the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Out of this world vs Hard Science.

Posted by Jeff Id on October 5, 2010

They haven’t stopped demanding “action” and they never will.  We’ll hear it well past the point when the general public realizes that dangers of AGW and certainty of understanding have been systematically  exaggerated.   I mean we just had a lengthy discussion (on a skeptic blog) of how it is possible to know model means from the inputs and responses as presented when the models are all over the place for trend!  The climatologists are arguing that we don’t know, the skeptics are arguing that from climatologist choices — we do.

This is a crazy friggin world when the climatologists are arguing that we don’t know anything, the skeptics are arguing that we know what you have presented, and the result is the climatologists demainding ‘action’ to prevent what we ‘know’ from happening.  Complex sophistry full of nuance and unprovable possibilities.

That is exactly what the conversation with a climatologist thread is about, what statistical knowledge we have gained from models.

Bart Verheggen wrote a thread on ignoring the science.  But it is climatologists who are the ones ignoring the science.  The hard science of energy production, not the soft science of models with floor to ceiling confidence intervals.  The climatologist proposed energy solutions don’t do anything.  In fact the only technology we stupid monkey’s possess that can dent CO2 emissions is nuclear fission (which is only whispered in enviro circles), and even that won’t work because smart countries which have just discovered capitalism, rather like having air conditioning instead of open windows.  You can’t expect us to stop eating, driving and living.  This is our lives, our one chance at existence.  Pretending we can grow gasoline in a corn field only adds cost and burden to our existence.  Demanding that we take equally stupid measures i.e. solar, or wind, in the name of ‘science’ is clearly unscientific.  Switching to different light bulbs is moronic when you consider the amount of electricity used by lights and the fact that in northern latitudes, for most of the year houses use heat, not cooling.  It’s envirowhackoism.  It’s belief, false belief, it’s feel good for the Lord Gaia and ignore the science.

Hard science, not uncertain science.

I’m an engineer and I say the science of energy production is what it is.  Stop pretending that this other garbage can do a single thing and we all get along much better.

What has to happen is for climatologists in general to give themselves a self-education on what power sources actually work, what they actually cost, and unfortunately a bunch of experience in how to make money as a private citizen  Even better, a business ownership is in order.  Climate scientists are so removed from the reality of making money, as much of the environmental movement is, that they continually miss the horrific damage these stupid ‘unscientifiic’ power sources will do.

There is zero question as to what sources we have and how much they cost.  Yes there is plenty of sophistry, but zero question as to the truth.

Can you imagine?–

Yup, let’s just use biofuel, or wind, or solar,  or even better all of the above.

-snip again.

25 Responses to “Out of this world vs Hard Science.”

  1. Hi Jeff,

    This is a good topic.

    Anonymous peer reviews have steadily eroded away hard science and replaced hard science with the “consensus” science of dogma.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to figure out that the government controls research funds and the government wants scientists to report evidence that supports its dogma.

    “Consensus” science provided an illusion of respectability and a Nobel Prize for the two guys pictured here:

    http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ipcc-photo.html

    Dogmatic and intolerant consensus science is as dangerous as dogmatic and intolerant religion.

    One yielded the recent 10:10 video on carbon emissions; the other probably yielded the 9:11 event.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. Jeff Id said

    I’m just a little grumpy tonight about how the leftist enviro is being pushed. I read things about how the SCIENCE is being ignored followed by how we’re going to save the planet by deactivating the standby power on computers.

    My brain is unqualified for that kind of cornering.

  3. M. Simon said

    Jeff,

    Bill Whittle calls us “greys”. The guys who really keep civilization running. And despite being behind the bounty we all enjoy the greys get no respect.

    I suppose it is because most can imagine running broken field to get a touch down but few can imagine weighing all the variables and trade-offs in order to get a product that will sell out of the door.

  4. Brian H said

    Environmentalism is a luxury good. It is an indulgence affordable only when you have the wealth to do better than simply stripping the low-hanging fruit (energy and food) and make far better use of what’s available.

  5. Schrodinger's Cat said

    I always read your debates, though sometimes the statistics discussions are way over my head. Please could you summarise your conclusions from the debate about the models in laymans’ language?

