World Politics

Page 50 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
I don't have a problem with the challenging of the the data. The problem is that you are quoting people that claim CONCLUSIVELY that the link does not exist. You can't prove a negative...how convenient for them. Problem is that I and the scientists studying climate change are still not willing to proclaim the absolute fact that there is a causal relationship between CO2 and climate change. See, they are still studying it and the data is not conclusive. Climate is a complex thing taking much more study than how to put a plane for sale on ebay. It isn't a black or white thing, and if you read what the scientists are saying, you would see that they will tell you that. However Rush Limbaugh and the Cato have already told all of you that it is a hoax, so that is what you believe. It is the difference between people who believe in the scientific method, and those who think anyone threatening profit must be wrong.

Again, I am also one of those thousands of scientists that believe it doesn't exist. See, I signed that online petition 2 or 3 years ago. I think my name was Prof. Hans Ludwig or something. I was never contacted for my research or credentials. They just took me at face value.
Fair enough. I think what you write is reasonable.

So then why, without conclusive evidence, are we going ahead with cap and trade when the negative results of enacting it are not debated by either side and are severe?
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You might want to read the last 20 or so pages of this thread.

Wreck? High prices for everything in the US, particularly energy, hurting mostly poor and working poor. Net after 'green job creation' estimates of 2.4 to 2.7 million jobs lost (as in forever). Slow GDP growth at a time when this country's debt service is approaching one trillion dollars per year AND new trillion dollar entitlement programs being championed...

Dissention between scientists and other scientists brought to the public discussion by a Senator and scientists among others. The dissention manifests itself in non-normal ways due to the alledged closed nature of the IPCC and CRU. Hard to get peer reviewed work under those circumstances...

Transitioning economy? Transition to what, one with serious restrictions on the use of energy? No nuclear, no drilling, no clean coal, no wind if it's within eyesight of real estate owned by the Kennedy's... and then complain about the lack of energy independence...

Liberal solutions? Paint every building roof top white, outlaw dark paint on cars, natural gas (no distribution network), solar, wind (only in fly over states) with no adequate excess generation storage system, tax into oblivion any business that produces co2...

I suppose one could be scared over the loss of a few million jobs and much more expensive energy costs for every man, woman and child in this nation to combat something that has not been proven to exist. It's a reasonable reaction in my view.
So, what are we going to do if man-made global warming is correct and after we have passed the threshold? What are we going to do when sea water levels rise inundating coastal cities and changed weather patters turn most of the Midwest into a dustbowl? How's that going to work out for the economy?
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Cobblestones said:
So, what are we going to do if man-made global warming is correct and after we have passed the threshold? What are we going to do when sea water levels rise inundating coastal cities and changed weather patters turn most of the Midwest into a dustbowl? How's that going to work out for the economy?
I imagine we will do what has happened during all warming and cooling cycles in the past, modify our way of life.

You talk about something that is clearly uncertain - and, if true, cannot be rectified without the largest producers of CO2 taking part (China and India) and they are just not coming on board since they know their economies cannot handle it. Our politicians think that taxing and regulating business will fix an uncertain problem, and they are wrong on many levers.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
Fair enough. I think what you write is reasonable.

So then why, without conclusive evidence, are we going ahead with cap and trade when the negative results of enacting it are not debated by either side and are severe?
Because that is politics, and politics is a dirty stupid business. However, I feel confident that those who vehemently oppose cap and trade will garner enough support in congress to make the actual bill almost toothless compared to the original bill. Have no fear, elections are on the horizon, and politicians need money. If you have enough, they will put in your provision at the end so that you are exempted or only have to implement over the next 1000 years. Its Washington, thats how things really work.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
So, what are we going to do if man-made global warming is correct and after we have passed the threshold? What are we going to do when sea water levels rise inundating coastal cities and changed weather patters turn most of the Midwest into a dustbowl? How's that going to work out for the economy?
What if's are endless. What if the sun's activity doesn't increase? What if the 'science' behind the co2 theory is bogus? What if cap and trade does far more economic damage than predicted? What if the US goes bankrupt?

What if we keep studying this stuff without the political BS surrounding it in a transparent and honest way so that human beings can make a reasonable and intelligent decision based on facts, not agendas?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
What if's are endless. What if the sun's activity doesn't increase? What if the 'science' behind the co2 theory is bogus? What if cap and trade does far more economic damage than predicted? What if the US goes bankrupt?

What if we keep studying this stuff without the political BS surrounding it in a transparent and honest way so that human beings can make a reasonable and intelligent decision based on facts, not agendas?
And your side is doing this?
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
You might want to read the last 20 or so pages of this thread.
I did, therefore my questions.

Wreck? High prices for everything in the US, particularly energy, hurting mostly poor and working poor.
Oh no, not the 'high prices for everything' argument!

Energy prices have gone up before people even started talking about 'greening the economy'. The use of conventional resources such as oil and gas does not guarantee that prices remain at the same level either.

And as a side note, even if prices appear to go up after 'green policies' are enacted one can question for how long they go up, if they will come down, and if they are actually caused by an event that precedes the price rise.

To add to this, I remember an Iraq invasion or something that made people say 'all prices go up in the US and particularly energy, hurting mostly poor and working poor'... I bet you have that picture of yourself standing on the barricades protesting the war and vehemently supporting the rights of the poor, side by side with the hotchpotch movement of the anti-globalistas framed on the wall right? ;)

Net after 'green job creation' estimates of 2.4 to 2.7 million jobs lost (as in forever). Slow GDP growth at a time when this country's debt service is approaching one trillion dollars per year AND new trillion dollar entitlement programs being championed...
Structural job losses of 2.4-2.7 million! That is certainly a lot. I reckon you have researched that claim with the same scrupulousness and intellectual rigor as the 'climate change' thesis.

I honestly believe you are teasing me a little :p

Shifting to new modes of production and/or the incorporation of new technology has - as far as I know - almost always to a certain extent been associated with job losses. How is it then that unemployment rates always fall back to old levels (structural unemployment) and do not stay consistently higher which is what would happen if jobs are lost forever. Even with all the outsourcing to other countries such as China and India, it seems people have managed to find new jobs...

With all the technological advances/changes made in the US since 1900, you should have had a 95% unemployment rate by now! I mean the invention of the computer must have been hard to swallow for all those people who were previously employed doing the tasks that could be done by computers.

Hmm, wait a minute. The 'invention of the computer' also... created jobs! Incomprehensible, and a shocking realization.

I agree however that the timing of said changes could be an issue for discussion.

Dissention between scientists and other scientists brought to the public discussion by a Senator and scientists among others. The dissention manifests itself in non-normal ways due to the alledged closed nature of the IPCC and CRU. Hard to get peer reviewed work under those circumstances...
Oh come on Scott, you can do better than that. IPCC and CRU rule the world and they prevent 'honest scientists' from publishing anything. How do they do that again?

All those angry scientists out there who feel unjustly treated because their papers have never been accepted by these peer reviewed journals. It's maddening! And by the sheer size of their community one would have expected long ago an almost proletarian revolution of scientists who have been dispossessed of their rightful place in all those existing scientific journals.

On top of that, I didn't know IPCC was a publisher, or a peer reviewed journal. The CRU is a 'climate research unit' affiliated with a university (University of East Anglia)... It's a sheer travesty, the way they subdue each and any individual's right to express their different opinions on climate change.

Transitioning economy? Transition to what, one with serious restrictions on the use of energy? No nuclear, no drilling, no clean coal, no wind if it's within eyesight of real estate owned by the Kennedy's... and then complain about the lack of energy independence...
I never heard that 'conventional' energy sources were going to be banned. That's quite the news, worthy of any major newspaper's front page!

Liberal solutions? Paint every building roof top white, outlaw dark paint on cars, natural gas (no distribution network), solar, wind (only in fly over states) with no adequate excess generation storage system, tax into oblivion any business that produces co2...

I suppose one could be scared over the loss of a few million jobs and much more expensive energy costs for every man, woman and child in this nation to combat something that has not been proven to exist. It's a reasonable reaction in my view.
As far as simplistic characterizations and misrepresentations can go, very reasonable indeed!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thoughtforfood said:
And your side is doing this?
As usual, neither side has real clean hands here. It would be nice to know for a fact that co2 is a problem (or not). Taking evasive action now when the facts are not known makes about as much sense as the halting of the climate studies altogether.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Scott SoCal said:
As usual, neither side has real clean hands here. It would be nice to know for a fact that co2 is a problem (or not). Taking evasive action now when the facts are not known makes about as much sense as the halting of the climate studies altogether.
Unless they are right about the scope of the problem. I would venture to say that studying climate is one of the, if not the most complex set of variables a scientist can face. People like Rush have poo pooed this from day one. And every day since, the right wing has demanded proof. Well, I guess they just don't get it. It isn't like looking at a a red car and determining the color. That is my biggest problem with the whole thing. The scope of the issue is so large, that to reduce it down to a 15 second made for TV sound bite is worse than just saying nothing at all.

Why attack it so fervently from day 1? Because that is what has happened, and the people asking for proof wouldn't believe it even if they were shown it. There are two different games being played here. One is political, and one is scientific. On the political side, there are varying opinions. On the scientific side, most of the people studying the phenomenon (meaning, looking at all of the data-not just temp) believe there is a causal relationship. I trust them over and engineer, Rush Limbaugh, and the Cato institute considering none of those three is actually looking to do anything but attack the weak points in a political way. They all seem to hope someone else will do the actual heavy lifting.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
I did, therefore my questions.



Oh no, not the 'high prices for everything' argument!

Energy prices have gone up before people even started talking about 'greening the economy'. The use of conventional resources such as oil and gas does not guarantee that prices remain at the same level either.

And as a side note, even if prices appear to go up after 'green policies' are enacted one can question for how long they go up, if they will come down, and if they are actually caused by an event that precedes the price rise.

To add to this, I remember an Iraq invasion or something that made people say 'all prices go up in the US and particularly energy, hurting mostly poor and working poor'... I bet you have that picture of yourself standing on the barricades protesting the war and vehemently supporting the rights of the poor, side by side with the hotchpotch movement of the anti-globalistas framed on the wall right? ;)



Structural job losses of 2.4-2.7 million! That is certainly a lot. I reckon you have researched that claim with the same scrupulousness and intellectual rigor as the 'climate change' thesis.

I honestly believe you are teasing me a little :p

Shifting to new modes of production and/or the incorporation of new technology has - as far as I know - almost always to a certain extent been associated with job losses. How is it then that unemployment rates always fall back to old levels (structural unemployment) and do not stay consistently higher which is what would happen if jobs are lost forever. Even with all the outsourcing to other countries such as China and India, it seems people have managed to find new jobs...

With all the technological advances/changes made in the US since 1900, you should have had a 95% unemployment rate by now! I mean the invention of the computer must have been hard to swallow for all those people who were previously employed doing the tasks that could be done by computers.

Hmm, wait a minute. The 'invention of the computer' also... created jobs! Incomprehensible, and a shocking realization.

I agree however that the timing of said changes could be an issue for discussion.



Oh come on Scott, you can do better than that. IPCC and CRU rule the world and they prevent 'honest scientists' from publishing anything. How do they do that again?

All those angry scientists out there who feel unjustly treated because their papers have never been accepted by these peer reviewed journals. It's maddening! And by the sheer size of their community one would have expected long ago an almost proletarian revolution of scientists who have been dispossessed of their rightful place in all those existing scientific journals.

On top of that, I didn't know IPCC was a publisher, or a peer reviewed journal. The CRU is a 'climate research unit' affiliated with a university (University of East Anglia)... It's a sheer travesty, the way they subdue each and any individual's right to express their different opinions on climate change.



I never heard that 'conventional' energy sources were going to be banned. That's quite the news, worthy of any major newspaper's front page!



As far as simplistic characterizations and misrepresentations can go, very reasonable indeed!
As to potential job losses with cap and trade the real question is, who knows?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=8230a041-2d13-4812-b5ed-ea9b2965faa0

CRA International admittedly takes "their best guess".

"• Utility Rates and Utility Bills – Energy cost impacts consider the combined effect of
changes in the prices of the fundamental energy commodities and the added cost of
limiting carbon emissions. In the case of electricity and natural gas supplied through
companies regulated by utility commissions, free allowance allocations will mitigate
some of the total cost borne by retail customers. ACESA provides free allocations to
such local distribution companies, but requires that the full cost of carbon still be
reflected in the rates per unit of energy each customer uses. Relative to energy
costs in the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2009 Baseline level, retail natural gas
rates would rise by an estimated 10% ($1.20 per MMBtu) in 2015, by 16% ($2.30 per
MMBtu) in 2030, and by 34% ($5.40 per MMBtu) in 2050. Retail electricity rates are
estimated to increase by 7.3% (1.1 cents per kWh) relative to baseline levels in 2015,
by 22% (2.8 cents per kWh) in 2030 and by 45% (6.1 cents per kWh) in 2050. To the
extent that utilities return the value of their free allocations under ACESA to
customers through reductions in fixed charges, actual total bills for electricity and
natural gas will not rise as much as the rates. Total utility bills may even decline in
the first years of the policy if there is also substantial investment in end-use efficiency
and/or conservation in response to the higher energy rates."

"Transportation Fuel Costs - After an estimated 12 cents per gallon increase in 2015,
costs of using motor fuels are estimated to increase by 5% (23 cents per gallon) in
2030 and increase by 11% (59 cents per gallon) in 2050, relative to baseline levels.
These cost impacts consider the combined effect of changes in the market prices of
the fundamental energy commodities, the added cost of limiting carbon emissions,
and projected shifts towards a lower-carbon mix of energy sources used to fuel the
average vehicle."

"Employment – A net reduction in U.S. employment of 2.3 million to 2.7 million jobs in
each year of the policy through 2030. These reductions are net of substantial gains
in “green jobs.” While all regions of the country would be adversely impacted, the
West, Oklahoma/Texas and the Mississippi Valley regions would be
disproportionately affected.

• Wages – Declines in workers’ wages will become more severe with time. The
earnings of an average worker who remains employed would be approximately $170
less by 2015, $390 less by 2030, and $960 less by 2050, relative to baseline levels.



Now, you can read this and remain un-concerned if you would like. I don't really care. You may speculate any movement of pricing you want and their effects. Some folks believe energy to be at the very center of our way of life. You may choose not to.

You may argue when the automobile became mass produced it devastated the buggy whip business. The green jobs produced may be so massive it dwarfs other job losses... Please cite something that argues this point because I have not seen it (not saying the info does not exist).

Never meant to imply traditional sources of energy were to be banned. My point is there is one political side that routinely attempts to block this country from producing it's own energy, fossil or otherwise. Care to guess which side does that?

Ever compared our electricity production (how it's produced)to much of Europe, especially France? How long has it been since a reactor has been built in the US?

In terms of the IPCC and CRU... it is suggested by those scientists who are not impressed with the 'science' of the climate change crowd who are making these claims, oh, and of course the emails of Phil Jones himself suggesting they may need to 'change' the peer review process... hmmmm.

I notice you cite annecdotal stories regarding computers and that's fine. Computers are not energy. It's a bad analogy.
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I imagine we will do what has happened during all warming and cooling cycles in the past, modify our way of life.

You talk about something that is clearly uncertain - and, if true, cannot be rectified without the largest producers of CO2 taking part (China and India) and they are just not coming on board since they know their economies cannot handle it. Our politicians think that taxing and regulating business will fix an uncertain problem, and they are wrong on many levers.
Scott SoCal said:
What if's are endless. What if the sun's activity doesn't increase? What if the 'science' behind the co2 theory is bogus? What if cap and trade does far more economic damage than predicted? What if the US goes bankrupt?

What if we keep studying this stuff without the political BS surrounding it in a transparent and honest way so that human beings can make a reasonable and intelligent decision based on facts, not agendas?
Remember how we cleaned the air with filters etc. 30 years ago? Same claims. Stuff gets more expensive, we have to change our way of life, jobs will get lost, we'll all end up in the poor house, the economy will enter a new depression. No claim was too stupid against cleaning up the air from sulfur dioxide, NOx and lead. Did the world go under? No.

Same here. What is recommended is a change away from burning of fossil fuel to other sources of energy. Yes, it's a little bit more expensive (if you don't factor in environmental costs). So, what you do is to gradually add perceived environmental cost to fossil fuels to slowly increase their cost (so that the economy has time to adapt) through cap and trade. At one point (corresponding to a maybe 30% surcharge) alternative energies will become competitive and the energy market will turn towards solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear or possibly fossil fuel technology with carbon sequestration.

No, the world will not go under because of that. Other countries are already quite a bit on the way without going bankrupt. Germany, for instance, subsidizes solar cells; people can install them on their rooftops and sell their surplus energy to their power companies. Talk about small businesses!

It's going to be a gradual transition. Yes some jobs will get lost, other jobs will have to be created. In the long run, it will hardly make a dent. Also, it will make us more energy independent. I can't wait for the time when Saudi Arabia and their oil isn't part of the US vital interests.
 
Jul 23, 2009
1,120
0
0
Cobblestones said:
Same here. What is recommended is a change away from burning of fossil fuel to other sources of energy. Yes, it's a little bit more expensive (if you don't factor in environmental costs). So, what you do is to gradually add perceived environmental cost to fossil fuels to slowly increase their cost (so that the economy has time to adapt) through cap and trade. At one point (corresponding to a maybe 30% surcharge) alternative energies will become competitive and the energy market will turn towards solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear or possibly fossil fuel technology with carbon sequestration.
There is a reason that California continues to lose industrial jobs to the surrounding states - taxes, regulation, and a significantly more stringent environmental policy.

And I am not saying that something had to be done about the air quality, but recognize that what has been done has high a cost and is not even close to what the environmental groups are pushing for - in the end this state is on the verge of economic collapse and it will be very difficult for a bankrupt state to enforce clean air and water standards.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Remember how we cleaned the air with filters etc. 30 years ago? Same claims. Stuff gets more expensive, we have to change our way of life, jobs will get lost, we'll all end up in the poor house, the economy will enter a new depression. No claim was too stupid against cleaning up the air from sulfur dioxide, NOx and lead. Did the world go under? No.

Same here. What is recommended is a change away from burning of fossil fuel to other sources of energy. Yes, it's a little bit more expensive (if you don't factor in environmental costs). So, what you do is to gradually add perceived environmental cost to fossil fuels to slowly increase their cost (so that the economy has time to adapt) through cap and trade. At one point (corresponding to a maybe 30% surcharge) alternative energies will become competitive and the energy market will turn towards solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear or possibly fossil fuel technology with carbon sequestration.

No, the world will not go under because of that. Other countries are already quite a bit on the way without going bankrupt. Germany, for instance, subsidizes solar cells; people can install them on their rooftops and sell their surplus energy to their power companies. Talk about small businesses!

It's going to be a gradual transition. Yes some jobs will get lost, other jobs will have to be created. In the long run, it will hardly make a dent. Also, it will make us more energy independent. I can't wait for the time when Saudi Arabia and their oil isn't part of the US vital interests.

I think if the cap and trade proposed were a slow trasition to clean energy this would have much more support, but that's not what the current cap and trade plan does.

What are your thoughts on Karl Popper? I believe his open society theories are supported by, among others, George Soros.

"Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. The term indicates his rejection of classical empiricism, and of the classical observationalist-inductivist account of science that had grown out of it. Popper argued strongly against the latter, holding that scientific theories are abstract in nature, and can be tested only indirectly, by reference to their implications. He also held that scientific theory, and human knowledge generally, is irreducibly conjectural or hypothetical, and is generated by the creative imagination in order to solve problems that have arisen in specific historico-cultural settings. Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."

The "accepted" theory by the Michael Mann's, Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth's of the world show continued global warming (from man-made co2) but a single counterexample demonstrating the globe not actually warming since 1998 should falsify the theory.

Would it be correct to say the theory of relativity is widely accepted because it has never been falsified? Might the world's temperature not rising since 1998 falsify the climate change theory and if not, why not?
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
There is a reason that California continues to lose industrial jobs to the surrounding states - taxes, regulation, and a significantly more stringent environmental policy.

And I am not saying that something had to be done about the air quality, but recognize that what has been done has high a cost and is not even close to what the environmental groups are pushing for - in the end this state is on the verge of economic collapse and it will be very difficult for a bankrupt state to enforce clean air and water standards.
California is messed up because of many reasons. Environmental policies are not one of them.

Anyway, I thought to show you a few graphs. Here's one from BP showing that solar power might be economically viable by 2015. Here's something from our own DoE showing total costs of nuclear, fossil fuel, and hydroelectric power generation. Apparently, since around 2000 nuclear beats fossil fuel (which was news to me :eek: ) And on page 4 of this document, you can read off the relative price of electricity generated from fossil fuel (gas and coal, with and without carbon capture technology), nuclear and wind power.

Non-CO2 producing technologies can compete or will compete with fossil fuel technology soon enough. If we give it a small nudge now with, say, cap and trade, we can (i) eliminate the threat from global warming, (ii) reduce our dependence on fossil fuel, and (iii) be at the forefront of new technology when the markets open up.

Alternatively, we could sit on our hands and (i) watch the climate deteriorate, (ii) keep sending troops to the Middle East to prop up our suppliers, and (iii) import energy technology from the Chinese in 10 years.
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
CentralCaliBike said:
I imagine we will do what has happened during all warming and cooling cycles in the past, modify our way of life.

You talk about something that is clearly uncertain - and, if true, cannot be rectified without the largest producers of CO2 taking part (China and India) and they are just not coming on board since they know their economies cannot handle it. Our politicians think that taxing and regulating business will fix an uncertain problem, and they are wrong on many levers.
It's pretty easy to deal with that- child labour boycotts worked-shouldn't be too hard to encourage them to change to a comparable standard
 
Jul 22, 2009
302
0
0
Thoughtforfood said:
Unless they are right about the scope of the problem. I would venture to say that studying climate is one of the, if not the most complex set of variables a scientist can face. People like Rush have poo pooed this from day one. And every day since, the right wing has demanded proof. Well, I guess they just don't get it. It isn't like looking at a a red car and determining the color. That is my biggest problem with the whole thing. The scope of the issue is so large, that to reduce it down to a 15 second made for TV sound bite is worse than just saying nothing at all.

Why attack it so fervently from day 1? Because that is what has happened, and the people asking for proof wouldn't believe it even if they were shown it. There are two different games being played here. One is political, and one is scientific. On the political side, there are varying opinions. On the scientific side, most of the people studying the phenomenon (meaning, looking at all of the data-not just temp) believe there is a causal relationship. I trust them over and engineer, Rush Limbaugh, and the Cato institute considering none of those three is actually looking to do anything but attack the weak points in a political way. They all seem to hope someone else will do the actual heavy lifting.
Rush and Beck are in the entertainment business- as long as it carries a controversy they'll parrot whatever grabs viewers and sells spots on their show- watch what happens as soon as they mispeak on an issue, instant backtrack and denial they meant what they said. Mccain and Palin are in the same boat.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Ever compared our electricity production (how it's produced)to much of Europe, especially France? How long has it been since a reactor has been built in the US?
Interesting to turn to Nuclear Energy... and to use France as an example.

I notice you cite anecdotal stories regarding computers and that's fine. Computers are not energy. It's a bad analogy.
Isn't that the essence of an analogy, that certain aspects are the same, but not all. I used 'computers' to illustrate a point, namely that the 'introduction of new technologies' (computers analogous to new types of energy) can lead to unemployment as well as new opportunities.

But alright for the sake of the economic argument you made:

"The introduction of nuclear power - a new technology which also entailed a new sustainable energy source - has driven many people into unemployment, and failed to create jobs. We should have banned the build of nuclear reactors, for they would have destroyed our nation's economy."

Now replace 'nuclear power' with 'renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, oceanic)'.

You just referred to France's reliance on nuclear energy, and might I infer that the US should be heading in that direction perhaps, so I assume that France's gradual transition to nuclear energy did not in effect destroy there economy?
 
May 13, 2009
3,042
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."

The "accepted" theory by the Michael Mann's, Phil Jones and Kevin Trenberth's of the world show continued global warming (from man-made co2) but a single counterexample demonstrating the globe not actually warming since 1998 should falsify the theory.

Would it be correct to say the theory of relativity is widely accepted because it has never been falsified? Might the world's temperature not rising since 1998 falsify the climate change theory and if not, why not?
Uh, I'm a little bit rusty on the philosophical underpinning. I did take a class in college about that once (and didn't pay attention much).

I think the bolded statement is what every scientist would agree on, so let's take that.

I think you're right that Einstein's theory of relativity has never been falsified. Now, if we turn it around, Newton's theory has been falsified and replaced by Einstein's. So, why do we still teach Newton's theory in school and college and use it mostly everywhere? Because it's easier to understand and it does the job almost right. It's so close to the truth that you'll hardly ever notice the difference.

I don't want to do a direct comparison, but just because the most accepted hypothesis doesn't fit the data to some degree doesn't mean everything is wrong. Clearly, something is not quite correct, but to discard all of it might be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, the scientists have been working hard to understand what precisely was wrong, and they will try to replace their assumptions with something else, hopefully more correct. The present climate models which are calculated on some of the worlds largest computers are still the most sophisticated models we have. I would guess that all assumptions which went in there have been deemed as state of the art knowledge. Now, some of it will be wrong, some things might be neglected, some overemphasized, but it's still the best the scientific community as a whole can come up with, and the emails don't change this impression I have.

Now, I have not seen a single model of similar sophistication which does not produce warming to a certain degree in the near future (within reasonable assumptions). Skeptics will tell you all day long about what's wrong with this single assumption or that one input, but they haven't produced a computer calculation which shows that changing the input to what they think is correct produces a greatly different result. Why? Because science is time consuming and expensive, while talk is cheap. Also, producing models of their own would leave them open to scientific criticism of the same kind they're leveling at the mainstream. Anyway, it's much easier to explain away the lack of scientific rigor by a big conspiracy which doesn't allow you to publish. :rolleyes: So, why go through the effort when you can produce the desired results by going straight to the media and the politicians (through lobbying firms)? If you look a little closer, the skeptics are just not convincing.

ETA: After reading through stuff which was posted while I was writing I just noticed that about everybody here agrees on nuclear power. Amazing :)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Cobblestones said:
Uh, I'm a little bit rusty on the philosophical underpinning. I did take a class in college about that once (and didn't pay attention much).

I think the bolded statement is what every scientist would agree on, so let's take that.

I think you're right that Einstein's theory of relativity has never been falsified. Now, if we turn it around, Newton's theory has been falsified and replaced by Einstein's. So, why do we still teach Newton's theory in school and college and use it mostly everywhere? Because it's easier to understand and it does the job almost right. It's so close to the truth that you'll hardly ever notice the difference.

I don't want to do a direct comparison, but just because the most accepted hypothesis doesn't fit the data to some degree doesn't mean everything is wrong. Clearly, something is not quite correct, but to discard all of it might be akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Moreover, the scientists have been working hard to understand what precisely was wrong, and they will try to replace their assumptions with something else, hopefully more correct. The present climate models which are calculated on some of the worlds largest computers are still the most sophisticated models we have. I would guess that all assumptions which went in there have been deemed as state of the art knowledge. Now, some of it will be wrong, some things might be neglected, some overemphasized, but it's still the best the scientific community as a whole can come up with, and the emails don't change this impression I have.

Now, I have not seen a single model of similar sophistication which does not produce warming to a certain degree in the near future (within reasonable assumptions). Skeptics will tell you all day long about what's wrong with this single assumption or that one input, but they haven't produced a computer calculation which shows that changing the input to what they think is correct produces a greatly different result. Why? Because science is time consuming and expensive, while talk is cheap. Also, producing models of their own would leave them open to scientific criticism of the same kind they're leveling at the mainstream. Anyway, it's much easier to explain away the lack of scientific rigor by a big conspiracy which doesn't allow you to publish. :rolleyes: So, why go through the effort when you can produce the desired results by going straight to the media and the politicians (through lobbying firms)? If you look a little closer, the skeptics are just not convincing.
This is curious to me. The theory stated man-made co2 unabated causes global warming on a massive scale up to and including "boiling of the oceans". Now, we have not yet implemented cap and trade and the warming stopped all by itself around 1998. The theory as presented has been falsified.

So, man made co2 has 1) no effect, 2) unknown effect, 3)un-unpredictable effect, 4) little effect 5) severe effect on climate change. We are right back where we started EXCEPT for what we are going to do to our economy. It's particularly frustrating when whatever we do to curb co2 MUST be done by every govt particularly India & China or there is no point EVEN if the theory is correct, which it appears not to be.

Logic twisted into pretzel form.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Interesting to turn to Nuclear Energy... and to use France as an example.



Isn't that the essence of an analogy, that certain aspects are the same, but not all. I used 'computers' to illustrate a point, namely that the 'introduction of new technologies' (computers analogous to new types of energy) can lead to unemployment as well as new opportunities.

But alright for the sake of the economic argument you made:

"The introduction of nuclear power - a new technology which also entailed a new sustainable energy source - has driven many people into unemployment, and failed to create jobs. We should have banned the build of nuclear reactors, for they would have destroyed our nation's economy."

Now replace 'nuclear power' with 'renewable energy (solar, wind, geothermal, oceanic)'.

You just referred to France's reliance on nuclear energy, and might I infer that the US should be heading in that direction perhaps, so I assume that France's gradual transition to nuclear energy did not in effect destroy there economy?

I think there are commom-sense things that can be done that won't really hurt our economy. Nuclear is but one example. Why have we not built more reactors? Here's at least part of the answer;

http://www.vpirg.org/node/176

Which side of the political spectrum do you suppose VPIRG is on? There are others with the same political bent spewing the same rhetoric.

It would be nice not to buy a drop of oil from any foreign nation. I don't know our reserves but I know we can't get to them. Why?

Solor is exciting, bring it on. Wind too. Oceanic, I mean there is massive water movement every second of every day. Let's figure out how to harness it. Our coal reserves are massive. We can burn it clean. The technology exists. Do it already.
 
Mar 10, 2009
7,119
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Karl Popper

"Popper coined the term critical rationalism [..] Logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a scientific theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from which the implication is derived, to be false."
Nice quote from wikipedia, I assumed because it's phrased identically. I would be hesitant to quote any philosopher you haven't really read. Quote are often misleading, or simplify a large body of rather complex work.

Since you are fond of affiliating people with others to point out how good/bad they are... Karl Popper was a good friend of Friedrich Hayek who derided conservatism as follows (see Why I Am Not a Conservative):

Personally, I find that the most objectionable feature of the conservative attitude is its propensity to reject well-substantiated new knowledge because it dislikes some of the consequences which seem to follow from it – or, to put it bluntly, its obscurantism. I will not deny that scientists as much as others are given to fads and fashions and that we have much reason to be cautious in accepting the conclusions that they draw from their latest theories. But the reasons for our reluctance must themselves be rational and must be kept separate from our regret that the new theories upset our cherished beliefs. I can have little patience with those who oppose, for instance, the theory of evolution or what are called "mechanistic" explanations of the phenomena of life because of certain moral consequences which at first seem to follow from these theories, and still less with those who regard it as irrelevant or impious to ask certain questions at all. By refusing to face the facts, the conservative only weakens his own position. Frequently the conclusions which rationalist presumption draws from new scientific insights do not at all follow from them. But only by actively taking part in the elaboration of the consequences of new discoveries do we learn whether or not they fit into our world picture and, if so, how. Should our moral beliefs really prove to be dependent on factual assumptions shown to be incorrect, it would hardly be moral to defend them by refusing to acknowledge facts
It is ironic that you turn to Popper to make claims about the veracity of certain theories regarding climate change. Much of the conservative 'scientific' propaganda for example has flatly contradicted Popperian scientific principles and resorted to simple methods of verification. Ie to prove that all swans are white, one would count white swans.

His falsification theory suggests that, in order to make scientific progress, you should scrutinize your hypothesis, challenge it and whenever it withstands these investigations, your hypothesis stands. If not, you narrow it down and scrutinize it again. According to Popper, that's how scientific progress is made. Philosophically, all science is therefore temporal, because there is always a chance that a newer, stronger theory will be found to explain something.

