The Future of Power Generation in Great Britain
Discussion
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Prove him wrong then 
Why?
You run backwards and forwards between the threads disparaging perceived wisdom from scientists so it's only right that you be asked to substantiate your background in these fields.
Or simply wait 5 minutes for the cavalry to arrive and bail you out with reams of waffle.
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Prove him wrong then
Why?You run backwards and forwards between the threads disparaging perceived wisdom from scientists so it's only right that you be asked to substantiate your background in these fields.
LoonyTunes said:
I'm afraid he has an entirely valid point.
He might. He might not. I have worked with scientists for more than 30 years, and I don't hold them in quite the same state of reverential admiration that some do. A scientist will prove what you pay him to prove when dealing with anything more than 2+2=4. As far as I can tell, what we have in climate science (leaving aside some of the more extreme positions on both ends of the debate) is a consensus that the climate is changing. What is in contention is the nature of the primary driver of that change.
One camp believes that the change is primarily man made
One camp believes that man is an incidental contributor to a change process that is infinitely more complex than even the most sophisticated climate models can ever hope to replicate.
The former makes its case by assertion and by manipulating data in ways that serve to prove its point. It is well funded and the scientists are (arguably) doing what they are being paid to do.
The latter is looking at raw data and has concluded that the former is wrong.
My issue with the former is that if the data is as clear cut as they make out, why the need to cheat so much? Moreover, if the former are so confident of their position, why do they fail to answer any reasonable questioning with anything other than assertions, insults or derogatory ad homs?
I learned early on when working with scientists that if they could not explain the concept in simple terms to a non expert it was almost always because they didn't actually understand the concept themselves.
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Prove him wrong then
Why?I can’t do that myself but it doesn’t matter because I’m not saying science and scientific institutions are all wrong or on the take etc.
Simply put, if you’re sure we’re seeing the biggest fraud in the history of science, prove it and change the consensus like the stress causes ulcer bloke did.
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Prove him wrong then
Why?You run backwards and forwards between the threads disparaging perceived wisdom from scientists so it's only right that you be asked to substantiate your background in these fields.
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Prove him wrong then
Why?I can’t do that myself but it doesn’t matter because I’m not saying science and scientific institutions are all wrong or on the take etc.
Simply put, if you’re sure we’re seeing the biggest fraud in the history of science, prove it and change the consensus like the stress causes ulcer bloke did.
And still it goes on.
andymadmak said:
The former makes its case by assertion and by manipulating data in ways that serve to prove its point. It is well funded and the scientists are (arguably) doing what they are being paid to do.
The latter is looking at raw data and has concluded that the former is wrong.
That’s not really a fair assessment and sounds very biased. The latter is looking at raw data and has concluded that the former is wrong.
The former aren’t all data manipulating cheats influenced by money. They’re the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution on the planet.
The later is also well funded and some are certainly also manipulating data but haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus.
History is full of events where people have overturned the scientific consensus. They do it with evidence though. Do you think it’s not possible to do here because science is somehow now broken?
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
Prove him wrong then
Why?You run backwards and forwards between the threads disparaging perceived wisdom from scientists so it's only right that you be asked to substantiate your background in these fields.
LoonyTunes said:
I'm afraid he has an entirely valid point.
Meme time again
Within reason they can be trusted, scientists are not infallible, but competition and peer review does help catch mistakes. Few sciences are so publically contentious as climate science though, some medical research possibly as this too is sometimes based heavily on statistics rather than repeatable experiment.Meme time again
It is difficult to justify most renewables without adding in a CO2 reduction benefit and nuclear FUD, for the UK at least, though for as and when charging of EVs or flexible industrial processes where ultra cheap power outweighs the cost of standing time it might work. In other countries the availability, support capabilities and requirements could have different outcomes.
Viable hydrogen, ammonia and methane production processes to store energy would help, depends if they happen before fusion of course...
LoonyTunes said:
It's not a discussion - it's a simple stating of your background. You aren't expected to leave your name or anything else that might identify you.
And by so doing, my credibility and hence any basis of discussion that I may hold will be increased?If you must know - I am a fully trained (and qualified) poodle pedicurist!
Ali G said:
And by so doing, my credibility and hence any basis of discussion that I may hold will be increased?
If you’re stating that you know scientists are wrong and involved in a global deception, having some background in the subject, or if not that, some evidence, probably helps, wouldn’t you say?El stovey said:
That’s not really a fair assessment and sounds very biased.
The former aren’t all data manipulating cheats influenced by money. They’re the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution on the planet.
The later is also well funded and some are certainly also manipulating data but haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus.
History is full of events where people have overturned the scientific consensus. They do it with evidence though. Do you think it’s not possible to do here because science is somehow now broken?
Koch Industries $103mThe former aren’t all data manipulating cheats influenced by money. They’re the vast majority of scientists and every scientific institution on the planet.
The later is also well funded and some are certainly also manipulating data but haven’t managed to change the scientific consensus.
History is full of events where people have overturned the scientific consensus. They do it with evidence though. Do you think it’s not possible to do here because science is somehow now broken?
ExxonMobil etc
Ali G said:
LoonyTunes said:
It's not a discussion - it's a simple stating of your background. You aren't expected to leave your name or anything else that might identify you.
And by so doing, my credibility and hence any basis of discussion that I may hold will be increased?If you must know - I am a fully trained (and qualified) poodle pedicurist!
The onus is on those who propose AGW to present irrefutable, comprehensive data.
Those who refute AGW should merely be required to undermine the data.
Climategate confirms that the data is not irrefutable and is not comprehensive, Climategate also confirms that an influential proportion of those who propose AGW are not to be trusted.
As for trusting "experts" wrt climate, the previous mob of climate "experts" predicted an ice-age.
Those who refute AGW should merely be required to undermine the data.
Climategate confirms that the data is not irrefutable and is not comprehensive, Climategate also confirms that an influential proportion of those who propose AGW are not to be trusted.
As for trusting "experts" wrt climate, the previous mob of climate "experts" predicted an ice-age.
El stovey said:
Ali G said:
And by so doing, my credibility and hence any basis of discussion that I may hold will be increased?
If you’re stating that you know scientists are wrong and involved in a global deception, having some background in the subject, or if not that, some evidence, probably helps, wouldn’t you say?Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
Ali G said:
The credibility that science provides is via the scientific method - which is independent of egos and (with hope) the monstrous egos of politicians.
Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
How do you test AGW? The scientific method requires the ability to at least run measurements that can disprove the hypothesis if it is incorrect.Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
The credibility that science provides is via the scientific method - which is independent of egos and (with hope) the monstrous egos of politicians.
Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
How do you test AGW? The scientific method requires the ability to at least run measurements that can disprove the hypothesis if it is incorrect.Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
Along the lines of - X amount of additional CO2 will raise temperatures by Y
Error bars are permitted - but not to the extent that anything goes!
Ali G said:
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
The credibility that science provides is via the scientific method - which is independent of egos and (with hope) the monstrous egos of politicians.
Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
How do you test AGW? The scientific method requires the ability to at least run measurements that can disprove the hypothesis if it is incorrect.Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
Along the lines of - X amount of additional CO2 will raise temperatures by Y
Error bars are permitted - but not to the extent that anything goes!
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
Toltec said:
Ali G said:
The credibility that science provides is via the scientific method - which is independent of egos and (with hope) the monstrous egos of politicians.
Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
How do you test AGW? The scientific method requires the ability to at least run measurements that can disprove the hypothesis if it is incorrect.Can we say, with confidence, that the AGW hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method?
No we cannot - and I would suggest that evidence is to the contrary.
Along the lines of - X amount of additional CO2 will raise temperatures by Y
Error bars are permitted - but not to the extent that anything goes!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff