[paraclete]

The fact is, we ARE going to make that transition, whether you like it or not, or we'll wind up on the trash heap of history.

excon

To listen to you this is the trash heap of history with all the trash we are putting in the atmosphere. Why don't you make up your mind. Sure there will be a new world out there full of windmills and solar cells and electric cars all built on unsustainable rare Earths technology but haven't you stopped to think that that is the same paradigm we have now, same wastefull use of energy, unchecked growth, mining resources. You preach renewables and change but you want what the existing technology provides. You want the existing technology to be perpetuated and just the energy source changed.There is no free lunch.

You see Ex I'm not against change, but it has to be real change not a political papering over of the problems like the Kyoto protocol, and the Cancun accords.

[excon]

You see Ex I'm not against change, but it has to be real change not a political papering over of the problems like the Kyoto protocol, and the Cancun accords.

Hello again, clete:

I haven't mentioned those things at all. I don't even know what they are other than political gobbeldy gook. My solutions AREN'T political or partisan.. They're American business solutions. They don't involve the world. They involve us, and what WE do.

It's true. I don't buy into your "can't do" philosophy. I'm an AMERICAN, after all. We can do anything.

In fact, it's politics that are STOPPING it - YOUR politics.

excon

[paraclete]

In fact, it's politics that are STOPPING it - YOUR politics.

excon

No Ex it is american politics that is stopping it, because of all those who have the same attitude you do, they want their cushy lifestyle. Did america embrace Kyoto, no ultimately they were the single holdout, so don't preach american business to me, I know the reality of it. The reality that you won't show the leadership you claim, you are leading us all into oblivion, that is what your can't do attitude has achieved and you accuse us of can't do. We have achieved our Kyoto obligations

[tomder55]

Tut ,yes there was a time when consensus science said the earth was flat. To Crichton's point ;it indeed took one scientist to challenge consensus thinking.

Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton

Clete your nation is one of the leading coal exporters . Hard to make that claim that you are on board.
Not that it's wrong. There were good reasons for our rejection of Kyoto .

But don't you worry. The SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA ,instructed the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide pose (or potentially pose) a danger to human health and safety under the Clean Air Act. In December 2009 the agency determined they were a danger,and gave itself the green light to issue rules cutting CO2. This in turn opened the door for the Obots through our EPA to aggressively regulate CO2 even though Congress didn't pass Cap and Tax or ratify Kyoto.

We will be forced to comply by fiat ,and then watch Americans howl about the impact on their lifestyle.

[TUT317]

Tut ,yes there was a time when consensus science said the earth was flat. To Crichton's point ;it indeed took one scientist to challenge concensus thinking.

Yes, but we have to have a consensus so one scientist can challenge the consensus thinking. This is the point that eluded Karl Popper ( my earlier web page reference).

Crichton is an anti-realist when it comes to science. Drake and Sagan are realists when it comes to science. Anti-realism may sound like it has negative connotations, but it is not the case when it comes to science.

The SETI programme and the Drake Equation are a good examples of the anti-realist criticism. In a nutshell,if it cannot be verified then it doesn't exist. I suppose we could say scientific realism came about as a reaction to the dominant anti-realist position prior WW11. Basically,scientific realists would say that such things as the Drake Equation ( non-observable entities) should be given the same status as non-observables. This is certainly the case when it comes to such things as String Theory.

Science like politics moves on. As I said before, it is unrealistic to think that we can get back to some 'pure' form of science. In other words, scientific realism is politically tainted while the anti- realist position is free of politics. Crichton is as political as the next scientist.

Tut

[paraclete]

Clete your nation is one of the leading coal exporters . Hard to make that claim that you are on board.
Not that it's wrong. .

No Tom we are also a chief miner of uranium but on board with non proliferation. Like the communists who will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself and iare successfully doing it, we will sell the last communist the coal to choke himself and if you have been to China you know what I mean.

CO2 is not pollution that is a consensus myth and a northern hemisphere problem.

[paraclete]

Ex you keep talking about scientic consensus associated with climate change but I don't think you understand the definition of what you are talking about. Here is a definition

Climate change is a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods that range from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in the average weather conditions or a change in the distribution of weather events with respect to an average, for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events. Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth.

In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as global warming or anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Some important words here

long term

average weather conditions

changes in modern climate

So you see there is a "presumed consensus" about changes to "average weather conditions" in the short term context of "modern" climate. Are you confused yet?

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

You don't know when to stop, do you?? A person who falls for bunk called Intelligent Design has NO business lecturing anybody about science...

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

You don't know when to stop, do you??? A person who falls for bunk called Intelligent Design has NO business lecturing anybody about science...

excon

Ex, when have I said anything about intelligent design? In fact, you are an example of why the argument might be flawed, but seriously, Ex, you highjacked my thread and turned it into an argument about climate change and you think I should lie down. To take us back to the original discussion, we were talking about large scale flooding, which incidentally might not be as large as has been previously observed, and so cannot be blamed on climate change. So we have a bit of a problem. How should we define this problem?
In terms of the weather of "modern climate" we could say the climate has changed because such floods haven't been observed for fifty years, but records tell us this is not unusual and might happen on "average" every fifty years. The consensus at the moment is that it is wet in Queensland and I haven't heard a denier anywhere. Why? Because the facts support the idea even though there may be parts of Queensland where it is not wet

[excon]

So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?

Ex, you highjacked my thread and turned it into an argument about climate change and you think I should lie down.

Hello again, clete:

No, I think you should pay attention.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

No, I think you should pay attention.

excon

I do pay attention, Ex, I listen to arguments from both sides and on balance I have to say that certain assertions remain unproven both in the political arena and in the debate on climate change

A long time ago a wise man said $hit happens and what we have is the evidence of it

[paraclete]

Sorry, try..

http://academic.evergreen.edu/curric...mpa/Fuller.pdf

Thanks Tut I particularly like the argument

far too many philosophers of science today are “underlabourers” for the scientific establishment who justify the power and authority of modern big science as opposed to holding up its practice to the highest possible ethical and intellectual standards exemplified by philosophy at its best.

I think this captures the climate change debate in a nutshell, and I definitely think climate change is a philosopy

[TUT317]

Thanks Tut I particularly like the argument


I think this captures the climate change debate in a nutshell, and I definately think climate change is a philosopy

Hi Clete,

Yes, I think there is a lot that can be gleaned from the article. In the late 60' and early 70's the Popper versus Kuhn debate about how science progresses apparently suffered from one big problem. That is, everyone (except Popper) thought they were debating science. Apparently, they were debating politics. Forty years later Popper has emerged as the consummate politician he always was.

Regards

Tut

[paraclete]

Well here's the latest on the water it's raining cinema roofs in my home town, nice little storm we had.

[smoothy]

Hate to drag up something that's been dead for nearly a week...

But DAMN... were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).

SHould have been building a few ARKs if you had seen that coming.

[excon]

But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).

Hello smoothy:

I don't know.. What I DO know, is that you ain't going to ask a climate scientist.

excon

[smoothy]

Hello smoothy:

I dunno.. What I DO know, is that you ain't gonna ask a climate scientist.

excon

No... they worship all Gore and believe the facts are whatever you want to present them to be. In effect, they dream up facts to fit their beliefs... not tailor their beliefs based on the facts.

Just like I think the Church of Scientology is all a bunch of hoooey.

And wonder why aliens only abduct high school droppouts with alcohol or drug problems from rural trailer parks. And not say... nice Urban Mansion dwellers with advanced degrees if there was any truth behind those too.

[NeedKarma]

But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from?

Maybe this?
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

[smoothy]

Maybe this?
Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

Not a chance... Space aliens didn't just suck it up at the north pole and spit it out over Australia, bypassing everything in between... or do you believe that too?

[NeedKarma]

...or do you believe that too?

What space aliens? Nah, I lump that in with men with grey beards in the sky controlling everything we do. LOL!