"
Professor Lennart Bengtsson - the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position... as he describes in his resignation letter."
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen.
It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years. Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time. (read more)
127 comments:
(1) I'm now listening to a lecture series by Alan Dershowitz where he claims that the prosecutors knew full well that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent of all capital offenses but they falsified evidence to get a conviction to put pressure on Julius to disclose what he knew about his fellow Soviet operatives. He never talked and she was executed.
(2) When I was in seventh grade, I wrote a newspaper gossip column as part of English class. It was called "The Walls have Ears" and the assignment was to write potentially embarrassing, teasing things about my fellow students.
When the first edition came out some girl confronted me and she was absolutely furious. I still remember her exact words: "Oh, yeah? Well, how would you like it if I told everybody that YOU PICK YOUR NOSE!!!"
That was the end of that. No more "The Walls have Ears" for me.
Kind of a stupid idea, anyway.
It's not about science. It's about politics, the power of fear, & the power to tax and destroy.
Dissent, based on actual science, will not be tolerated.
I'm now listening to a lecture series by Alan Dershowitz where he claims that the prosecutors knew full well that Ethel Rosenberg was innocent of all capital offenses but they falsified evidence to get a conviction to put pressure on Julius to disclose what he knew about his fellow Soviet operatives. He never talked and she was executed.
Well, he wouldn't be the first to do so. Robert Meerepol and his brother Michael (the were born Robert and Michael Rosenberg) became ardent activists against the US and in particular what we "did" to their parents. Robert Meeropol used to guest lecture at Madison when I was a student there and they probably paid him to spoon feed to his sympathizers to hear how evil Republicans murdered both his parents. God I hate that shit. In 1979, I watched mayoral Madison politicos cheer for the killer of Robert Fassnacht, but that's a different story.
I don't think there's a person alive today who believes in Julius Rosenberg's innocence. Poor chump, Robert. As for his mother? Her brother was David Greenglass. She was at the meetings. She was aware. There were many capital crimes involved. I like to hear Dershowitz' arguments, but I'd also listen to the counter arguments.
(1) That might have been eyes, not ears, now that I think about it. Still a stupid idea, though.
(2) Dershowitz also explained that Furman's racism was relevant because they had evidence that he put the victims' blood on one of Simpson's socks and left it for subsequent investigators to find.
I didn't know about the sock.
Or maybe I simply forgot.
I didn't follow the OJ trial closely at all, in any event.
Defector.
Interesting use of the word.
A popular one during the Cold War.
April, It's about money. Transferring the enormous wealth from oil to energy sources that are not yet developed enough to be more efficient tan oil. They don't want the market to dictate the change from oil to alternative, they will dictate it.
Joe McCarthy was on to the communist conspiracy and so is this scientist. Intolerable!
Money and wealth transfers indeed.
Here in CO - our democrat governor is quit cozy with the oil and gas industry. He's pro- fracking.
All while Mark Udall runs ads proclaiming how Cary Gardner is in bed with the oil and gas industry.
The left's hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I got a taste of what our democrat governor is up to with the oil and gas industry the other day in a meeting in Weld County with some business people.
Believe me Professor, it's worse than the time of McCarthy.
Fracking fracking fracking. lalalalala fracking! lala!
We have developed institutions who's very purpose for being is to ask questions, yet these institutions lately seem to be incapable of asking the important questions of our time. Universities, scientific organizations, and the press have all become little more than echo chambers and megaphones for single theory narratives.
An example brought to you by the indomitable Trey Gowdy
I am not a big climate freak but can your party at least acknowlege climate change and we humans contribut to it? This is, along with fags getting married, mean you are going to be extinct in a few years.
Yes, you will win big in Alabama and Kansas, but those states don't really matter.
You need large population states to win.
I realize you are really old and white but you need to change it up a bit.
Get with it honkeys!
"can your party at least acknowlege climate change"
Can you get your head out of you ass long enough to consider that you have no idea what "climate change" even means, what are it's consequences, causes, or if it would be a good or bad thing. What is the correct climate, and should it ever change? Why is any change now after millions of years of changes suddenly catastrophic. How does this "change" explain no increase in surface temperature for two decades running.
Once you get you head around all that, then consider how foolish it is of you to go around spewing nonsensical statements accusing others of stupidity about stuff you really have not considered much beyond trying to just fit in with the fab club. Grow up. We are not in junior high anymore.
Much of what the right has warned of over my lifetime has come to pass with a noticeable increase in accuracy lately. On the other hand, the left has misled and been catastrophically, and reliably wrong about most of it's predictions, often with very grave results - some of the worse in history.
This has been a big part of my change from a hippy, tree-hugging, Sierra Club supporting, feminized, pseudo-male into a truth seeking skeptic of all things liberal. They have just been wrong too consistently to trust. Although I still love many of the ideals blindly and wrongly assigned to the left like environmentalism, compassion, and equality; I also realize they often have no ability to even consider ideas or facts that complicate or challenge the solutions they seek before they even understand the problems.
Is it accurate to call Bengtsson a defector? Well, maybe it is, because I don't think he was ever a *denier*, he just felt that science ought to stand up to stringent examination and that climate science has been getting a spa treatment.
The fact that he *was* seen as a defector and informed that he was going to be toxic within the science community for it, says something, and not something good, about the "science community."
I am not a big climate freak...
But you are a big freak, Titus. Oh yes you are. Now come clean and admit it and I'll give you a big platonic hug and all will be well. You know it will. Now come to ricpic's arms you big ninny...there, isn't that better? You bet it is.
Thanks for updating on the politics of this whole thing. The facts of what they're studying are surely peripheral to that.
IN front of every great scientific debate there's surely a lot of drama to be had, and I sure am glad we can rely on Lem's Levity to focus on that.
It's not about the science, everybody. It's about the drama.
What is the correct climate, and should it ever change?
Um, one might start with identifying the stable climate over the last 10,000 years since the agricultural revolution, but apparently being able to develop farming and a stable food supply is the lost exercise of a "hippy, tree-hugging, Sierra Club supporting, feminized, pseudo-male."
Although I still love many of the ideals blindly and wrongly assigned to the left like environmentalism.
Which parts of Richard Nixon's Environmental Protection Agency does a neo-Right Wingie guy like you actually want to retain?
Which parts of Teddy Roosevelt's conservation efforts?
I'm sure you have a snappy response in store for that. Or none at all, I would predict.
The drama is the point of it, Ritmo.
There's the science, of course, but what is important is the drama. If it were the science a well respected fellow would be seen as a moderating influence on "the other side" instead of an apostate to be shunned and punished, or at least avoided so that you don't end up with cooties by association.
Drama.
Science is a completely different thing that involves a whole lot of "prove it" and attempts to make one's name by upending someone else.
I have lived in my neighborhood for twenty years. The people down the road (the canaries in the local coal mine) currently have their house up on temporary stilts because they are building a new, higher foundation. This was necessary because of increased flooding of their property during high tides. The owner is an engineer and a Republican so I think we can safely rule out enviro-hysteria in this case. The beautiful willows that were in their yard have all died off in recent years because of salt poisoning. The road that I drive along used to flood very rarely during extreme high tides, now flooding occurs routinely. The changes are subtle but they are occurring. It doesn't affect me now and won't affect me significantly in my lifetime but coastal people see perceptible changes.
Glacier retreat is another concrete example of warming.
I believe that in the interests of clarity the term "scientist" should be avoided.
People w/ advanced training are physicists or chemists or geologists or meteorologists or whatever. Grouping them all into a single category degrades understanding, and makes it harder to figure out true expertise.
The thing about "climate science" is that a key part of it involves the analysis of non-experimental data. Expertise in that is more commonly found in the much-maligned social sciences than more sciency-science. One of the leading critics of the "hockey stick" has been Stephen McIntyre, whose formal training is in mathematics and whose critiques have been based largely on econometrics, which has a lot to say about the analysis of time-series data.
Claims that "climate science" is something pure, and perhaps holy, while critics of Michael Mann are unscientific "deniers", trigger a lot of people's bullshit detectors. And it deflects attention from the truly relevant issues, such as the costs and benefits of trying to regulate the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere vs. mitigating the effects of ̶g̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ c̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ climate variability.
The drama is the point of it, Ritmo.
Thank you for this admission.
There's the science, of course, but what is important is the drama. If it were the science a well respected fellow would be seen as a moderating influence on "the other side" instead of an apostate to be shunned and punished, or at least avoided so that you don't end up with cooties by association.
And there's an antidote to this, as well - which would consist of mainstream cons taking enough of an interest in non-cherry picked data to think for themselves and not rely on "respected" authorities in the first place. But since it seems we all do, I guess it would be nice if they'd acknowledge that their side does this all the time, just through different means. The con institutions provide the respect of ignoring and obfuscating the conceptual data away entirely, or more often just manipulate away by bringing up as many distracting irrelevancies and red herrings as they can get away with.
What makes the surface of Venus so hot, Chip?
Your gaseous comments?
So Chip, if I understand your argument correctly, all those Nobel Prizes in economics are basically worthless. Human behavior is a lot more mysterious than the physical forces that control climate.
Obviously you don't understand my comment at all.
Nothing new there.
It doesn't affect me now and won't affect me significantly in my lifetime but coastal people see perceptible changes.
And the warmed up permafrost in Alaska has led to forests of trees that aren't growing straight and telephone poles that have bent over and another huge piece of a continental glacier shelf just melted away again but the real issue is that a skeptic of the obvious explanations for all this was disrespected!
Jebus, what pathetic attempts at distraction.
Seriously, Ritmo, do you think we're on track to become Venus? How fast? Is it out of control?
Do you know how to test for a change in trend of a time series?
His comment made sense to me, Chip.
Maybe you're not as articulate as you thought.
Blame the liberals!
Actually, it seems Chip's comment means we should make a better attempt at designating specific categories of scientists in their contributions to the conversation, but I thought that would be a funny way to illustrate that not everyone is as democratic about the conversation as they claim to be.
His argument was a syllogism. Not all that hard to "understand," provide that you understand the diff. b/w logical validity and factual accuracy.
Do you?
ChipS, You are a man among boys here.
Mongoloid boys.
Chip - are you capable of understanding the difference between quantifying an effect and accepting well-understood scientific effects?
The latter is what some people need to work on, it seems. Nothing wrong with dramatic examples if that's the sort of awesome visual evidence their easily distracted minds require to make a connection in the first place.
Many natural systems are very tightly regulated. Human serum potassium levels, for instance, shouldn't deviate outside of 3.5 to 5 mEq/mL. Now, someone with a potassium of 3.4 might require intervention, but I don't deny them that intervention just because they haven't gone down to a much more worrisome 2.9.
Some things are just worth paying attention to because you don't want them to get to a less easily controlled state.
Unless you're a conservative, apparently.
Nick - he's providing points of a little help here and there, but also a good bit of sophistry. Elegant sophistry, and sophistry that's more useful than the ignorant sophistry we see from the pundits, but sophistry nonetheless.
I'd really like to know how a self-proclaimed "reasonable" man can read a comment that points out the usefulness of econometrics in the analysis of climate fluctuations and conclude that I'm saying it's part of a worthless field.
Seriously wondering about that.
Chip, I am assuming that you agree that there is global warming and that it will have significant economic and social consequences. We aren't arguing over this basic fact are we? It's already had significant financial consequences for the guy down the street.
Chip, I notice that chicken little doesn't get offended when we demonstrate that oxidation of iron leaves things a little red and corroded while oxidation of an alkali metal is a little, well flashier, and more dramatic.
But engineers don't use that distinction to then tell us that rusted out parts are no problem in the devices you use.
Nothing wrong with dramatic examples if that's the sort of awesome visual evidence their easily distracted minds require to make a connection in the first place.
I actually agree w/ this.
But AFAIK the levels of atmospheric carbon aren't the only differences b/w Earth and Venus.
Anyway, if you agree that it's useful to specify clearly what people's areas of expertise are, and how they do or don't relate to the historical study of climate, then we're fine here.
But AFAIK the levels of atmospheric carbon aren't the only differences b/w Earth and Venus.
Then I'd like to know where you decided to draw the line for as far as that knowledge extends, because my understanding is that's precisely or mostly what caused it - a "runaway" greenhouse effect. Maybe what I remember hearing was wrong, or inaccurate, but it seems there should be an easy way to check that.
Anyway, if you agree that it's useful to specify clearly what people's areas of expertise are, and how they do or don't relate to the historical study of climate, then we're fine here.
I don't have a problem with it. Especially for people focused on stats. Stats is stats. I remember at TOP Skylar would go on about the uncertainty with ice core measurements, but no methodology is perfect. Perfection in science does not exist. Knowledge tends to get more accurate the more evidence that accumulates but it's always just a weighing of the best evidence for to the best evidence against.
We are at a point now where we need to decide what the trade-off is between accepting a good preponderance of that evidence now and waiting until an as-yet-unidentified point in the future of an as-yet-undeclared threshold of evidence for an as-yet-undeclared magnitude of effect that cons would agree makes sense to act on.
Seems like we're waiting for a lot of undeclareds and unidentifieds in the con camp to make their face known. And it's a mindset that I find to be distressingly self-perpetuating.
I am assuming that you agree that there is global warming and that it will have significant economic and social consequences.
Let me clear that I'm not claiming any expertise on this. I've read the executive summary of the BEST study, and a little bit of Judith Curry's comments, and some of Stephen McIntyre's critiques of Michael Mann's statistics. Overall, I'm left w/ the impression that there's certainly been warming recently, and it obviously correlates w/ atmospheric levels of CO2.
What I think as a policy matter is that it's not a great idea to wait until we've reached certainty about the long-term statistical significance of these anomalies to start doing something. The big question is what that "something" should be.
I think that policy initiatives on the scale we may be talking about require a high degree of trust in the data. And I think that the behavior of Michael Mann and associates has done a lot to undermine that trust. Wrapping oneself in the mantle of "science" and trying to silence skeptics is absolutely the wrong way to go.
Just so you know Chip, I would never shut out contradictory data (paradigm-shifts are exciting!) and would warmly welcome greater evidence of the harmlessness of indefinitely doing what what we seem to have so much trouble stopping.
My only problem though, as I say, is that certain mainstream political movements (in the U.S.) don't seem to want to have anything to do with defining evidence that would satisfactorily convince them that they're wrong.
They've taken the invincible shield of non-falsifiability, and run with it.
That seems to be a kind of rebelliousness for all the wrong reasons. If it's not a rebelliousness for the sake of self-righteousness and personal pride alone then I'd like to know what exactly motivates it.
When it comes to AGW, the null hypothesis must never be disproven!
We will never relinquish the definitions for falsifiability of the null hypothesis!
Never!
(Not you, Chip - I realize you're being more rational about this. I'm just expressing bemusement at where the bulk of the political anti-AGW camp seems to be approaching this from, scientifically).
Chip S. said...
Overall, I'm left w/ the impression that there's certainly been warming recently, and it obviously correlates w/ atmospheric levels of CO2.
And, there is a well established physical theory for why they might be correlated. It is only the extent of any potential contribution of CO2 to warming that is in question.
I am generally skeptical of complex mathematical models, in almost any field outside of hard-core physics, so I think some skepticism is appropriate, but to try to dismiss efforts to understand this phenomena as the results of a self-interested cabal of scientists is nutty. There is a genuine concern on their part and a feeling of responsibility that they should warn humanity of the potential danger, much the same as when scientists tried to warn of the dangers of nuclear proliferation or the effects of CFCs. My personal view is that it remains vastly more likely that humanity is terminated by a nuclear holocaust than by a CO2 saturated atmosphere, but more modest effects, in this context vast economic losses and significant loss of life, seem feasible.
Historically (long timeline) we're actually at the tail-end of an interglacial period so if anything's going on climate-wise we're tipping into the next ice age but the push for one world government is best advanced by the global warming fiction so global warming it be in the wholly owned MSM.
Titus said...
I am not a big climate freak but can your party at least acknowlege climate change and we humans contribut to it? This is, along with fags getting married, mean you are going to be extinct in a few years.
Not as extinct as your personal gene line, Titus.
I understand that you are/were a bundler for the Democratic Party, using your Harvard connections. This means that you also sold a whole slew of policies along with your pet favorites.
Example of drama...
The demands here that conservatives admit that it's warming, and thinking that this means admitting the whole basket load of associated beliefs... but being right about the one thing and forcing people to admit it, in no way even implies that any of the rest of it is true.
And being told to engage the science? If you don't make confession first, you're not *allowed* at communion. It's a bogus condition since shutting people down happens at the "confess the true faith or else" stage of the so-called discussion.
There are plenty of people pointing out that there seems to have been no warming for 10 or 15 years, but few to none that claim the world isn't warming. If nothing else, we're in an interglacial so the world is either warming (and may continue to warm significantly for 10s of millions of years) or cooling as we head into another period of glaciation (which would be *bad*).
But no, can't talk about it without being in the "denier" camp or the "right side of history" camp or a "defector" or whatever.
I watched a thing on the science channel (motto: question everything... freaking cracked me up) about melting glaciers in Iceland leading to mantle decompression, decompression melting, and volcanization.
It was pretty much about how volcanoes in Iceland were increasingly frequent and therefore the one that was way way overdue was going to erupt because the glacier on it was melting.
So... okay.
The northern part of the northern hemisphere is still rising after being compressed during the last ice age. Canada goes up a centimeter or so in elevation every year, Florida dips down... this sort of decompression proceeds on a geological time frame and is completely fascinating.
The measured surface movement as a magma chamber inflates in Iceland is something that happens in New Mexico where we've got a significant mantle warm zone thingy going on. This is cool-beans stuff.
And no reason I can see to think that we can or should stop it, or that the over all glacial melt can or should be stopped or that the world will not continue to leave the current ice ages behind (and hopefully not go into another one) and continue a normal progression into the normal warmer Earth that dinosaurs enjoyed.
We're people... either God or Darwin gave us legs. Acting like we're rooted to a coastline, screaming in futile terror as the ocean inches toward our feet over the next 100 or 200 years is just silly talk.
This morning I also saw someone I've met on a science channel show about the Chicxulub impact. That was sort of unexpected and cool.
I'm like, hey, I've met her!
She was the science speaker guest of honor at our science fiction convention a couple of years ago. I didn't get to her talk because I'm on staff and was working, but she hung out all weekend and seemed to have a great time.
It would be great if she came to the con again then I could be all, hey, I saw you on television!
That's certainly a whole lotta talking, Syn. I'd try to read all of it, if I could. But there's a great way to shorten things up.
What evidence would sway you from believing the null hypothesis? (I assume you know what a "null hypothesis means).
Be as short as you like.
I hear cons like short, simple things… contributes to "clarity" and all. So be short and sweet and take responsibility away from this need for the burden of proof always being on the other side defining what it believes. Since cons claim to be disrespected at every turn, take this opportunity to say what evidence it would take for you to change what you believe. You can't claim to respect the scientific process if you don't. And you can't claim your scientific understanding is being disrespected if you don't clarify how you would not only arrive at it, but change it when necessary.
Betcha can't do it.
What is the null hypothesis?
My problem is that "alarmists" insist on a grab-bag of stuff and if you object to one item, you're a "denier".
"What Bush Doctrine would that be, Charlie?"
Me: Define your terms.
Ritmo: Wow, you sure are dumb.
We could try an analogy...
Take Chicxulub... if I said, "I don't think that the Chicxulub crater and extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by a 10 km diameter asteroid."
Is there a short and sweet way to explain what would make me abandon the "null hypothesis" which apparently (by magic) would expand to include denial of an impact, denial of the KT boundary, iridium, osmium, and even dinosaurs?
Wow, Synova, you don't believe in dinosaurs. You sure are dumb.
Stupid, conservative, science deniers...
Ooh, a guessing game! Can I play?
There's a series of nested null hypotheses. I can think of four, but there may be more:
1. There's too much measurement error to conclude anything about climate change.
2. Recent temperature patterns are wholly consistent w/ a stable long-term climate.
3. The climate is changing, but that change is unlikely to be driven in any meaningful way by CO2, b/c that makes up too small a pct. of the atmosphere.
4. The climate is changing, and CO2 emissions are a contributing factor, but the likely magnitude of the changes is easily adapted to.
Me: Who said I don't believe in dinosaurs?
Ritmo: You don't believe that the Chicxulub impact killed them, so where are they?
Me: When did I say that?
Ritmo: You sure are dumb.
Lol.
Null hypothesis is the basis of scientific statistics.
I was going to start explaining it here, but was a bit taken aback by the unwillingness to even google or wiki the thing.
Taking the initiative to acquaint oneself with basic concepts helps demonstrate credibility. I'm watching some Gordon Ramsay videos now and think it would be funny if one of chefs protested his treatment. "Chef, but what's an egg?"
Null hypothesis means we assume no association between two phenomena. It's a basic idea.
Discarding it in favor of concluding that an association (e.g., between warming and CO2) exists, requires evidence.
With the basics out of the way, all I wanted to know is what evidence it would take for someone who says they're tired of hearing the evidence that others have accepted (popularly) or defined (scientifically) as persuasive.
If this is too mean an exercise, I'll stop. But by all means, I'm just trying to see if some basic ground rules, applicable to ALL science, can be identified as a starting point by those most opposed to accepting the science of the topic at hand.
There's a series of nested null hypotheses. I can think of four, but there may be more:
1. There's too much measurement error to conclude anything about climate change.
And with what amount of non-error wouldn't there be?
(Again, he'll dodge this).
2. Recent temperature patterns are wholly consistent w/ a stable long-term climate.
And with what sort of patterns would that be inconsistent?
(Watch how he dodges this one).
3. The climate is changing, but that change is unlikely to be driven in any meaningful way by CO2, b/c that makes up too small a pct. of the atmosphere.
This is just flat-out bullshit. "too small a pct." is like saying "too little salt" or "too much rococo" style. It's not mathematical, not scientific, wholly opinion/perception driven, and incapable of distinguishing objectivity from an opinion.
Also, "meaningful"? Now science is a form of existential philosophy. Fuck the observation part! What is meaning? Lol!
4. The climate is changing, and CO2 emissions are a contributing factor, but the likely magnitude of the changes is easily adapted to.
"Easily" requires something more in the way of explanation than Chip's willing to provide. But it does provide him with a very lawyerly stalling tactic.
But the first two were best. It really is just turtles the whole way down, isn't it Chip?
Hypothetical excuse upon hypothetical excuse upon hypothetical excuse, ad infinitum - all in the service of avoiding an answer to a real question.
Well, liberals shouldn't play that game, is the point. Force them to define their own terms for falsifiability. As we can see with Chip, when forced to do so, he slithers and wiggles. And then you just point out that as ever, he'll do as much as he can to refuse and prevent engagement with the question.
Great philosophical and lawyerly approach. Total bullshit IRL. And people catch on. Even little kids understand the concept of "avoidance", Chip. So does the electorate.
They're sick of it already. Come clean. Show your cards.
These stalling games just admit that you know you don't have any.
I honestly have no idea what your last comment is about. I offered an answer to your request for the relevant null hypotheses, and you get all mad about my evasiveness?
Huh?
1. There's too much measurement error to conclude anything about climate change.
I'm more concerned about correlating real measurement to proxies. We haven't done enough study on paleo-biology or ancient extinctions and I know just how much guess and by-golly is involved. We don't even know for certain if different organisms are represented in rock strata or if changes in fossils are climate related. This stuff is *new* science.
2. Recent temperature patterns are wholly consistent w/ a stable long-term climate.
And hurricanes and volcanoes and tornadoes and rain patterns... selling "climate disruption" to the masses on the basis that there was a tornado in a year with fewer than average tornadoes is *anti* proof... it's a big red flag that says "ignore." Why not claim a 100 year flood that hasn't happened for 100 years proves something. Ugh.
3. The climate is changing, but that change is unlikely to be driven in any meaningful way by CO2, b/c that makes up too small a pct. of the atmosphere.
I'm okay with the idea that small amounts of CO2 can make a difference, but so do many other things, and if we talked about those things the whole discussion would be more persuasive. The fact that we *only* talk about the one gas that can be used as a political tool is, again, a strong negative indicator for the trustworthiness of the "science".
4. The climate is changing, and CO2 emissions are a contributing factor, but the likely magnitude of the changes is easily adapted to.
I'd be persuaded if the "alarmists" behaved as if there was a crisis. Since the true believers do not behave as though something very bad is going to happen, I'm inclined to think fond thoughts of farms on Greenland and grapes growing in Newfoundland.
Simple simple risk assessment equation... on one side of the scale "apocalyptic global destruction" on the other side of the scale "nuclear power radiation leaks."
For as long as "nuclear power radiation leaks" is a bigger problem than "apocalyptic global destruction" we can be assured, without a doubt, that someone is experiencing a great deal of hyperbole and ought to be ignored.
This actually deserves more excoriation...
The climate is changing, but that change is unlikely to be driven in any meaningful way by CO2, b/c that makes up too small a pct. of the atmosphere.
Also, "meaningful"? Now science is a form of existential philosophy. Fuck the observation part! What is meaning? Lol!
But Chip, what is the sound of one hand clapping? And if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, did it really fall?
The other burning question is, if we make ourselves ignorant of AGW, does it really exist?
If hostile Arab countries deny Israel's existence, does that country really exist?
These and many more pressing, burning issues of philosophical inquiry and the importance of never defining one's terms await greater exploration on the next episode of the Chip Silicon Evidence Doesn't Matter (Unanswerable Questions Do!) Hour.
What is *a* null hypothesis, is not the same statement as what is *the* null hypothesis.
You can't (logically) demand someone explain what would get them to give up their null hypothesis without defining what you think that is.
It could be anything.
What would it take Synova to agree that the sky is, after all, blue?
Ritmo, where did I say which of those nulls I did or didn't think should be rejected on the basis of the data?
It's too early to be that drunk, unless you're east of Greenland.
Slither, dodge, dismiss, evade! Away blasted evidence-seekers, let no one persuade!
What would it take Synova to agree that the sky is, after all, blue?
Behold, Dear Rational Voter: An example of Republican seriousness on matters of scientific inquiry and policy.
Ritmo, you can't (logically) demand people give short answers that aren't too long for you to bother reading, and then complain that they aren't giving comprehensive answers to questions you never actually asked.
You *can* of course, to just what you're doing... just not *logically*.
Seriously... how drunk are you?
"We reserve the right to never be persuaded of ANYTHING! EVER! It's our RIGHT!"
Now take us seriously, please, Dear Mainstream Voter.
Please!
Help is available.
Dammit Jim, I'm a chemist not a climatologist!
But I would like a serious, unambiguous answer to the following question (which should be like a yes or no question): was the Mediterranean Sea level higher or lower in classical Roma times compared to now?
By "classical Roman times, I stipulate 79 BC +/ 100 years. I have what I think are conflicting answers to that question.
Persuaded of what, Ritmo?
You refuse to define which particular null hypothesis you want a "what will persuade you" answer for... you make fun of Chip when he offers a series of possibilities...
Is it hard to figure out who isn't taking this deathly serious subject seriously?
Ritmo, you can't (logically) demand people give short answers that aren't too long for you to bother reading, and then complain that they aren't giving comprehensive answers to questions you never actually asked.
Turtles! The whole way down, it's turtles!
Not gravity!
What is gravity, if you really think about it?
After all, physicists are still trying to unify the four forces of nature. They've succeeded with electromagnetism, the strong and the weak force. But there are still unknown questions about gravity.
It must not exist! The earth is held into place by a never-ending sequence of turtles!
Take us seriously, Voters!
We are Republicans! We will never define our terms, OR tell you what we really believe!
It's too complicated a thing. Ergo, no simple conclusions should be drawn - about anything having to do with it!
We are really serious!
Chip has persuaded me that global climate is determined by a never-ending sequence of turtles.
Each turtle is another pundit, asking: "But what is the true meaning of X? Of Y? Of Z? Of ZZZ?"
True scientific persuasiveness is like a true Scotsman. You have to be really, REALLY, EXTREMELY sure that they're the real thing.
Not ostracizing and threatening the career of an elderly and highly respected scientist for the sin of siding with a group demanding scrutiny of the science related to climate disruption would be a really good start for the "what would persuade me to give up the null hypothesis" thing.
But mocking anyone who fails to fall *perfectly* in line is the "go to" preference so I'm pretty sure that I can't be helped. After all, anyone who sees the irony in the science channel motto "question everything" or the io9 motto "we come from the future" is obviously too interested in the Emperor's lack of clothing to be objective about the data.
I once met a Scotsman. But I wasn't sure he was, you know, a "true" Scotsman.
I asked him all sorts of questions. What is the capital of Scotland? Which Scots King unified the realm with England? And, most importantly, what did Mel Gibson's ball sack looked like when he mooned Longshanks' troops with a kilt in that movie?
Really important, true, pressing questions. Because, science is like Scotsmen. You can never be sure if you're dealing with "real" science or just an imposter tryin' ta make ya think it's science!
Imposters!
Not ostracizing and threatening the career of an elderly and…
Ok Synova. So some people defending the logical consensus did a bad thing. Let's reject their science now!
Also, make sure to discredit all the science that came out of the Nazi war experiments. You know… because they were Nazis. Bad people do bad science. End of story.
Chip suggested a possible list of null hypotheses...
...that you requested.
Oh, by the way, I *really* do not think that a 10 km asteroid killed the dinosaurs.
I'm sure you're drunk enough not to be able to actually read that statement and deduce what it means.
"Ok Synova. So some people defending the logical consensus did a bad thing. Let's reject their science now!"
Yup.
Sorry dude, but those are the breaks. You lie down with dogs, you end up with fleas.
Maybe, instead of spending your drunk afternoons mocking the supposed opinions of the unenlightened, you should spend some time defending the scientific integrity, or simply the integrity, of the people destroying your arguments by demonstrating such insecure and vindictive non-scientific behavior.
If anyone, ever, at any time going forward, ever has a question about AGW that they feel hasn't been answered to their satisfaction, then I think we'll have to just scrap the whole thing.
In fact, we can put a big red button on the side of the walls of Congress, for any citizen to go up and push. It will say "Stop AGW-predicated policy now!" on it.
It will be open to all members of the public. Remember, all it takes is one of you. If any of you personally feel that this phenomenon doesn't make sense to you personally, if it hasn't been explained to your own personal satisfaction, we urge you to go up to that big red button and push it.
It only takes one, people. No matter what they bring to the table.
It's part of the Republican initiative to make science more open and transparent. And publicly accountable. Long overdue.
Chip suggested a possible list of null hypotheses…
No he didn't. Null hypothesis is always the same. An assumption of no association between two phenomena ever. It's self-defined.
All Chip did was throw out more reasons for "not" accepting AGW. I know he has those. He's full of them. Some even merit discussion. But it wasn't what was asked for.
What was asked for was his burden for deciding the evidence was good.
He avoided that, and did his own thing instead.
Like all good Republicans do. NEVER SHOW YOUR CARDS JUST TELL THE OTHER SIDE THEY HAVE NONE!
Bluff bluff bluff.
Your 7:00 isn't even worth taking seriously. It shows you don't care about facts at all, and only showmanship.
I conclude you're a lost cause, incapable of learning this - and withdraw from any attempt at serious discussion on it with you. You flat-out admit you don't care about the facts of the actual science, just how it's perceived by people who THINK SCIENTISTS SUX!
You can talk all about how SCIENTISTS SUX at hot air.com, Ace of Slaves and wherever else. No one serious cares. Have an all-out pundit-fest with it.
My work here is done. Flunked student not being readmitted back to class. SCIENTISTS SUX@!!!
Well??
Like I said, CL: Scientists SUX.
A very perceptive English student taught me that one.
It's really the only conclusion we can draw, at the moment.
But we reserve the right to hold that opinion Forevar.
Jesus, Ritmo, sometimes I think you're a complete fool. This is one of those times.
Here, learn about what you pontificate about.
And get some help w/ your drinking problem.
I didn't think that Ritmo drank. I thought he only got stoned.
Star date 2035: Professor Bengtsson's deathbed words are recorded:
Eppur si raffredda
Oh, Ok Chip. So wiki gives Synova the data she needs to understand a p=0.05 threshold. That's great! We only need twenty planet earths, to subject to increased CO2 twenty times, and if at least 19 out of those 20 times global temp rises, then we can proceed with the alternative hypothesis! Whoopee! Thanks for making that so simple, Chip.
Good to know that we can subject the planet to multiple, large-scale, randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind trials, Chip. I was worried that we couldn't be able to do that, but wiki seems to summarize its article to those examples. This will be fun. Wheeeee!
Anyways, the First Meeting of the Republican Scientist-Haters Club is about to be held! Order! Order!
The gavel will now be given to its chair, Chip Silicon!
Chip: I hereby call this meeting to order.
Chip: First order of business, the item of whether scientists sux.
Synova: Well, we know that they do sux, but the question is just a matter of how much. How much do they sux?
Chip: Let's put the matter to a vote. All in favor of saying that they sux 100%, say "Aye".
Synova: Aye.
Chip: The motion passes.
Chip: Next order of business. We want to know how much evidence would ever be enough to persuade us of something anathema to the Republican Party Platform.
Synova: Let's put it to a vote.
Chip: All in favor of no amount of evidence ever being enough, say "Aye!"
Synova: We reserve the right to never be convinced of anything, no matter how factual, especially if the people saying it are MEAN.
Chip: I count that as one enthusiastic "Aye!"
Synova: Yes.
Chip: The motion hereby carries.
Yeay!!!
Y'know, earlier in this thread I said that I rejected at least some of those 4 hypotheses.
But after Ritmo's display of insecurity over the ability of the data to reject them, I'm gonna have to rethink my position.
Good work, Mr. Sciency Guy.
Dude, I'm just having fun with you. Trooper does skits like that all the time.
But if you have to rely on the perceived warmth and welcomeness of a random personal interaction to convince you on a matter of science and/or policy, I really don't know what to tell you. You're basically admitting that you can be wined and dined into your understanding of or rejection of empirical knowledge.
Way to demonstrate conservative subjectivity.
Unless of course, you were joking.
@April: That 10:58 post is hysterical! What a drama queen!
"My life is over now...I live in an industrial zone."
Yeah, but Trooper's funny.
I have no insecurity, let alone any "display" of it. This is not a marketing exercise, anyway. I didn't realize you needed convincing of something. I just asked what the empirical threshold was, because among certain partisans, I can't find it.
I just don't see why you dodged that so much. Maybe you really do mean to say that for you it's all just a subjective "gut" feeling, after all.
People come to conclusions in a variety of ways, most by way of heuristics that fit our survival needs in the savannah but have come to be, in present global civilizations, dead wrong.
I suppose those interest me slightly, but I'm simply interested to know if any empirical framework for those decisions exist among AGW skeptics/deniers. You seem to be saying that they don't.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. But then, I've been asking you to clarify certain things all day that you seem (out of insecurity?) to avoid wanting to do.
AReasonableMan wrote: The changes are subtle but they are occurring. It doesn't affect me now and won't affect me significantly in my lifetime but coastal people see perceptible changes.
You prompted me to look at some maps of coastal San Diego county show expected regions of inundation: link
You know what came to mind first? A remark that a young woman said to me the other day in context: "Those kinds of changes will really hit the rich hardest -- only they live there. I don't really care."
What she cares more about is being told not to drive certain cars or to drive cars hopelessly out of her price range. Politically, the sorts of solutions floated in Sacramento will only fly under Government mandate because they are profoundly directed against the lower middle class.
Please point me to the comment where you asked me to "clarify" anything. But I don't know how to make any clearer what I think are the null hypotheses that the "deniers" are talking about.
Oddly, you didn't ask the question I'd expect from an authority on hypothesis testing: What's the optimal critical p value for testing these hypotheses? That comes from the minimization of the loss function appropriate to the problem at hand. If the cost of a Type 2 error is very large (which is one of the key issues in AGW) relative to the cost of Type 1 error, then a p value greater than .05 is warranted.
That's where you ought to pick a fight, not on whether it's sciency enough to state hypotheses to be subjected to formal testing.
Just a little friendly advice.
chickenlittle said...
You know what came to mind first? A remark that a young woman said to me the other day in context: "Those kinds of changes will really hit the rich hardest -- only they live there.
This is not true in other places such as Miami, and even less true in Bangladesh.
Chip, all I asked for clarification on was what your empirical threshold for rejecting H(0) was.
My 8:04 shows that I'm pretty aware of a p=0.05 standard, especially in the most readily available sources of heavily researched (and debated) studies there are: Large-scale, clinical RCTs. You really are barking up the wrong tree on that.
What should be obvious though is that AGW can't be subjected to large-scale RCT. Given that some sort of alternative heuristic is needed, (and I applaud you on granting the costs of a Type 2 error), all I've been looking for is an empirical standard that would satisfy most conservatives of either 1. AGW as a more-likely-than-not reality or 2. The merits of acting accordingly vs. acting as if doing nothing is preferable.
I don't understand why that's been so sloppily received. All a con could do is say something like: "1 degree C rise in the next 20 years coinciding with another 50 ppm of atmospheric CO2" and I'd be satisfied. Or "the release of X more metric tons of glacial polar ice into the ocean". You know, something that would be convincing that they would at least know how to take the empirics of how this is analyzed seriously.
@ARM: So what is the text draft of the UN's solution?
A: Climate Reparations for the 3rd world to be paid by US. This is exactly why people like Crack MC cannot advance their cause except under threat of violence. This is why I lose respect for sympathizers.
@ARM: I once hosted a dispute over AGW and wealth redistribution at my old blog: link
Ritmo will remember.
Henry Hill: You're a pistol, you're really funny. You're really funny.
Tommy DeVito: What do you mean I'm funny?
Henry Hill: It's funny, you know. It's a good story, it's funny, you're a funny guy.
[laughs]
Tommy DeVito: What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?
Henry Hill: It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, the way you tell the story and everything.
Tommy DeVito: [it becomes quiet] Funny how? What's funny about it?
Anthony Stabile: Tommy no, You got it all wrong.
Tommy DeVito: Oh, oh, Anthony. He's a big boy, he knows what he said. What did ya say? Funny how?
Henry Hill: Jus...
Tommy DeVito: What?
Henry Hill: Just... ya know... you're funny.
Tommy DeVito: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
Henry Hill: Just... you know, how you tell the story, what?
Tommy DeVito: No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the fuck am I funny, what the fuck is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!
Henry Hill: [long pause] Get the fuck out of here, Tommy!
Tommy DeVito: [everyone laughs] Ya motherfucker! I almost had him, I almost had him. Ya stuttering prick ya. Frankie, was he shaking? I wonder about you sometimes,
(Goodfella's 1990)
No one, so far, has proven that the X% increase in man-made carbon has led to Y% increase in whatever [pick one: rain, snow, higher temps,hurricanes, etc].
They have only trotted out theories and consistently warn that the point of no return is jus around the bend.
AJ Lynch said...
No one, so far, has proven that the X% increase in man-made carbon has led to Y% increase in whatever [pick one: rain, snow, higher temps,hurricanes, etc].
This is fair, up to a point. The only way to 'prove' something is to stick to maths. You can sort of prove things with experimental science but results are often not as cut and dry as you might hope and always subject to later reinterpretations. There are even more limitations with observational sciences like climatology, but observational sciences have had their successes (astrophysics - gravity bending light waves as 'proof' of relativity, biology - the fossil record as 'proof' of evolution). This is why consensus is important, in principle a lot of different people looking at the same problem from different perspectives are more likely to produce the correct result, but this isn't guaranteed. In a sense we are doing the experiment, I have very little doubt that every last drop of oil and nugget of coal will ultimately get burnt. But even then there will be no control (absence of CO2 increase) so the results will be ambiguous. So, you are asking for a standard of proof that is impossible to deliver and in this sense your request is unreasonable.
So, you are asking for a standard of proof that is impossible to deliver and in this sense your request is unreasonable.
If you're asking every individual to make a personal sacrifice without knowing why, then you're asking them to believe in something. This is germane to most big science projects, but I think AGW is most like nuclear weapons because fear is used to sell it. It's a bit like proselytizing religion, stressing only the hellish part.
But you can still use carbon, you just have to pay for the indulgence. More lightweight religion that hurts the poor and benefits the wealthy.
Catching up on the thread and only to 6:45 PM but...
Holy shit Ritmo is STOOOOPID! Which is his hysterical because he is so condescending and convinced of his own superior intelligence. Yet, with each response to Synova and Chip, he demonstrates that he has completely not comprehended what they wrote!
Ritmo, go back and re-read what they wrote and actually THINK about it for a second...
Wow, just... wow.
I appreciate that you're being thoughtful, ARM. So... Bangladesh...
It's probably easier, all told, for poorer people to pick up and walk inland, at least it's not harder for them to walk inland than it is for Al Gore to sell his brand new beach-side mansion... in the end humanity occupies the very dangerous seaside because, although other places are always safer, the seaside is richer. That's a fact if seas are rising or not.
But a person could also look at Bangladesh from an economic point of view, an Al Gore let them live in low carbon picturesque poverty point of view...
Would people in Bangladesh rather have carbon fueled industrial growth and development... or carbon credits to keep them in their less-than-1st-World place?
How would people in Bangladesh choose if the choice was between prosperity and a few feet deeper ocean over the next centuries... or poverty and a few feet deeper ocean over the next centuries?
Because that's the bottom line for me on this. If the glaciers are all melting or not, if I make my risk assessment tree assuming the absolute worst case scenarios are true... there are no *policies* that will stop it. Maybe we could transform our energy use to nuclear (or fusion or ferpitiesake *antimatter*) and power the world *and* a 1st World Bangladesh... but the Will isn't there.
If the Will isn't there to do it because, Oh Em Gee Fukushima, my risk assessment tree has only one branch.
Those supposedly convinced of the threat and supposedly concerned with the danger simply aren't serious, and if *they* aren't serious it's all about as useful to the world as children playing house, make-believe...
So my one-branch risk assessment tree goes to "adapt... it's what people are good at."
And I'm fine with that.
So my one-branch risk assessment tree goes to "adapt... it's what people are good at."
And I'm fine with that.
Devils Advocate here.
But suppose that the Bangladeshi's are so riled with rage (fueled by the UN) that we are at fault for their plight that they support all sorts of sundry vengeance fantasies against the US? Like hosting or abetting terrorists. This is why Obama becoming UN President after his current stint/stunt is worrisome.
@Synova: We'd become the biggest "adapters."
Oh gawd... UN president? Seriously?
If he takes that job do we get out of paying his pension since he's not "retired?"
Anyhow... if the alarmists refuse to get on board for aggressive and extensive nuclear (because OMG Fukushima) the prospect of fomenting global unrest does not manage to grow any additional branches on that risk assessment tree.
It seems pretty obvious to me that if AGW is real, and AGW is apocalyptic, and AGW can be staved off through decisive action.... that the fact that the True Believers are too afraid of science to TAKE decisive action (because OMG Fukushima) that the risk tree can only ever have one branch.
What will happen will happen and humanity will adapt.
(because OMG Fukushima)
Like, OMG guyz, I know! And did you see the German response to that? Like, what do they know about what they're doing anyway? Nuclear is like totally safe forever and never creates problems. 3 Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima were great. We can always prevent disasters from happening 100% because hindsight is 20/20 and as conservatives we know that there's a brave new future ahead when it comes to the "I told you so's" that never happened! In America bad things never happen unless liberals made it so.
Is German Energy Director Synova trying to resemble Merkel?
…Protests continued and, on 29 May 2011, Merkel's government announced that it would close all of its nuclear power plants by 2022.[12][13] Eight of the seventeen operating reactors in Germany were permanently shut down following Fukushima.
Chancellor Angela Merkel said the phase-out of plants, previously scheduled to go offline as late as 2036, would give Germany a competitive advantage in the renewable energy era, stating, "As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs". Merkel also pointed to Japan's "helplessness" – despite being an industrialized, technologically advanced nation – in the face of its nuclear disaster.
(Famous Internet Commenter) Synova's on to you, Silly Conservative German Lady, and your 3rd-rate nation of laggards in the energy development sector! You just don't know what you're talking about! A nation of pundits without scientific understanding agrees! We will pummel you and your pre-agricultural nation of stone-age primitives into the ground!
USA! USA! USA! etc.
You get to choose, Ritmo.
Either AGW is an effing big deal... or it's not.
If nuclear is *more dangerous than* AGW... then we choose AGW.
We get one or we get the other.
Choose your mode of destruction. Clearly, as most other AGW alarmists who like to lecture and feel superior because they accept the truth, you choose to be destroyed by CO2 driven climate disruption because "energy" is, well, *energetic* and therefore frightening.
So in the end, it's about nothing more than personal superiority for believing the right things.
And bottom line is the will to fuel a non-CO2 technological future doesn't exist, so we will go frack some more.
It's not *quite* as stupid as choosing to doom the world with the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man... but it's close.
"Steag Starts Coal-Fired Power Plant in Germany"
(Article mentions this is one of ten...)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/steag-starts-germany-s-first-coal-fired-power-plant-in-8-years.html
"Germany Plans to Raze Towns for Brown Coal and Cheap Energy"
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2014/02/140211-germany-plans-to-raze-towns-for-brown-coal/
"German coal industry underpins renewable push"
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-26820405
OMG the world has CANCER.
Okay, we'll treat it with some radiation then.
OMG I'd rather have CANCER.
... no grown ups in the house. Not a one. Climate disruption is going to be solved by wishful thinking and clapping really hard for Tinkerbell...
"Green Revolution? German Brown Coal Power Output Hits New High"
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/researchers-alarmed-at-rise-in-german-brown-coal-power-output-a-942216.html
And what's significant about Brown Coal? "Primarily because of latent high moisture content of brown coal, carbon dioxide emissions from traditional brown-coal-fired plants are generally much higher than for comparable black-coal plants..."
Source: Wikipedia
You may not see this comment, Synova, but good job in delineating the choices. Choices which as you say aren't being made as it is more useful for some to doom and gloom instead of rationally focusing on real solutions.
Synova at 5:29 and all her other comments.
The demands here that conservatives admit that it's warming, and thinking that this means admitting the whole basket load of associated beliefs... but being right about the one thing and forcing people to admit it, in no way even implies that any of the rest of it is true.
And being told to engage the science? If you don't make confession first, you're not *allowed* at communion. It's a bogus condition since shutting people down happens at the "confess the true faith or else" stage of the so-called discussion.
and...
We're people... either God or Darwin gave us legs. Acting like we're rooted to a coastline, screaming in futile terror as the ocean inches toward our feet over the next 100 or 200 years is just silly talk.
Thank you!
Thank you Chickl.
Destroy the coasts! Pollute the skies and waters! Irradiate the canyons! More Fukushimas and Chernobyls! Only conservatives have the foresight to push forward with these pressing imperatives!
Choose your mode of destruction. Clearly, as most other AGW alarmists who like to lecture and feel superior because they accept the truth, you choose to be destroyed by CO2 driven climate disruption because "energy" is, well, *energetic* and therefore frightening.
So in the end, it's about nothing more than personal superiority for believing the right things.
Conservatives have the right answers because they embrace some sort of inherent sense of inferiority (without which you are apparently suspect as a human being) and choose varying sorts of destruction over the development innovative constructive technologies.
Did you hear that Thomas Edison?
Thousands of attempts to get an electrical filament to not burn. What a liberal progressive fool! Didn't he know how desperate such an endeavor was? All those lost night of sleep when he could have just admitted to his inferiority and taken the Rockefeller dollars as a consultant to figure out which type of oil technologies would be suitable for lighting our homes.
Edison. Total liberal progressive asshole. And don't even get me started on that pretentious Tesla hippie.
They never learn. Always think they have something new to come up with. New things never happen, though. They're always pipe dreams. Technology never really progresses that dramatically. They need to just give it up. Pack it in.
Oh gosh golly gee! Looks like Bloomberg's got some fact-checkers!
Bob_Wallace • 6 months ago
It's too bad that Bloomberg didn't bother telling the full story.
Germany's new coal burning plants are replacing (not adding to) the older plants that either have been or will soon be decommissioned. These new plants were planned and construction was started prior to the decision to close nuclear plants.
By 2020, 18.5 gigawatts of coal power capacity will be decommissioned, whereas only 11.3 gigawatts will be newly installed.
Furthermore those plants will be more efficient, releasing less CO2 per unit electricity produced than are the ones they are replacing. And the new coal plants are partially load-following which will result in even less CO2 emission and coal use.
As of November 2013 some 28 power plants with a collective capacity of 7,000 MW – roughly equivalent to the capacity shutdown in Chancellor Merkel’s sudden nuclear phaseout in March 2011 – have been submitted for decommissioning.
Additionally, there is discussion that all the 11.3 gigawatts of new coal may not be needed. Apparently as much as 3.1 gigawatts of new builds may be canceled.
1 • Reply•Share ›
Avatar
disqus_lSZTklmvO1 Bob_Wallace • 4 months ago
Bob, can you help me find some sources to cite for those numbers? It would be helpful for a discussion I'm having with a friend...
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
Bob_Wallace disqus_lSZTklmvO1 • 4 months ago
Here you go...
http://www.renewableenergyworl... http://www.renewablesinternati... http://www.dena.de/fileadmin/u…
Thousands of attempts to get an electrical filament to not burn. What a liberal progressive fool! Didn't he know how desperate such an endeavor was? All those lost night of sleep when he could have just admitted to his inferiority and taken the Rockefeller dollars as a consultant to figure out which type of oil technologies would be suitable for lighting our homes
The irony is that in the end liberals rejected Edison's most famous invention in favor of dispersing mercury throughout the land.
Whatever. More nonsense.
Never enough nonsense to spread.
Ritmo, from the Der Spiegel sub-headline...
"But new figures show that coal power output in 2013 reached its highest level in more than 20 years."
TWENTY YEAR HIGH! Opposite of what you claim is true.
You say bullshit? Take it up the Germans. Me? I smell yours plenty well.
Besides, you've already confessed in the past to just post with the intent to troll so, for a change, try giving a damn about the truth rather than being a lying a-hole.
Post a Comment