  6. Geoff Sherrington said

    3 M Simon says correctly “Bill Whittle calls us “greys”. The guys who really keep civilization running. And despite being behind the bounty we all enjoy, the greys get no respect. ”

    Australia depends heavily on mineral wealth. Minerals are found by exploration. Real expenditure on exploration has dropped heavily since 2000, because (a) a plethora of government bodies with fresh-faced youngsters sit at computers writing papers about nothing of much value instead of being out looking at rocks for free enterprise and (b) a very few major multinational companies has swallowed up the medium companies since about 1995 – they are spending too little on exporation and far too much on global politics.

    The mineral wealth currently enjoyed by Australia was found almost entirely pre-1990 by colleagues who are now “greys”. I6’s true, we get no respect, no thanks, no recognition. Unfortunately, Australia will soon slip from prominence as the minerals discovered by our generation, when young, turn into empty holes. There is precious little waiting in the wings.

    Never mind, our scientists can study diseases of frogs or changes in the imagined frequency of future droughts and so on. That should turn a quid.

    Climate science fails because of its inability to generate genuine new wealth. Mineral exploration succeeds because of the tremendous leverage it brings to funds invested. (If regulators allow the expenditure and subsequent profits).

    Climate science fails because there is no penalty for failure – nobody cares about the hundreds of failed hypotheses. Exploration succeeds because there is reward in doing science well. You sleep contentedly, knowing you have given to the world far more than you will ever take back.

    End of whinge.

  7. mrpkw said

    Complex sophistry full of nuance and unprovable possibilities.

    I like that description !!

  8. ianl8888 said

    #6 Geoff Sherrington

    Oh, Geoff … a while back I wrote a letter to the GSA Journal saying something very close to that

    The editor printed it along with a snide editorial comment about pathos. Mind you, the Executive Committee of that organisation was in the process of moving the GSA membership into the AGW support camp by decree, as well as trying to engineer a “merger” with the AIG in order to remove the AIG’s anti-AGW magazine editor, so I understood his motives🙂

    The real payback for us “greys” here is that we are described as rapiners of Gaia and wreckers of the Greenness, but at the same time the enterprises we helped build were to be taxed at 40% to help balance the cities’ welfare budgets. A genuinely amusing piece of hypocrisy, unrecognised by the instigators

  9. KevinUK said

    JeffID

    I’ve never ever come across an instance in which ‘turkeys have ever voted for Christmas’. I doubt whether I ever will especially when it comes to those suckling on the taxpayer funded teet.

    Geoff Sherrington is also spot on when he highlights the fact the fundamental problem is that these people do not create wealth and never will do. They are what I call wealth creation (profit) consumers and preventers. They not only don’t create wealth but they positively and deliberately IMO act to prevent its creation, because of their socialist believe system. As far as they are concerned wealth creation is bad and wealth redistribution (from you to them) is good.

  10. stan said

    http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=2970

    “Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?”

  11. Phillip Bratby said

    The problem is that wealth creators have shot themselves in the foot. They have been so successful at creating wealth that they are now a small minority. The majority of wealth consumers are in a position to take what they want from the wealth creators.

    (Another grey, ex-energy industry)

  12. Murray said

    “Hard science” beginning to crumble?

    http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2010/10/observations-on-niwas-statement-of-defence/

  13. stan said

    Jeff,

    WUWT has a post about a new study on the sun and climate. Why does everyone automatically assume that every new study is accurate? Briggs and others have said that an extraordinarily high percentage of scientific studies are wrong. Briggs says they routinely screw up their statistics. In those few instances in climate science where people are able to get all the data, etc to actually check the work, we find that mistakes are rampant (Mann, Briffa, Rahmstorf, Steig …)

    Wouldn’t it be far more appropriate to treat the authors contentions regarding their findings as contingent? [e.g. X, Y, and Z have a new study published in ABC Journal in which they claim to have shown whatever. Pending careful review of the work, it appears that this may be a helpful new development in our understanding of whoopdeedoo.]

    Seems like a whole lot of jumping to conclusions.

