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.