not sure academic integrity is compromised in most of the research per se. Researchers know what money is out there, so they apply. They take projected climate change as a given assumption ((name removed by moderator)ut) and do their analysis on what warmer temps will do within their field of expertise.

The potential impacts are good for alarmists but the researcher didn’t fake anything, nor did they validate the underlying IPCC projections.

As someone said about the impeachment process: ‘When it’s hard to attack the facts you attack the process’.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Apparently not. Just because a lot of money is being spent that does not automatically mean that academic integrity is compromised.

I’m not sure academic integrity is compromised in most of the research per se. Researchers know what money is out there, so they apply.

And what money is “out there?” Is it only money for research into what would happen with warmer temps, assuming warming temps? Or is there also research money available into how much, if any, the temps are warming? Seems there is a good deal of research going on in both areas. There is no justification for assuming that no one is questioning AGW because no one is interested in the question.

 

[HarryStotle]

What a surprise that they deem renewable energy as unviable. You likewise have lost credibility as someone with whom a reasonable discussion could be had.

I suppose we need to discuss the “viability” of renewables with people who have had hard experience with them.

Take Australia…

Blown Away: Actual Wind Farm Output a Chaotic Fraction of Total Capacity – STOP THESE THINGS

Also consider that to produce each tonne of steel used in wind turbines creates between .464 and 1.172 t/t of CO2.

The carbon footprint of steel – newsteelconstruction.com

Here is some harder data from the BlownAway link above…

Bear with me as we look at some energy numbers. Based on data, in 2018 the world consumed 11,865 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe)

You might ask what is an MTOE? Well, it a unit of energy measurement. One million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe) is equal to the following alternatives for electricity generation:

• Fifteen hundred, YES 1,500 – 2MW wind turbines equals one mtoe, or
• Fourteen million, YES 14,000,000 – 295W solar panels equals one mtoe

That would be 17.795 billion wind turbines or 166 trillion 295W solar panels provided energy demands stay at 2018 levels, which they won’t. Let’s hop to it shall we?

 

[PhilipJames]

What if they effectively say: ‘I’m not here to debate, I’m here to destroy your views!’ I’d guess you’d ignore them

If your views are based on a fundamently flawed assumption, then ‘destroying your views’ on the GHE and climate change is fundamental to my argument.
If you’re not willing to hear my argument because it might destroy your views, that’s on you.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

What a surprise that they deem renewable energy as unviable. You likewise have lost credibility as someone with whom a reasonable discussion could be had.

I suppose we need to discuss the “viability” of renewables with people who have had hard experience with them.

Take Australia…

Blown Away: Actual Wind Farm Output a Chaotic Fraction of Total Capacity – STOP THESE THINGS

Also consider that to produce each tonne of steel used in wind turbines creates between .464 and 1.172 t/t of CO2.

The carbon footprint of steel – newsteelconstruction.com

Here is some harder data from the BlownAway link above…

Bear with me as we look at some energy numbers. Based on data, in 2018 the world consumed 11,865 million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe)

You might ask what is an MTOE? Well, it a unit of energy measurement. One million tons of oil equivalent (mtoe) is equal to the following alternatives for electricity generation:

• Fifteen hundred, YES 1,500 – 2MW wind turbines equals one mtoe, or
• Fourteen million, YES 14,000,000 – 295W solar panels equals one mtoe

That would be 17.795 billion wind turbines or 166 trillion 295W solar panels provided energy demands stay at 2018 levels, which they won’t. Let’s hop to it shall we?

You are point scoring using biased articles. I live in Australia and have driven through South Australia many times. Didn’t see that many wind turbines. I’ve seen more in parts of the States. Yet S.A. has hit a 50% target for renewable energy via wind and solar. And Tasmania is over 90%. South Australia hits 50% as the march to renewables continues | Climate Council

This is not hard to do. But feel free to post more links that offer not to debate the matter but are only interested in destroying the industry.

 

[HarryStotle]

Theo520:

LeafByNiggle:

Apparently not. Just because a lot of money is being spent that does not automatically mean that academic integrity is compromised.

I’m not sure academic integrity is compromised in most of the research per se. Researchers know what money is out there, so they apply. They take projected climate change as a given assumption ((name removed by moderator)ut) and do their analysis on what warmer temps will do within their field of expertise.

The potential impacts are good for alarmists but the researcher didn’t fake anything, nor did they validate the underlying IPCC projections.

As someone said about the impeachment process: ‘When it’s hard to attack the facts you attack the process’.

And someone else said: “When there are NO facts to be had, there is nothing left to attack but the ill-conceived process.” The problem with climate alarmists is that they are very busy hiding, revising, or subverting the facts coming from prior to any time their narrative isn’t supported.

 

[HarryStotle]

You are point scoring using biased articles. I live in Australia…

Except that these “biased” articles were written by ordinary folks who live in Australia with no affiliation to any political party, corporation or any other vested group.

Who can it be now? – STOP THESE THINGS

So, do we trust that you or they are “biased?”

I suppose that depends on your definition of “bias”. If merely holding a point of view shows bias, then welcome to the club.

If you mean stubbornly holding to a point of view despite all evidence and purely for unfair gain or advantage, then…

We don’t precisely know anything about the possibility of your bias on the issue, do we?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

You are point scoring using biased articles. I live in Australia…

Except that these “biased” articles were written by ordinary folks who live in Australia with no affiliation to any political party, corporation or any other vested group.

Who can it be now? – STOP THESE THINGS

So, do we trust that you or they are “biased?”

I suppose that depends on your definition of “bias”.

Well, my definition of a biased article would be one that includes terms such as ‘wind scammers’, ‘eco-fascists’, ‘lefty tabloids’ and ‘greentards’. One that says it’s not interested in debate.

But you consider it worth linking so I’ve no choice but to include you with the views they espouse.