Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
This story seems to the be the result of political decisions to employ geothermal heating technology for some small towns in Germany.
It's an interesting idea often mentioned as a solid and proven source of heat (and therefore CO2 reduction) when discussing AGW mitigation.
It's an example of scientifically backed technological solutions to possible problems that gain so much support they seem to be accepted without question .
A bit like the diesel car fiasco.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511...
Stories like these - and there seem to be an endless supply across the broad spectrum of science - are part of the reason that we should be very clear about having a purely Political angle on the policies our "lawmakers" discuss and adopt.
They are the ones, at one level or another, who create and enact policy decisions without understanding the potential consequences well enough to ask the right questions or introduce appropriate protections. Scientists can make mistakes - even en masse - and there are few if any ways to correct them in many cases.
You have to get the policy and the process for developing the results from it at an early stage. Preferably not after the concept has been widely deployed and people realise there is no easy (or even obvious) solution.
ETA.
Probably worth pointing out that the story above is not exactly new.
http://www.dw.com/en/green-good-intentions-cause-c...
Still, the drillers have settled and there is still no solution it seems 8 years later.
More: Technical analysis.
https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/carsologica/article/downlo...
It's an interesting idea often mentioned as a solid and proven source of heat (and therefore CO2 reduction) when discussing AGW mitigation.
It's an example of scientifically backed technological solutions to possible problems that gain so much support they seem to be accepted without question .
A bit like the diesel car fiasco.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-511...
Stories like these - and there seem to be an endless supply across the broad spectrum of science - are part of the reason that we should be very clear about having a purely Political angle on the policies our "lawmakers" discuss and adopt.
They are the ones, at one level or another, who create and enact policy decisions without understanding the potential consequences well enough to ask the right questions or introduce appropriate protections. Scientists can make mistakes - even en masse - and there are few if any ways to correct them in many cases.
You have to get the policy and the process for developing the results from it at an early stage. Preferably not after the concept has been widely deployed and people realise there is no easy (or even obvious) solution.
ETA.
Probably worth pointing out that the story above is not exactly new.
http://www.dw.com/en/green-good-intentions-cause-c...
Still, the drillers have settled and there is still no solution it seems 8 years later.
More: Technical analysis.
https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/carsologica/article/downlo...
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 23 November 20:40
Edited by LongQ on Thursday 23 November 20:46
dickymint said:
Barbecue 
thought they got banned just after log burners were!!
Burning logs is carbon-neutral, according to the last memo I received on the matter. thought they got banned just after log burners were!!Mind you, cutting down American forests, pelletising the wood, shipping it across the Atlantic and using it to fuel power stations is also AGW-friendly, somehow. I expect there is a model and some peer-reviewed papers somewhere which explain it all.
El Guapo said:
dickymint said:
Barbecue thought they got banned just after log burners were!!
Burning logs is carbon-neutral, according to the last memo I received on the matter. thought they got banned just after log burners were!!Mind you, cutting down American forests, pelletising the wood, shipping it across the Atlantic and using it to fuel power stations is also AGW-friendly, somehow. I expect there is a model and some peer-reviewed papers somewhere which explain it all.
Not that carbon has anything much to do with the pertinent reasons for eliminating the use of log burners in heavily built up areas.
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the f
k ups these idiots have managed in the past.
Mann Of Warming is on a loser at the moment. It's not at all certain there's any appetite for yet more exposure of other junk and bunk.k ups these idiots have managed in the past.http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-cou...
http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-...
Still not disclosing data in keeping with the unscientific nature of agw junkscience. Mann and Jones have cornered the market in 'secret' data based on public funding while causing major directional errors in public policy.
The main point is however another diversion; no credible scientific evidence exists - no TOA anthropogenic radiative imbalance, no visible causal human signal in LTT (temperature) data - so a believer wants courtroom opinions to substitute as scientific evidence when there's no equivalence.
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the fk ups these idiots have managed in the past.
How does a court make any decision?k ups these idiots have managed in the past.My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the fk ups these idiots have managed in the past.
How does a court make any decision?k ups these idiots have managed in the past.My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
zygalski said:
How does a court make any decision?
My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
Is it a particle or a wave?My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
This should be already known and legislature in place to ensure proper treatment.
Dumbass
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the fk ups these idiots have managed in the past.
How does a court make any decision?k ups these idiots have managed in the past.My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
HairyPoppins said:
They appear more than willing to quote a court where Michael Mann is concerned though..."one of these geriatric old farts" becomes a bastion of all that is reasonable and right all of a sudden.
Red teaming in support of the scientific method may happen.But this is above your ability grade.
Ali G said:
HairyPoppins said:
They appear more than willing to quote a court where Michael Mann is concerned though..."one of these geriatric old farts" becomes a bastion of all that is reasonable and right all of a sudden.
Red teaming in support of the scientific method may happen.But this is above your ability grade.
HairyPoppins said:
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the fk ups these idiots have managed in the past.
How does a court make any decision?k ups these idiots have managed in the past.My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
Does it not bother you that one of the biggest promoters and best known scientists at the heart of the AGW scare refuses to allow his data to be examined in court? Surely he should relish the chance to show, once and for all, how right he is in front of the world.
Some interesting parallels with the latest environmental topic, glyphosate herbicide.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-repor...
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/acc_loves_kat...
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-repor...
https://usrtk.org/our-investigations/acc_loves_kat...
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the fk ups these idiots have managed in the past.
The case for AGW denial has been made in court in the United States by Peabody.k ups these idiots have managed in the past.They even called in some of this thread's favourite bloggers - the ones we're told to believe over the peer reviewed science.
They lost, obviously.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-co...
Article said:
A Minnesota judge found the preponderance of evidence did not favor coal industry climate science denial
zygalski said:
robinessex said:
I wish Ziggy would shut up about going to court. Just what knowledge would one of these geriatric old farts with wig on, called a Judge, know, to produce any credible decision. Just look up ‘miscarriages of justice’, to see the fk ups these idiots have managed in the past.
How does a court make any decision?k ups these idiots have managed in the past.My understanding is expert witnesses & evidence.
Such a shame that nobody on the energy business or any other organisation is adversely affected by AGW legislation, eh?
Or perhaps they don't have sound evidence that AGW is a sham.
Miscarriage of justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justi...
:cough:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff