| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jeff from KY
Regular Burner
Joined: 06 Feb 2007
Posts: 240
Location: Paducah, KY
|
 Posted:Wed Feb 10, 2010 9:53 am Post subject |
    |
|
David Brin, author and PhD scientist, has always been one of my favorite science fiction authors. In his blog today he wrote an interesting piece that is very relevant to the "debate" going on here. If I was 1/100th the writer that he is, I would say exactly what he says. Since I am not, here is a link to his blog and several excerpts that put clearly into words my feelings about this so-called debate.
The Real Struggle Behind Climate Change - A War on Expertise
| Quote: | The schism over global climate change (GCC) has become an intellectual chasm, across which everyone perceives the other side as Koolaid-drinkers. Although I have mixed views of my own about the science of GCC, and have closely grilled a number of colleagues who are front-line atmospheric scientists (some at JPL), I'm afraid all the anecdotes and politics-drenched "questions" flying about right now aren't shedding light. They are, in fact, quite beside the point.
That is because science itself is the main issue: its relevance and utility as a decision-making tool. |
| Quote: | This is the context in which we should reconsider the Climate Change Denial Movement. While murky in its scientific assertions -- (some claim the Earth isn't warming, while others say the ice-free Arctic won't be any of our doing) -- the core contention remains remarkably consistent. It holds that the 99% of atmospheric scientists who believe in GCC are suborned, stupid, incompetent, conspiratorial or untrustworthy hacks.
As part of a more general assault on the very notion of expertise, the narrative starts with a truism that is actually true:
"Not every smart person is wise..."
only then extrapolates it, implicitly, to a blatant falsehood
"all smartypants are unwise, all the time; and my uninformed opinion is equal to any expert testimony."
Does that sound like a polemical stretch? But it is precisely the implied subtext - a perverse kind of populism - at all levels of the War on Science. In the specific case of GCC, since almost all top atmospheric scientists accept human-propelled climate change, they must be all cretins, corrupt, or cowards. |
| Quote: | | All the scientists and post-docs are colluding to foist this scam, in order to win a few ten-thousand dollar grants. This loose-change-grubbing, paradigm slavery is cited to explain the GCC imbroglio -- while the oilcos and petroprinces, who operate major propaganda outlets and have TRILLIONS staked in the status quo... they have no agenda at all. |
| Quote: | Especially since -- and this is the kicker -- all the major recommended actions to deal with Global Climate Change are things we should be doing, anyway.
That's the most bizarre aspect. I'd listen patiently to GGC Deniers and strive to answer their endlessly refurbished narratives, if they would only say the following first:
"Okay, I'll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability, desperately, in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. Waste-not and a-penny-saved and cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness used to be good conservative attitudes. And so, for those reasons alone, let's join together and make a big (and genuine*) push for efficiency.
"Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in Global Climate Change, but these measures would also help deal with that too.
"There, are you happy? Now, as gentlemen, and more in a spirit of curiosity than polemics, can we please corner some atmospheric scientists and force them into an extended teach-in, to answer some inconvenient questions?" |
_________________
Jeff
Paducah, KY
"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." - Benjamin Franklin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:11 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Jeff from KY wrote: | David Brin, author and PhD scientist, has always been one of my favorite science fiction authors. In his blog today he wrote an interesting piece that is very relevant to the "debate" going on here. If I was 1/100th the writer that he is, I would say exactly what he says. Since I am not, here is a link to his blog and several excerpts that put clearly into words my feelings about this so-called debate.
The Real Struggle Behind Climate Change - A War on Expertise
| Quote: | The schism over global climate change (GCC) has become an intellectual chasm, across which everyone perceives the other side as Koolaid-drinkers. Although I have mixed views of my own about the science of GCC, and have closely grilled a number of colleagues who are front-line atmospheric scientists (some at JPL), I'm afraid all the anecdotes and politics-drenched "questions" flying about right now aren't shedding light. They are, in fact, quite beside the point.
That is because science itself is the main issue: its relevance and utility as a decision-making tool. |
| Quote: | This is the context in which we should reconsider the Climate Change Denial Movement. While murky in its scientific assertions -- (some claim the Earth isn't warming, while others say the ice-free Arctic won't be any of our doing) -- the core contention remains remarkably consistent. It holds that the 99% of atmospheric scientists who believe in GCC are suborned, stupid, incompetent, conspiratorial or untrustworthy hacks.
As part of a more general assault on the very notion of expertise, the narrative starts with a truism that is actually true:
"Not every smart person is wise..."
only then extrapolates it, implicitly, to a blatant falsehood
"all smartypants are unwise, all the time; and my uninformed opinion is equal to any expert testimony."
Does that sound like a polemical stretch? But it is precisely the implied subtext - a perverse kind of populism - at all levels of the War on Science. In the specific case of GCC, since almost all top atmospheric scientists accept human-propelled climate change, they must be all cretins, corrupt, or cowards. |
| Quote: | | All the scientists and post-docs are colluding to foist this scam, in order to win a few ten-thousand dollar grants. This loose-change-grubbing, paradigm slavery is cited to explain the GCC imbroglio -- while the oilcos and petroprinces, who operate major propaganda outlets and have TRILLIONS staked in the status quo... they have no agenda at all. |
| Quote: | Especially since -- and this is the kicker -- all the major recommended actions to deal with Global Climate Change are things we should be doing, anyway.
That's the most bizarre aspect. I'd listen patiently to GGC Deniers and strive to answer their endlessly refurbished narratives, if they would only say the following first:
"Okay, I'll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability, desperately, in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. Waste-not and a-penny-saved and cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness used to be good conservative attitudes. And so, for those reasons alone, let's join together and make a big (and genuine*) push for efficiency.
"Oh, and by the way, I don't believe in Global Climate Change, but these measures would also help deal with that too.
"There, are you happy? Now, as gentlemen, and more in a spirit of curiosity than polemics, can we please corner some atmospheric scientists and force them into an extended teach-in, to answer some inconvenient questions?" |
|
Amen. This anti-intellectualism he describes is a threat across the board in all aspects of public discourse. It is a cancer that has paralyzed our democracy. It's why nothing is being done about the budget deficits, exploding health care costs, climate change, energy security..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdeere5220
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 730
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Wed Feb 10, 2010 11:30 pm Post subject |
|
|
Sorry, doesn't fly and is unbelievably hypocritical.
I quoted Michael Chriton, one of my favorite PhD's and also an author, in one of my first posts in this forum and was immediately ridiculed by someone here for quoting a science fiction writer's testimony before congress.
Let me repeat for clarity: I wasn't quoting one of his books. I was quoting his testimony before congress. Apparently someone believed he input of some value on this topic.
Just so everyone here understands, quoting a PhD who doesn't agree with the AGW theory and who so testified before congress is apparently worthy of ridicule. But quoting a PhD who does agree with AGW theory is worthy of praise.
And we wonder why the discourse is so vitriolic. Maybe consider a little less ridicule and a little more honest debate.
_________________
Maxim M250 outdoor corn/pellet burner
Old Beat-up Gravity Box
I support Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tallcorn
Super Burner
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 9541
Location: Cedar Rapids, Iowa
|
| Posted:Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:43 am Post subject |
|
|
"Let me repeat for clarity: I wasn't quoting one of his books. I was quoting his testimony before congress. Apparently someone believed he input of some value on this topic. "
Are you kidding? 
_________________
Countryside 3500P (pedestal version) used 8-9 yrs, 24/7 during days requiring heat. All original motors. Burns moldy corn, and pellets equally well. Burn it if you got it.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Sat Feb 13, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject |
|
|
| jdeere5220 wrote: | Sorry, doesn't fly and is unbelievably hypocritical.
I quoted Michael Chriton, one of my favorite PhD's and also an author, in one of my first posts in this forum and was immediately ridiculed by someone here for quoting a science fiction writer's testimony before congress.
Let me repeat for clarity: I wasn't quoting one of his books. I was quoting his testimony before congress. Apparently someone believed he input of some value on this topic.
Just so everyone here understands, quoting a PhD who doesn't agree with the AGW theory and who so testified before congress is apparently worthy of ridicule. But quoting a PhD who does agree with AGW theory is worthy of praise.
And we wonder why the discourse is so vitriolic. Maybe consider a little less ridicule and a little more honest debate. |
With all due respect to Michael Crichton and his imaginative literary skills, he did not have a Phd or any other degree in earth science or physics and the fact that he wrote a novel about GW does not make him an authority on the subject. To the contrary his novel, State of Fear- a thinly disguised polemic, is a testament to his flawed understanding of the science and his political sentiments. And the fact that some senator would make use of MC's celebrity for political purposes does not make him any more credible. As for my response to your appeal to authority, I merely accepted your invitation to ridicule when you attempted to refute the climatologists' AGW consensus based on the word of a Sci-fi writer. I doubt that you would seek a second opinion from a climatologist if your doctor had diagnosed you with cancer; or maybe you would if you thought he would tell you what you wanted to hear.
MC was known to hold a number of idiosyncratic beliefs beyond his ideas about global warming. He believed in auras, spoon bending, clairvoyance, and that all diseases were caused by our state of mind - particularly telling as he was trained as a physician. He wrote: "We cause our diseases. We are directly responsible for any illness that happens to us." It is a sad, and he might say Karmic, irony that this author who spoke out against the environmentalists in his later years would then die of throat cancer.
Speaking of irony, Lord Christopher Monckton (flamboyant denialist and global conspiracy crank) recently suffered a bout of heat stroke while visiting the outback in Australia. 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdeere5220
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 730
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Mon Feb 15, 2010 10:42 am Post subject |
|
|
| John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and former lead auther on the IPCC wrote: |
The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change |
This is just some dolt professor who used to be on the IPCC, not a science fiction writer, so he doesn't have the credentials of David Brin  Still, I found it entertaining that a lead author for the IPCC had this to say.
| Quote: |
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.
"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
|
Full story here:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/15/world-warming-say-scientists/?test=latestnews
_________________
Maxim M250 outdoor corn/pellet burner
Old Beat-up Gravity Box
I support Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
upnort
Regular Burner
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 105
Location: Springbrook Wisc
|
| Posted:Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:39 pm Post subject |
|
|
| Good Afternoon. Just got in from changing oil in garage. Today my thoughts are that this is just what the pro and con climate people want. while we (ordinary people) go back and forth behind the scenes there is hanky panky being done. As an example in Wisconsin they are soon to vote or have voted on a bill to increase taxes on energy, gas, oil, etc to combat climate chaange. Called my electric company and they way will add about 15-20% to bills. I don't know what the gas tax will be. Writing to my Wis representatives does no good. Governor is not going to run again so he will sign anything that crosses his desk. There is no stopping once the state has a majority of one party in power. (You can look up which one). Actually could be a good thing but being old and seeing how they raid progrms for other purposes will just be another tax to get more money. Nothing more nothing less. Discusted. UP NORT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:53 pm Post subject |
|
|
| upnort wrote: | | Good Afternoon. Just got in from changing oil in garage. Today my thoughts are that this is just what the pro and con climate people want. while we (ordinary people) go back and forth behind the scenes there is hanky panky being done. As an example in Wisconsin they are soon to vote or have voted on a bill to increase taxes on energy, gas, oil, etc to combat climate chaange. Called my electric company and they way will add about 15-20% to bills. I don't know what the gas tax will be. Writing to my Wis representatives does no good. Governor is not going to run again so he will sign anything that crosses his desk. There is no stopping once the state has a majority of one party in power. (You can look up which one). Actually could be a good thing but being old and seeing how they raid progrms for other purposes will just be another tax to get more money. Nothing more nothing less. Discusted. UP NORT |
That is a typical scare tactic energy/car companies employ to defeat a bill that would require them to change their ways. While I haven't followed the details of the Wisconsin bill, that number looks ridiculous
Energy generation cost is about half of the electric bill, most of the remainder is transmission and distribution. Wind generation cost is generally cheaper than nuclear and gas, only slightly costlier than new coal plants and perhaps cheaper after coal prices rise again. But even if you assume an exagerated renewable generation cost averaging 50% more than old technlogy generation costs (which could happen if you added all nuclear instead of emphasizing wind) and assume Wisconsin added 25% more renewable energy by 2025, that would only increase your bill by about (0.25*1.5+1.0*.75).5 +.5 = 6%. And you wouldn't see all of this increase for 15 years.
Now figure the cost of unmitigated climate change and the health care costs from fossil fuel pollution. And what is going to be the cost of coal and gas 20 years from now? No one knows, but once wind capacity is installed the cost is fixed, i.e. fuel cost = 0
I did a more thorough national estimate of renewable energy cost here.
http://forum.iburncorn.com/viewtopic.php?t=10755&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15
It came very close to an EIA study that looked at a similar scenario. I linked to it somewhere - perhaps in that thread.
The cost of these 20/25/30% renewable energy portfolios is trivial and may ultimately prove to be cheaper than status quo. When you factor in the external costs of fossil fuels, RE will certainly prove to be cheaper in the long run.
Check this out......
| Quote: | | For the renewable energy from MGE and Wisconsin Energy, the state is paying an extra 1 cent per kilowatt hour over the cost of electricity generated from coal or natural gas |
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/article_b55c2562-0f67-51c7-8e90-298db66aed1a.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdeere5220
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 730
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Tue Feb 16, 2010 2:59 pm Post subject |
|
|
The average cost of residential electricity was 12¢/kWh (DOE) in 2009. I don't know what the state of Wisconsin normally pays and the article didn't say either, but I think we can assume they pay a cheaper rate than an average citizen, let's say 8¢/kWh. So 1¢/kWh is a 12.5% increase, and the same article says the state "locked in" a price that is actually 3.3¢/kWh higher than the rate of coal-generated, which is a 41% increase.
What a tremendous deal for the taxpayers of Wisconsin.
_________________
Maxim M250 outdoor corn/pellet burner
Old Beat-up Gravity Box
I support Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Tue Feb 16, 2010 4:49 pm Post subject |
|
|
| jdeere5220 wrote: | The average cost of residential electricity was 12¢/kWh (DOE) in 2009. I don't know what the state of Wisconsin normally pays and the article didn't say either, but I think we can assume they pay a cheaper rate than an average citizen, let's say 8¢/kWh. So 1¢/kWh is a 12.5% increase, and the same article says the state "locked in" a price that is actually 3.3¢/kWh higher than the rate of coal-generated, which is a 41% increase.
What a tremendous deal for the taxpayers of Wisconsin. |
The premium of 1c is not just for RE, but for power from new capacity since most of the RE is newly installed power which is more expensive than power from old plants whose capital expense has already been paid off. New coal plant prices will cost a couple cents more than the average old plant prices. So you can't really tell how much of that 1c is due to RE versus old tech and how much is from depreciation cost. In any case if their RE power was 25% of their total power consumption - per the new Wisconsin bill's plan - then your 12.5% cost increase drops to only 3.1%.
As to the 3.3 cent: that premium from a different supplier is a recent development caused by a drop in spot energy prices. No one knows where spot prices will be next year let alone 20 years from now, but Wisconsin does know what their RE forward contract price will be. Whether it is a good deal or not remains to be seen, but I would be surprised if spot prices are not considerably higher 15 years from now. There is always a premium to pay for insuring a price. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
upnort
Regular Burner
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 105
Location: Springbrook Wisc
|
| Posted:Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:30 am Post subject |
|
|
| Good Morning. The numbers I referred to was from my electic company. How much the state will charge is still a secret. (Read transparent). Reason for the increase is a fixed charge on my bill ($100 --$21 Fixed Charge--for transportation etc for the coal to their door). That $21 has been fixed for a year if the bill is $60, $70 etc. My take (you will probably already know my take from previous posts) is that is is mostly a money grab not put into the climate bank account but the general account to make up for spending more than taking in. I asked my rep what they were going to do with the money and got no answer but that they want to collect the money. This is the same rep that got $800 million to stop smoking from the court rulings and once I asked if I could participate in the plan to stop (already had) and they said needed to pay for a class, and pay for this and pay for that. That was just another ploy to pay for the state spending not to keep people from smoking. I also asked how much money we spend/spent on roads from the gas tax and they could not tell me how the money was spent or how much. So much for my trust of governement. Can Health Plan and Cap and trade be far behind. More cynical day by day. UP NORT |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jdeere5220
Serious Burner
Joined: 28 Jan 2009
Posts: 730
Location: Michigan
|
| Posted:Wed Feb 17, 2010 7:57 am Post subject |
|
|
| Quote: |
but that kind of reporting is something very different from regurgitating disinformation, or repeating baseless accusations as fact |
Couldn't agree more. Newspapers and info-news web sites are basically just long gossip columns, they are not where anyone should be looking for reliable information. You might as well form your opinion by watching Opera or the View It's Jerry Springer masquerading as news.
_________________
Maxim M250 outdoor corn/pellet burner
Old Beat-up Gravity Box
I support Global Warming |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Occam
Super Burner
Joined: 12 Feb 2007
Posts: 1441
Location: Toledo
|
| Posted:Wed Feb 17, 2010 9:31 am Post subject |
|
|
| upnort wrote: | | Good Morning. The numbers I referred to was from my electic company. How much the state will charge is still a secret. (Read transparent). Reason for the increase is a fixed charge on my bill ($100 --$21 Fixed Charge--for transportation etc for the coal to their door). That $21 has been fixed for a year if the bill is $60, $70 etc. My take (you will probably already know my take from previous posts) is that is is mostly a money grab not put into the climate bank account but the general account to make up for spending more than taking in. I asked my rep what they were going to do with the money and got no answer but that they want to collect the money. This is the same rep that got $800 million to stop smoking from the court rulings and once I asked if I could participate in the plan to stop (already had) and they said needed to pay for a class, and pay for this and pay for that. That was just another ploy to pay for the state spending not to keep people from smoking. I also asked how much money we spend/spent on roads from the gas tax and they could not tell me how the money was spent or how much. So much for my trust of governement. Can Health Plan and Cap and trade be far behind. More cynical day by day. UP NORT |
Just because some rep or clerk can't tell you the numbers off the top of their head doesn't mean they aren't available. It took me 8 minutes to find this. I am sure you can find whatever you need if you take the time to look.
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/about/docs/2007-09budget.pdf
States have to balance their budgets so complaining about paying for the services we and the state purchase is useless. My guess is Wisconsin is like most states and needs to raise taxes to cover deficits and/or slash services. Only the people promoting new taxes and/or cutting specific services and that demonstrate a willingness to compromise to balance the budget are helping solve the problem. I do see that Wisc was ranked in the top 10 for taxes so if that is the case you may need to emphasize cuts.
As to the coal transport charge, it sounds good to me. People should at least pay for the cost of coal at the point of sale if not the indirect costs imposed by health and climate impacts. You probably are still paying less than it costs due to various gov't subsidies for the coal industry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
upnort
Regular Burner
Joined: 16 Nov 2009
Posts: 105
Location: Springbrook Wisc
|
| Posted:Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:42 am Post subject |
|
|
| Good Morning Again. Trying to keep up with the respones. I know that the costs of transportation is an item I can check at the next electric meeting I go to (yes I go and vote). The other half of this costs are EPA costs from Fed. Somehow they can't/won't tell me about them. Say they are carried down from supplier etc. (Sounds fishy like passing the buck--will try and pin down) A 25% increase is a lot. (At least for me) The other part on asking my rep in Wisconsin how the money will be spent on the new tax bill, could not tell, they only were going ot collect the money--Da! Sorry to say this follows the Obama Health Care Plan, pay now and 5 years later get care. (I only used this as an example not to get into this on tis thread) The main slant was that they collect money, then somehow gets used up, when time to use, it is not there, etc, and guess what, once the bill is in place easy to change the % or something to get more. I do not like this kind of doing business. As a note, my rep up here voted for the bill, then said was not going to run again. Was appointed to a judgeship by governor Boyle, who coincidentally not going to run again. Do I have to say more? Disgusted! UP NORT,---Problem with us Seniors is that in our education we learned to read, write, and add and subtract. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