  14. superstore said

    Bart Verheggen wrote a thread on ignoring the science. But it is climatologists who are the ones ignoring the science. The hard science of energy production, not the soft science of models with floor to ceiling confidence intervals. The climatologist proposed energy solutions don’t do anything. In fact the only technology we stupid monkey’s possess that can dent CO2 emissions is nuclear fission (which is only whispered in enviro circles), and even that won’t work because smart countries which have just discovered capitalism, rather like having air conditioning instead of open windows. You can’t expect us to stop eating, driving and living. This is our lives, our one chance at existence. Pretending we can grow gasoline in a corn field only adds cost and burden to our existence. Demanding that we take equally stupid measures i.e. solar, or wind, in the name of ‘science’ is clearly unscientific. Switching to different light bulbs is moronic when you consider the amount of electricity used by lights and the fact that in northern latitudes, for most of the year houses use heat, not cooling. It’s envirowhackoism. It’s belief, false belief, it’s feel good for the Lord Gaia and ignore the science.

    Hard science, not uncertain science.

    You are committing a basic logical fallacy. Appeal to consequences. If AGW is a fact, it’s a fact no matter what the problems of energy generation are. Hydrocarbons as a fuel will run out anyway, it is merely a question of if we put all the carbon up in the atmosphere, or leave some of it in the ground.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

  15. John F. Pittman said

    Superstore, I think you misread the statement. JeffID claimed they were ignoring the hard science of energy production.HIs consequences are about misusing or using expensive, ineffective energy solutions, noit AGW. He states he is taking issue with the proposed energy solutions. IIRC, JeffID has stated and posted on the fundametnal reason that we should expect some warming due to CO2.

  16. Brian H said

    If AGW is a fact (however extremely and ludicrously unlikely) it remains also a fact that the “solutions” proposed amount to sustained mass murder. Not acceptable.

  17. Dr T G Watkins said

    The computer modellers and the warmist climatologists are ignoring hard science eg Lindzen and Choi and the unfortunate fact that ‘global temps’ show no rise (and even a small fall) for 12-15 years while CO2 continues to rise. There can be no causation without correlation. Superstore needs to do a little homework.
    The UK govt. is close to committing economic suicide by following an energy policy put forward by the scientifically ignorant; the same sort of people who believe government somehow has its own money rather than that taken from hardworking private enterprise.
    BTW Read a comment by Smokey re M Mann’s funding on WUWT.

  18. superstore said

    John F. Pittman said
    October 7, 2010 at 9:39 am

    Superstore, I think you misread the statement. JeffID claimed they were ignoring the hard science of energy production.HIs consequences are about misusing or using expensive, ineffective energy solutions, noit AGW. He states he is taking issue with the proposed energy solutions.

    So you repeat the fallacy. He is appealing to the consequences. Apart from that, we have no thought out at all what happens when the hyrdrocarbons run out, which they effectively will.

  19. Jeff Id said

    Superstore,

    What are you talking about appealing to consequences?

    I’m saying that if scientists want to do something about CO2, they have no choice but to use nuclear with today’s technology. Wind, solar and biofuel costs and results have been discussed at length and are flatly non-working and ridiculously expensive options without the ability to dent CO2 emission. You make some statement about running out of fossil fuel, which will eventually happen, but not for a long time. How does that fit into the picture? Are you saying we should use wind, solar and biofuel even though they don’t work?

  20. MCL said

    Superstore is committing a rather large logical fallacy in claiming hydrocarbons will run out. The statement is not backed up by evidence, only speculation.

    Another larger fallacy is CO2. Not only is there the strong evidence of blatant fraud, there’s the utterly absurd notion that controlling nano-fractions of atmospheric CO2 will, in turn, alleviate climate fluctuations.
    Same epic fail logic — different circumstances:
    If no one farts, the world will smell a lot better.

    Trying to dominate people’s lives with some Utopian idea only creates a bloody mess, literally and figuratively. Lots of historical ignorance…

  21. Brian H said

    MCL;
    Yes, it’s true “begging the question” — forcing the conclusion in posing the problem.

    Here’s my counter-query: what would be the best way to alleviate the current CO2 famine? 🙂

  22. Kan said

    In climate science, “appeal to consequences” is not considered a fallacy.

  23. Eli Rabett said

    Edward Wegman lawyers up

    Watch out when you start flinging stuff that it doesn’t come back at you

  24. stan said

    Eli,

    You might want to give that advice to Mikey Mann. His slander today in the Wash Post of everyone who disagrees with him is some of the worst stuff-flinging imaginable. If he really believes what he wrote, he’s certifiable. Get him to a rubber room before he hurts himself.

  25. kim said

    Sanctimannious.
    =========

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: