Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
AreOut said:
Do you expect a reasoned article to trump (that's a good word!) hysterical belief ?robinessex said:
AreOut said:
Do you expect a reasoned article to trump (that's a good word!) hysterical belief ?wc98 said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
is the balance of usage being made up by the diesel generator parks ?The Interconnectors exporting are considered to be demand (negative values) and are included in the demand value afaik.
That said one has to wonder about the strategy that has a primarily fossil fuel generation regime, working at or near top capacity, exporting electricity.
Looking at the similar stats for France one notes that while their currently somewhat compromised Nuclear fleet is on reduced output they still use other interconnectors between national grids to both import and export electricity.
Whether this is due to contractual commitments or local balancing would be an interesting question.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
Note that the historic nuclear investment together with significant hydro power options means that France uses primarily electric heating and little gas. The effect of that, when comparing to the UK, is that the electricity demand in France is about twice that of the UK for a Population of about the same size, albeit a much greater land area.
Here's another interesting reference. Interconnection flows around Europe indicated.
http://electricitymap.tmrow.co/
LongQ said:
That said one has to wonder about the strategy that has a primarily fossil fuel generation regime, working at or near top capacity, exporting electricity.
Probably the Danes don't want the lights to go out when the wind stops blowing and are prepared to pay top dollar for any power they can get.durbster said:
robinessex said:
Beeb starts 'attacking' Trump
World v Trump on global climate deal?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3867...
As a pro-coal president strides into the White House, the rest of the world is rallying in defence of the climate.
Donald Trump has called climate change "a hoax" and filled his cabinet with representatives of fossil fuel industries.
One of the world's leading climate scientists told me she was positively scared about his potential impact on the planet.
Continues............................
Lots of desperation and impending doom predicted
To put his comments into perspective, Trump also thinks vaccines cause autism so the man is clearly scientifically illiterate. And more worryingly, he seems to have surrounded himself with people of similar abilities.World v Trump on global climate deal?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3867...
As a pro-coal president strides into the White House, the rest of the world is rallying in defence of the climate.
Donald Trump has called climate change "a hoax" and filled his cabinet with representatives of fossil fuel industries.
One of the world's leading climate scientists told me she was positively scared about his potential impact on the planet.
Continues............................
Lots of desperation and impending doom predicted
Hooray for ignorance!
Out of interest, will you be celebrating when anti-vaccine material starts appearing in US schools?
durbster said:
It's a simple question. If you think he's right about climate science, it stands to reason that you think he's right about vaccine science too. Is that correct?
If not, you're clearly just picking and choosing to accept whatever fits your position.
Interesting, so - The Prince of Wales is a vocal critic of man-made climate change, but - The Prince of Wales is using homeopathy on animals at his organic farm to “go with the grain of nature”. - Does this mean that both theories are validated by the Prince's belief in both of them? Or is it possible to be right about one matter and wrong about another?If not, you're clearly just picking and choosing to accept whatever fits your position.
I only ask, because finding myself agreeing with a loon like Trump is the one thing that makes me worry about my own scepticism
Anyone listen to the most recent Monkey Cage on R4?
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course because as you know it's all done and dusted. But without a hint of irony they go on to discuss some failings in science, many of which the CC theory is guilty of and by the standards they set during the discussion means it should, at the very least, be highly scrutinized.
The best bit was discussing this guy's static universe theory (something like as the universe expands more mass is created). He was wrong, but they said his theory was a very good one because it provided definite, testable hypothesis. Stuff that could be confirmed by measurement when the instruments to do so came to fruition. This is something CC lacks.
Also stuff about peer review, how there are feedbacks which mean challenging work or stuff that goes against the grain is more likely to be rejected out of hand and never given proper thought and how this was wrong.
And stuff about very prominent scientists like Einstein and Darwin, getting things wrong. Not infallible. It's ok to be wrong they said (which goes for both sides of the argument).
Lots of good stuff really but the number of times the double standard bell rang when making comparison to climate science was quite funny. Could almost be drinking game.
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course because as you know it's all done and dusted. But without a hint of irony they go on to discuss some failings in science, many of which the CC theory is guilty of and by the standards they set during the discussion means it should, at the very least, be highly scrutinized.
The best bit was discussing this guy's static universe theory (something like as the universe expands more mass is created). He was wrong, but they said his theory was a very good one because it provided definite, testable hypothesis. Stuff that could be confirmed by measurement when the instruments to do so came to fruition. This is something CC lacks.
Also stuff about peer review, how there are feedbacks which mean challenging work or stuff that goes against the grain is more likely to be rejected out of hand and never given proper thought and how this was wrong.
And stuff about very prominent scientists like Einstein and Darwin, getting things wrong. Not infallible. It's ok to be wrong they said (which goes for both sides of the argument).
Lots of good stuff really but the number of times the double standard bell rang when making comparison to climate science was quite funny. Could almost be drinking game.
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Tuesday 24th January 17:52
An inconvenient review of Gore’s “An Inconvenient Sequel”
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-a...
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/climate-change-a...
durbster said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Anyone listen to the most recent Monkey Cage on R4?
...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
Am I wrong...?...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
No, it's all the scientists who appear on the Infinite Monkey Cage who are wrong.
Prof Cox knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy. That's his wheel house. He's about as qualified to discuss CG as anyone here. The others on the panel? two comedians and 2 scientists involved with evolution. Essentially then, no one on the panel carries more weight than the others or anyone here. I have a PhD myself, in a scientific discipline, I have access to journals, I can read papers and I have produced many theories and tested them with experiments. I am at the same level as any of those on the panel. I am free to come to my own conclusions based on what I read, which is exactly what they were championing on the show; that people who disagree shouldn't be shouted down.
Oh silly me, I forget, you can't do that when it comes to CC its believe it or you're a fktard.
Otispunkmeyer said:
durbster said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Anyone listen to the most recent Monkey Cage on R4?
...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
Am I wrong...?...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
No, it's all the scientists who appear on the Infinite Monkey Cage who are wrong.
Prof Cox knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy. That's his wheel house. He's about as qualified to discuss CG as anyone here. The others on the panel? two comedians and 2 scientists involved with evolution. Essentially then, no one on the panel carries more weight than the others or anyone here. I have a PhD myself, in a scientific discipline, I have access to journals, I can read papers and I have produced many theories and tested them with experiments. I am at the same level as any of those on the panel. I am free to come to my own conclusions based on what I read, which is exactly what they were championing on the show; that people who disagree shouldn't be shouted down.
Oh silly me, I forget, you can't do that when it comes to CC its believe it or you're a fktard.
There are several PHers contributing to this thread and other climate threads who are in a similar position but not, as far as I know, several among the faithful element. Just an observation no more no less.
Some eminent people are wittingly or unwittingly (but not sure how it's unwitting) sidestepping the very nature of scientific enquiry and behaving in a most unscientific manner. The science particularly of complex phenomena is never settled, skepticism is mandatory, data and methodology must be shared openly and in full, ideas must be tested to breaking point to see if they break rather than given political protection, when they're broken this means that new ideas are needed rather than parading the corpse of the dead ideas as though it's alive, scientists of a different view should be assisted in refuting your own work if required not shunned and vilified, and so on.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...
Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
mondeoman said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...
Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
The Gravy Train pauses...Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
Keep it up, Donny, let's see it come to a shuddering halt, crash and burn.
turbobloke said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
durbster said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Anyone listen to the most recent Monkey Cage on R4?
...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
Am I wrong...?...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
No, it's all the scientists who appear on the Infinite Monkey Cage who are wrong.
Prof Cox knows a lot about cosmology and astronomy. That's his wheel house. He's about as qualified to discuss CG as anyone here. The others on the panel? two comedians and 2 scientists involved with evolution. Essentially then, no one on the panel carries more weight than the others or anyone here. I have a PhD myself, in a scientific discipline, I have access to journals, I can read papers and I have produced many theories and tested them with experiments. I am at the same level as any of those on the panel. I am free to come to my own conclusions based on what I read, which is exactly what they were championing on the show; that people who disagree shouldn't be shouted down.
Oh silly me, I forget, you can't do that when it comes to CC its believe it or you're a fktard.
There are several PHers contributing to this thread and other climate threads who are in a similar position but not, as far as I know, several among the faithful element. Just an observation no more no less.
Some eminent people are wittingly or unwittingly (but not sure how it's unwitting) sidestepping the very nature of scientific enquiry and behaving in a most unscientific manner. The science particularly of complex phenomena is never settled, skepticism is mandatory, data and methodology must be shared openly and in full, ideas must be tested to breaking point to see if they break rather than given political protection, when they're broken this means that new ideas are needed rather than parading the corpse of the dead ideas as though it's alive, scientists of a different view should be assisted in refuting your own work if required not shunned and vilified, and so on.
Scientists should not be afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is how knowledge is progressed. There should be no shame in it or shaming of it. And that goes for all sides of the debate.
Perfect example... Those Italians who measured a neutrino travelling > c. Couldn't figure out why it happened, couldn't see any mistake. Openly offered the world to dig in and scrutinise it and the answer was found. That is how science is meant to work. We're all essentially on the same side here; advancing knowledge.
Otispunkmeyer said:
durbster said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
Anyone listen to the most recent Monkey Cage on R4?
...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
Am I wrong...?...
It was all about epic fails in science. CC wasn't discussed of course
No, it's all the scientists who appear on the Infinite Monkey Cage who are wrong.
When Principal Skinner realises his views are out of step with everyone else, he briefly ponders whether he should reconsider them, but instead decides everyone else must be wrong.
Your post reminded me of it. Maybe I should have added a smiley.
The reason the Monkey Cage didn't include AGW in their science fails podcast, is because it hasn't been proved to be wrong. That's the simple explanation.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Oh silly me, I forget, you can't do that when it comes to CC its believe it or you're a fktard.
I agree with most of what you've written about science here but this is unfair as I don't think I've ever said anything like this.And considering how anyone expressing the accepted science in this thread is met with intimidation and aggression by those unable to contribute meaningfully to the discussion, I don't see any justification for levelling that accusation at me.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Whats that quote about science being an acceptable level of ignorance?
Scientists should not be afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is how knowledge is progressed. There should be no shame in it or shaming of it. And that goes for all sides of the debate.
Absolutely. I've mentioned this before in a similar context. A senior chap in my dept who was overseeing my work was no racist but this was back in the day when p-c was barely a pain in anyone's ass and he put it like this: I was to imagine at all times that there would be, as there would be, an inscrutable oriental scientist sitting in their lab looking over my work to see if I'd omitted consideration of some Nth order effect, and as a result they might ask for (more) details which I was to provide in full, and if they were correct then it would be pointed out very clearly in the literature, at which point I was to offer my thanks and do a more thorough job next time.Scientists should not be afraid of being wrong. Being wrong is how knowledge is progressed. There should be no shame in it or shaming of it. And that goes for all sides of the debate.
Compare and contrast the basic message in that instructive fiction with Phil Jonea of UEA CRU, IPCC and Climategate infamy:
Phil Jones in reply to a request for data from Warwick Hughes said:
We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.
Otispunkmeyer said:
Perfect example... Those Italians who measured a neutrino travelling > c. Couldn't figure out why it happened, couldn't see any mistake. Openly offered the world to dig in and scrutinise it and the answer was found. That is how science is meant to work. We're all essentially on the same side here; advancing knowledge.
That is indeed a perfect example, unfortunately as many of us know it doesn't work quite like that in climate junkscience where alternative and indeed more credible interpretations are seen as heresy against doctrine committed by an enemy which must be quashed using foul means.So we get the IPCC High Priests discussing in emails how to synthesise negative peer reviews of good work because it could do some damage, while keeping other research out of the limelight even if it meant redefining what peer review is.
There's a word for people like that; surely it's not 'scientist' in the true sense of the word. Something went seriously wrong along the way and science was suborned as a result.
Maybe this could happen in another arena which suddenly finds itself garnering political influence and associated grant funding largesse, but we must hope not.
mondeoman said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...
Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
Whatever side of this argument you are on, how can anyone think that censoring Government departments is a welcome step?Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
Stopping a Government department releasing information to the public who have funded them is not an act of a normal, functioning democracy. It's the act of an Arab dictatorship.
It begs the question, what other aspects of science and education are going to be undermined by the White House?
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/d...
Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
Whatever side of this argument you are on, how can anyone think that censoring Government departments is a welcome step?Trump tells EPA to STFU, politely of course. BAU or a more blanket ban?
Get used to it - the smell has been around for a long time and it now looks as though the stables are being hosed down to get rid of the manure - long overdue, but manure is sticky and it may well take time.
Enjoy: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/2/new...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff