Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I read your article with interest but please explain how this means we have snow fall in Australia in December because I cannot see the corralation

---

I think it's called ad hoc hypotheses. Basically, in order to explain anomalies in observations ( it's getting colder instead of warmer).

Depending on your philosophy (perhaps even your politics) science progresses by attempting to accommodate anomalies in observations. In other words, we simply add ad hoc explanations to the current theory. It seems to have gotten to a stage where 'Global Warming' doesn't make much sense. The consensus now is that 'Climate Change' is a better explanation as a theory.

Opposed to this view are those who say they there are too many anomalies in the old theory and simply by changing the name is really re arranging deck chairs on the Titanic; the theory is sunk.

As to how science should progress is really up to your view of science. Is one, two, three, counter examples enough to scrap the theory altogether or should we continue adding hypothesises?

I think scientists involved in this area are loathed to give up their theories without a fight. The idea seems to be that eventually a theory will becomes so cumbersome because of all the additions that eventually it will have to be scraped in favour of a different theory, thus science undergoes a revolution in this area. I think what we are witnessing at the moment is science going through this process.

Just my opinion

Tut

Quote:

---

science progresses by attempting to accommodate anomalies in observations

---

Like Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that conveniently adjusted for the anomality of the "Medieval Warming "period ? (Mike's nature trick according the Climategate emails)

I'm seeing the logic in the solar cycle (we currently or are just coming off an extended solar minimum) hypothesis and the amt of volcanic ash in the stratosphere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Like Michael Mann's hockey stick graph that conveniently adjusted for the anomality of the "Medieval Warming "period ? (Mike's nature trick according the the Climategate emails)

---

Hi Tom,

Hope you had an enjoyable Christmas.

Yes, apparently even to that extent.

Regards

Tut

Thanks . And yours too.

I'd say Mann's trick given it's political importance was more than adjusting for anomality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

I think scientists involved in this area are loathed to give up their theories without a fight. The idea seems to be that eventually a theory will becomes so cumbersome because of all the additions that eventually it will have to be scraped in favour of a different theory, thus science undergoes a revolution in this area. I think what we are witnessing at the moment is science going through this process.

Just my opinion

Tut

---

So you want a new theory, here's one it's called volcanic progression. In this theory weather is subject to the amount of volcanic ash in the atmosphere. In years where there is not much volcanic activity we observe a warmer cycle while in those years where there is major volcanic activity we observe a colder cycle as is presently being experienced, couple this with solar maximum and solar minimums and you get longer periods of warming and cooling and extremes. Does this have anything to do with observed concentrations of CO2? well it might since trees grow less during the colder periods and thus less CO2 is absorbed and volcanos emit SO2 a greenhouse gas as well as CO2. This may explain some of the variability in CO2 concentrations being observed

Hello again,

When it's cold, and the scientists say it's because the world is warming, you don't believe it.

I don't know if the reason you DON'T believe it, is because you doubt SCIENCE, or because your politics says you should... When questioned earlier about it, you say that SOME science is more scientific than other science, or that SOME scientists are REAL scientists, but the climate guys are really just model makers and note takes... After all, what can you learn from modeling and taking notes??

Oh, and by the way, climate scientists (as opposed to REAL scientists) are WILLING to compromise their entire field of study, to LIE about their life's work, to become PROSTITUTES, if you will, in order to accomplish some yet unknown political objective... And not just ONE climate scientist is willing to do this - but ALL of 'em.

The right wing thinks their objective is the destruction of America as we know it - NOT the pursuit of science. I have NO idea WHY the right wing thinks that one branch of science wants to do that? I have a hard time believing that one entire field of scientific endeavor is corrupt, when OTHERS aren't. Personally, I don't even see scientists as political creatures.. You do.

But, the question I have is this: Do you doubt your personal scientist, your family physician, when HE tells you his conclusions? Why do you believe HIS science, and why do you think HIS science is different than others?

excon

I'll ask you the same thing . What do you think of the scientists in the "greedy corrupt" pharmaceutical industry ? What about those scientists that defended tobacco smoke ?
You think scientists can't be bought ?
The best answer I have to your question is that most of the top climate scientists have a vested financial interest in their hypothesis... enough so that when research doesn't match their preconceived conclusion the evidence gets ginned .
The climategate emails already prove this is so .They involve all the leaders in the field... ALL of them .
The climategate emails also showed there was a financial penalty to pay for being a skeptic .

Now that the truth has been exposed you see more and more skeptics who have come out and proclaimed their true views . I have given links to some prominent ones .

As for my doctor ? How do I know if a pharmaceutical detailer has influenced the diagnosis and prescription ? Do you not get 2nd opinions before major decisions are made about your health ? Or are you so trusting to think your doctor the scientist is infallible ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I'll ask you the same thing . What do you think of the scientists in the "greedy corrupt" pharmaceutical industry ? What about those scientists that defended tobacco smoke ? You think scientists can't be bought ?

---

Hello again, tom:

As an individual - YES! Can the ENTIRE FIELD be bought?? Are you kidding?? Al Gore has THAT much money?? Dude! The question IS ridiculous on it's face.

excon

I did not say all of them... primarily the consensus scientists. What do you think are the chances that a skeptic is hired by the Universities that fund the research or get government grants to fund the research of proponents ?

Al Gore is not the major mover at this point. The swill that East Anglia and others passed as consensus made it into the IPCC reports and that is what is moving the consensus.
And what the emails from East Anglia proved is that there was a concerted effort to black ball skeptics research;specifically to prevent it's publication in peer reviewed journals . That is an inconvenient and indesputable truth.

Ex I don't subscribe to the majority is always right theory. Quite often the majority is misled by a small and virilent minority and I think this is where the climate change debate has taken us. Look, my position is this, climate change has been observed. What I have observed is in recent years it has been colder rather than warmer and there has been seasonal change. Could I match this with the theory that CO2 emissions are causing the climate to become warmer, not really, other factors have to be involved. What I have observed is that volcanic activity is followed by periods of cold weather, so a climate model that is just based on the volume of CO2 emissions is flawed, because there is no way to predict the level of volcanic activity. Similarly the solar cycle has an effect on world temperatures, these cycles are somewhat predictable but observations haven't been taken for long enough to be sure. More uncertainty.

So there is too much uncertainly to accept the predictions which have been shown to be flawed in a number of aspects. Is CO2 a factor? It may well be, but so are a number of other gases. What I understand is this. If we stopped all emissions of CO2 immediately there would be no change in predicted temperature rise for 100 years even though CO2 doesn't last that long. What then do we think we are achieving by lowering emissions by 5%? 15%? 25%? 50 %? So you see I'm not refuting the science, but I am refuting the conclusions drawn by some people including the scientists. Some scientists tell us we are in an interglacial warming period, should we ignore them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So there is too much uncertainly to accept the predictions which have been shown to be flawed in a number of aspects.

---

Hello again, clete:

I'm not a scientist. Therefore the data means something different to them, than it would to a lay person... You're free to make conclusions on it. Just don't try to convince me they're "scientific" conclusions...

If you been reading me, this discussion is totally beside the point in any case... Whether climate change is real or NOT, our shortage of oil IS real.. Yeah, yeah, yeah.. I know you deny that too.. Irrespective of HOW much we have left or not, we ARE going to run out SOME DAY... Consequently, if we wish to maintain our cushy lifestyle, we're going to have to come up with an alternative sometime or other... Yeah, yeah, yeah... I've heard you say that there is NO technology that will replace oil, so we should just WAIT till it comes along...

I say, that we HAVE the resources to solve our problem TODAY, if we have the balls to do it. We actually NEED to do it, but our politicians are so involved with their petty battles, that they're not willing to make the hard choices that will actually SAVE this country.

I've outlined them before... Solar, nuclear, geothermal, wind, the tides, and others in combination will work.. It will STOP all the money we're sending to our enemy's. It'll create millions of jobs right here in America. And, oh yeah. It'll END the climate problem IF there is one. But, it's academic...

NONE of that has ANY thing to do with science or East Anglia.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I say, that we HAVE the resources to solve our problem TODAY, if we have the balls to do it. We actually NEED to do it, but our politicians are so involved with their petty battles, that they're not willing to make the hard choices that will actually SAVE this country.

---

Ex no one denies that long term we must find alternatives, but they need to be alternatives that don't cause as many problems as they solve. So far only nuclear has demonstrated that potential, many of the others are hardly more than experiemental. You say you have an oil shortage but actually what you have is an unwillingness to exploit the resources you possess. Strategically it may be that you should keep it in the ground and buy it for the time being, even as you say; from your enemies. What history tells us is our enemy today may be our friend tomorrow. Don't make the silly mistake as was done with Japan of creating enemies.

What will save your country is to recognise that you cannot continue to squander the Earth's resources on your life style. You were once an educated nation but today you seem to be incrediably niaive and lacking in understanding with tremendous problems in looking after your own population.
We all face the problem of the population bomb with the final solution one we don't want to contemplate

Quote:

---

Philology usually is a good barometer of ideology: when global warming became climate change and now is evolving to “climate chaos,” you can see a case study in deductive thinking, as symptoms are fudged to conform to a preexisting diagnosis. Circular reasoning also is characteristic: we convince the coal-devouring and nuclear-producing Chinese that there is a soon to be big (Western-subsidized) global market for wind turbines and solar panels, given the spread of Gorism among Western elites and grandees, then we frighten Americans that the Chinese will soon capture the entire “green” market that we fostered unless we … (fill in the cap and trade / green subsidy-grant blanks).

---

Works and Days How Did All That Happen?

Quote:

---

We all face the problem of the population bomb with the final solution one we don't want to contemplate

---

And your Malthusian final solution is..?

Quote:

---

You say you have an oil shortage but actually what you have is an unwillingness to exploit the resources you possess.

---

Yup We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas among other resources like coal. We have a luddite aversion to nuclear power that make no sense. ;and yes ,the use of sensible renewables have their place on a regional basis... and exploration of futuristic energy supplies need to be funded... all hands on deck..

Quote:

---

What will save your country is to recognise that you cannot continue to squander the Earth's resources on your life style.

---

Wrong don't think country ,think global... the rest of the world wants to have the life style of developed nations... and the information age is going to require greater energy production... all hands on deck .


BTW... The Manatees in Florida are not fond of this cool weather . Evidently they are taking refuge in the heated discharges of the Florida power stations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12087311
It reminds me of the stories I have read about the Caribou preferring to gather near the Alaskan pipeline . In the winter it provides warmth ;in the summer ,protection from mosquitos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

It reminds me of the stories I have read about the Caribou prefering to gather near the Alaskan pipeline . In the winter it provides warmth ;in the summer ,protection from mosquitos.

---

Hello tom:

Yeah, pipelines are good for the animals.

excon

It is... it was built tall enough so it had no disruption on migration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Works and Days How Did All That Happen?

---

Hi Tom,

Interesting article:"Philology is usually a good barometer for ideology" . In which era of history?

I was also wondering that if 'climate chaos' is becoming a symptom of our society how do we 'fudge' things which are characterized as chaotic in a preexisting diagnosis.

I would also say that the statement in relation to circular reasoning has far too many ambiguous terms to be considered an example of any type of reasoning, circular or otherwise. e.g. 'Gorism' 'elites', 'green market'

Regards

Tut

Hello tom:

I read the article too... It seems the writer, like you, looks around, see's how cold it is, and concludes that global warming is a hoax.

I hafta ask, do you conclude after looking around, and seeing that things don't fall off the earth, and it looks flat, that the roundness of the planet is greatly exaggerated??

It also looks like the sun goes around the earth... What's up with that?

excon

Ex science proved the things you cite as fact. When science proves that cold means it's warming I'll be convinced .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

When science proves that cold means it's warming I'll be convinced .

---

Hello again, tom:

Nahh, you won't.. You run your science through your religious and political filters first. You embrace ID. There is nothing more to be said.

excon

I don't " embrace " ID . I have told you plenty times that I am fully on board with the hypothesis of evolution. I do not see a conflict between the scientific hypothesis of evolution and the religious and philosophical thesis of Intelligent Design. You do because your own 'faith' tells you something else.

Hello again, tom:

You see NO conflict between ID and evolution, yet the world CAN'T be warming if it's cold outside.

Dude!

excon

Yeah I guess it could if AGW was being promoted as a philosophical concept . But presumably there is science behind it... no matter how fabricated that science is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I don't " embrace " ID . I have told you plenty times that I am fully on board with the hypothesis of evolution. I do not see a conflict between the scientific hypothesis of evolution and the religious and philosophical thesis of Intelligent Design. You do because your own 'faith' tells you something else.

---

Theory. Theory of evolution.

:p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

theory. theory of evolution.

---

Hello Cappy:

Well, there you go, Cappy. It's a THEORY. To science deniers, the word "theory" CONFIRMS their worst suspicions.. How can it be real, they ask, if people are only theorizing about it?? They don't quite understand the rigors of scientific theory, as opposed to their own theory's, such as it always rains on the last day of the month.

excon

The process is theory for sure . What is cool about science (I am not a denier by any means and to call me such is a strawman ) is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along with groundbreaking research . As Ex likes to point out ;at one time consensus science said the earth was flat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

the process is theory for sure . What is cool about science (I am not a denier by any means and to call me such is a strawman ) is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along with groundbreaking research . As Ex likes to point out ;at one time consensus science said the earth was flat.

---

Precisely! Another embarrassing knee-slapper of history: At one time consensus was that there was a man in the sky that made everything :)

Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think developing green technologies is a bad idea/poor use of money?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

is that theories are constantly modified and eventually disproved when the next scientist comes along

---

Hello again, tom:

So, the thing to do when science tells us something, is to wait until what they told us is debunked, as it surly will be... Dude!

If I lived in a word that was as UNCOUNTONABLE as yours is, I'd turn to God too.

excon

I'm not opposed to green tech per se .I think if there is a market for them ,then development will surely follow. I am ,for instance ,a huge supporter of the private pursuits of biomass conversion of algae.

I am not convinced however that that so called green energy will ever satisfy more than a small portion of the energy needs of this century .

There are also things that go into "green technology " that is not as environmentally friendly as some claim. As an example ;there is still a lot of mining involved in the extraction of rare earth minerals used in so called renewable sources like wind . Not only is there an environmental impact ;but we are FAR from energy independent when we use these minerals... mostly mined in China.

I have also spent a lot of time on these boards on the negative effects of corn ethanol for a number of reasons . Green is not the panacea it is portrayed to be . Is it part of the solution ;probably... But we are a long ways away from replacing carbon based resources (especially since we are afraid of nuclear) .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

So, the thing to do when science tells us something, is to wait until what they told us is debunked, as it surly will be... Dude!

If I lived in a word that was as UNCOUNTONABLE as yours is, I'd turn to God too.

excon

---

You do

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I am not convinced however that that so called green energy will ever satisfy more than a small portion of the energy needs of this century .

---

Hello again, tom:

I saw a documentary recently on the subject. I WISH I could remember which one so I could refer you.. I'm sure it was on one of those namby pamby left wing channels like PBS.. In any case, they profiled a solar electric plant in the southwest... It was mirrors that concentrated the sun on an oil tank.. It heated the oil, which boiled some water, made steam and ran turbines...

It was about a 700 acre plant. He said that if we built another one in the desert in a square 90 miles on a side, it would take care of the entire COUNTRY'S electricity needs. I don't know why that WOULDN'T be true.. It's simple math. Yeah, on cloudy days, we can burn some of that natural gas we've got an abundance of.

I say again, we can solve the problem TOMORROW. Yes, we're going to have to build a few more electric cars. That ain't bad.

excon

This debate has turned Quixotic

Quote:

---

It was about a 700 acre plant. He said that if we built another one in the desert in a square 90 miles on a side, it would take care of the entire COUNTRY'S electricity needs.

---

I am somewhat familiar with the Mojave Desert solar plants. They are already large... huge actually ;and they generate a combined 354 megawatts . 3 Mile Island Nuclear plant alone generates 802 megawatts.

I don't dispute his claim about the generation... but you do lose so much in transport to population centers that it makes his solution problematic .That is true with the hydro-electric generation in Niagra ;that is true with T Boone's windmills in Texas ;and it is true in solar power also.

I already said renewables can supplement regional supplies and they are doing so currently. Everything generated in NY must be added to the grid by law. But NY still relies heavily on nuclear,hydro ,and gas .
You know what I've said... all hands on deck. Then perhaps there will be a breakthrough.

Tom the reality of renewables is that they can be located in a distributed manner so as to minimise transport losses and costs, to concentrate production in one massive installation is just business as usual, not a green solution. What ex ignores is the logistics of creating this nirvana of green solar production. We know that here in Australia we have the space and climate to create a massive solar plant also that could generate enough electricity to power the nation but I don't see it happening because the infurstructure needed in distribution is massive, far beyond what is provided by the existing grid

Hello again,

So, the glass is half empty, huh? Nahhh.. If 90 miles square in Arizona is too far away from the population centers, how about one 10 mile square plant in each of the sunbelt states?

That doesn't seem like such a difficult solution.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again,

So, the glass is half empty, huh? Nahhh.. If 90 miles square in Arizona is too far away from the population centers, how about one 10 mile square plant in each of the sunbelt states?

That doesn't seem like such a difficult solution.

excon

---

Now you are starting to think, Ex, how about a plant the right size to power a city right outside the city so the footprint doesn't have to be large and the distribution costs are low. Still have to overcome the problem of how to power the city at night but the daytime peaks are taken care of. And you know with the right kind of Solar it doesn't have to be outside the city, it can be on the roof.

But, yes, the glass is half empty because it isn't a complete solution, just a part of the moasic. This is the problem, no one renewable technology offers a complete solution. Wave power has the greatest potential but it still leaves out the inland, Hot rocks are good too but in limited supply, so back to nuclear for base load without CO2

Hello again, clete:

We are saying the same thing... It's a combination of technologies, and the solution is available TODAY if only we'd just do it. It's not a technological problem. It's a political problem...

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

We are saying the same thing... It's a combination of technologies, and the solution is available TODAY if only we'd just do it. It's not a technological problem. It's a political problem...

excon

---

Hi Ex there is no political will to make revolutionary changes which could have a nasty backlash. It's a matter of a short term political cycle and the need for long term decisions. There has been a lot of talk about cap and trade, restrictions, carbon price, renewables, but actually progress has been very slow. When we really start to see people being employed in the green industries the pace will pick up but until then no one wants to pay the bill. I know that here various initiatives have staved off the building of new coal fired generation but the gun is now at our head, we either do it or head into third world supply conditions. We haven't used the nuclear option so even if we started today we will hit the wall in about two years. We blame the delay in making clear targets and moving legislation forward. The chickens are roosting in the legislature

Show me the numbers that says a scale up in production of green tech is feasible "today" . You can't . At best there is a transition period required that will take decades at a time where world wide energy demand is exploding .

Clete you were right when you called the discussion Quixotic. It begins with this fantasy our political leaders have that there is a shut off switch from the carbon based fuel system to immediate transition into "green renewables" .
Better to invest in technology we know with the goal of making emissions as clean as possible. It was done when sulfer dioxide was the issue.The internal combustion engine burns much cleaner than it did in the 1960s. Tweeking known energy technology would give us greater short term benefits and the time to bridge the gap to alternatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

show me the numbers that says a scale up in production of green tech is feasable "today" . You can't . At best there is a transition period required that will take decades at a time where world wide energy demand is exploding .

Clete you were right when you called the discussion Quixotic. It begins with this fantasy our political leaders have that there is a shut off switch from the carbon based fuel system to immediate transition into "green renewables" .
Better to invest in technology we know with the goal of making emissions as clean as possible. It was done when sulfer dioxide was the issue.The internal combustion engine burns much cleaner than it did in the 1960s. Tweeking known energy technology would give us greater short term benefits and the time to bridge the gap to alternatives.

---

You know Tom that they can't because most of these technologies are reliant on the supply of rare earths, if we scale them up we place ourselves in a catch 22, and even if one or two nations achieved the goal, the rest of us will be out in the cold. Take the electric car, a dream that relies on lithium. OK for a few million cars but to have the world run on electric cars, a dream. Wind technology generation also relies on rare earths so we can only scale that up so far. We have to find alternatives to electrical energy to overcome the problem and are we even researching that?

We have to realise that the very concepts behind our civilization, such as endless population growth, individual transport, detached dwellings, infinate instantaneous personal communications, transportation of foodstuffs and manufactures from one end of the world to the other have to be challenged and changed. The day of the free lunch is over.There is no time to adapt, the way we are behaving we will still be debating what to do in fifty years, just as we have for the last twenty