Now let's turn this into something instructive:

The hypothesis: "It never rains in Nevada"
Method: verification (or inductive logic, from the specific to the general)
Observation: day 1; day 2; day 3; day 4 etc all days it does not rain
Conclusion: "It never rains in Nevada"

Popper however finds this method of verification insufficient, because of its inherent uncertainty. Logically, or even physically, we will never be able to count/assess all instances that positively prove this theory. Hence, he turns to deductive logic (from the general to the specific).

Method: falsification
Observation: day 1; day 2; day 3; day 4 [...] day 100. The 100th day it rains
Conclusion: It never rains in Nevada is false.

However, this does not mean the hypothesis is completely useless. It requires effort from the scientist to narrow down/specify the hypothesis (up to a certain point) and re-assess it using falsification method. The better a theory withstands scrutiny, the stronger it becomes.

Hence, the second hypothesis could be: "It never rains in Nevada in the summer months and in all other seasons it rains no more than 30 days combined". That's how science progresses, and how predictive or explanatory statements hold any truth value.

Strong Popperian principles could actually explain why some of the hacked emails state that it 'is maddening they could not account for certain anomalous climatic observations.'
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Bala Verde said:
Nice quote from wikipedia, I assumed because it's phrased identically. I would be hesitant to quote any philosopher you haven't really read. Quote are often misleading, or simplify a large body of rather complex work.

Since you are fond of affiliating people with others to point out how good/bad they are... Karl Popper was a good friend of Friedrich Hayek who derided conservatism as follows (see Why I Am Not a Conservative):



It is ironic that you turn to Popper to make claims about the veracity of certain theories regarding climate change. Much of the conservative 'scientific' propaganda for example has flatly contradicted Popperian scientific principles and resorted to simple methods of verification. Ie to prove that all swans are white, one would count white swans.

His falsification theory suggests that, in order to make scientific progress, you should scrutinize your hypothesis, challenge it and whenever it withstands these investigations, your hypothesis stands. If not, you narrow it down and scrutinize it again. According to Popper, that's how scientific progress is made. Philosophically, all science is therefore temporal, because there is always a chance that a newer, stronger theory will be found to explain something.

Now let's turn this into something instructive:

The hypothesis: "It never rains in Nevada"
Method: verification (or inductive logic, from the specific to the general)
Observation: day 1; day 2; day 3; day 4 etc all days it does not rain
Conclusion: "It never rains in Nevada"

Popper however finds this method of verification insufficient, because of its inherent uncertainty. Logically, or even physically, we will never be able to count/assess all instances that positively prove this theory. Hence, he turns to deductive logic (from the general to the specific).

Method: falsification
Observation: day 1; day 2; day 3; day 4 [...] day 100. The 100th day it rains
Conclusion: It never rains in Nevada is false.

However, this does not mean the hypothesis is completely useless. It requires effort from the scientist to narrow down/specify the hypothesis (up to a certain point) and re-assess it using falsification method. The better a theory withstands scrutiny, the stronger it becomes.

Hence, the second hypothesis could be: "It never rains in Nevada in the summer months and in all other seasons it rains no more than 30 days combined". That's how science progresses, and how predictive or explanatory statements hold any truth value.

Strong Popperian principles could actually explain why some of the hacked emails state that it 'is maddening they could not account for certain anomalous climatic observations.'
No, I asked a self described scientist (Cobblestones) what his thoughts of Popper were. I'm curious if science uses this belief system and if so why the falsification of the global warming theory would not be valid, scientifically speaking.

Curiously, the global warming scientists have not revised their theory even though it has been falsified (using the Poppers arguments). So they are still sticking with "it never rains in Nevada" even though it rains in Nevada, to use your analogy. That's why it's "maddening" to them.

I'm not on board with Popper. I don't think much of the 'open society' or George Soros.

So now Wiki is off limits?? Can I still use Google?
 
Mar 18, 2009
13,318
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
No, I asked a self described scientist (Cobblestones) what his thoughts of Popper were. I'm curious if science uses this belief system and if so why the falsification of the global warming theory would not be valid, scientifically speaking.

Curiously, the global warming scientists have not revised their theory even though it has been falsified (using the Poppers arguments). So they are still sticking with "it never rains in Nevada" even though it rains in Nevada, to use your analogy. That's why it's "maddening" to them.
Jeebus! Strawman alert.

Maybe you can point us to a theory that says that global temperatures go up every year so that a year of decline would invalidate the theory.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Laszlo said:
Rush and Beck are in the entertainment business- as long as it carries a controversy they'll parrot whatever grabs viewers and sells spots on their show- watch what happens as soon as they mispeak on an issue, instant backtrack and denial they meant what they said. Mccain and Palin are in the same boat.
Please provide an example of something Rush has backtracked on. Being on the air for over 20 years with more than 20,000,000 listeners per week it should be exceedingly easy for you to do that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY