Science

[jamil]

I find it interesting how some of the high profile climate liars (like Prof Hockey Stick) fight FOIA requests tooth and nail to hide the data they claim to have.

That just doesn't happen when an actual scientist publishes results and conclusions. They want people to review their work thoroughly. Hiding it is a HUGE clue.

This is a major reason I am skeptical of apocalyptic climate change. Act like you're trying to hide something and I'm going to suspect you're trying to hide something.

 

[Woobie]

Almost every climate alarmist I've ever debated in person or online, at some point brings up the "err on the side of caution" point. What can't we justify if it could possibly save one child, one furry kitten, one snail darter. These are the warnings that powerful self-interested people use to tug on emotions to get people to concede more power to them.

deGrasse Tyson's video is just an elitist tugging at emotions to get people to concede important decisions to people like him. I'm not saying that we should disregard what all scientists say. I think we should demand transparency and consider what they have to say. But I'm not gonna concede decision-making to elitist scientists.

Their go-to argument seems to be a warmed over version of Pascal's Wager.

 

[BugI02]

My belief is that at some future time, indeterminate by me, this world will be completely remade anyway

 

[jamil]

Their go-to argument seems to be a warmed over version of Pascal's Wager.

True. I think I actually used some form of that line with david890.

 

[Libertarian01]

To my thinking the beauty of science is that it always questions itself. It seeks truth and is willing to course correct when proven wrong. There is no ego in pure science, only the search for the truth.

The thing is, I also believe it is better to go with what is proven by all testing now, not what may or may not be confirmed in the future. Once a scientific theory is proven or dis-proven, go with that "new" truth. There is nothing wrong with admitting you weren't 100% correct 30 years ago. This is how we survive longer and longer, how modern medicine has improved our lives and increased our likelihood of surviving cancer along with numerous other illnesses.

As to global warming I think the scientific community would completely agree that temperatures have risen and fallen significantly over the billion year history of our planet. It isn't that we have global warming, but rather the RATE at which the planet is warming. Huge swathes of coral reefs have already been destroyed by an increase of only 2 degrees. Had that 2 degree rise in temperature occurred over several thousand years, or even several hundred, the damage may have been far less. However it has occurred over less than 100 years. Bad juju for coral reefs. This loss then impacts fish, ocean PH levels, currents, etc etc etc.

There are now reports of good wine coming out of England. Yes, the Brits making good wine. Whooda thunk? The reason they can do this in some larger areas now is because of the temperature rise allowing better grapes to grow, so good for them.

The problem will potentially arise when Someplace like Indiana can no longer grow corn or soybeans in a short timespan of 20 years? How quickly could farmers and industry respond. It isn't that we cannot respond, but rather perhaps not fast enough.

I guess one of the main reasons I believe in the science of man-made global warming is that there is no profit motive for the vast majority of scientists out there. Some yes, sure, but the vast majority? No. It isn't like they all bought stock in Tesla or solar panel technology and now want to make gazillions on their new companies. They are just following where their studies have led them. Coal companies, oil companies, natural gas companies on the other hand...? They have a vested, financial interest in keeping the status quo. Investing in new technologies and alternate venues would cost billions of dollars in the short term, so why go along when your bottom line will be hurt and your investors unhappy? I also believe in the short sightedness of many humans, something I think most on here would agree with.

But skipping the idea of global warming it does seem like the search for truth is itself derided in some circles due to its flexible nature. Years ago many studies initially found a link between cholesterol and heart disease, so we did further studies along with developing drugs to reduce cholesterol. Today, more and more studies are showing the link we once thought was there isn't, so science is derided for not getting it right the first time. Except that there was no intent to deceive the public, only to protect. Scientists were wrong - possibly. Yet now we have pharmaceutical companies that have invested billions of dollars in cholesterol busting drug research and make tens of billions of dollars selling those drugs. They aren't exactly on the express train to embrace the new science and stop pushing their pills.

And yet scientists can be their own worst enemy by deriding people without having an honest discourse. While I believe in vaccinating children, there are honest risks to getting a vaccine. I believe the people who cite those risks as an excuse not to vaccinate are wrong, but I'm not going to insult them or deny that there are risks. My approach would be to show a risk/reward analysis of vaccines. However, all too often those who support the "science" of vaccines (which I agree with) are woefully horrible in their treatment and derision of those who don't want to vaccinate. They don't discuss, they preach, and that is wrong.

So I guess in the end I am willing to embrace science because it is willing to say it was wrong yesterday, when it finds new facts and new studies to support a different conclusion. Science doesn't hold onto an idea just because it likes it, but humans do.

Regards,

Doug

 

[DoggyDaddy]

*Snip*
So I guess in the end I am willing to embrace science because it is willing to say it was wrong yesterday, when it finds new facts and new studies to support a different conclusion. Science doesn't hold onto an idea just because it likes it, but humans do.

Regards,

Doug

Unfortunately, having lived through a lot of these changes of course, (man-made global cooling, "margarine good, butter bad", etc.) I am reminded of the old Bullwinkle magic skit. Some of us just want to see the darned rabbit.

[video=youtube;VgJh0yP6Kxw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgJh0yP6Kxw[/video]

 

[Libertarian01]

Unfortunately, having lived through a lot of these changes of course, (man-made global cooling, "margarine good, butter bad", etc.) I am reminded of the old Bullwinkle magic skit. Some of us just want to see the darned rabbit.

I have lived through these issues as well.

I think park of the wonder of today is the rate at which our knowledge of science is expanding. I don't know the percentages of I'm guessing for the first 95% of human history we relied primarily on muscle power, either ours or an animal to get work done. Oh yeah, and wind power for ships.

Then, for a brief moment of history we jumped quickly to steam engines. After that - BOOM!

When Galileo published his work that supported Copernicus and Tycho Brahe the printing press was the pinnacle of modern publishing, having been out for less than 200 years. Today, years of research can be organized on a word processor and published within a month of completing. It is instantly on the internet in every scientists and layman's home within minutes of hitting the website.

I remember when someone who had a stroke was supposed to "rest in bed." Today, a stroke victim is pushed to start moving ASAP and get their muscles going. So I understand that what we were raised on as kids, "margarine good, butter bad" is hard to reconcile with the new knowledge that we got it wrong, at least partly. That said, the olde studies were the stepping stones to a more thorough knowledge of what is good and bad, so I trust what we have today more than what we had ten (10) or twenty (20) years ago.

Naturally skepticism is healthy and embraced in science, but not to always attack the people who are doing the science. To attack the methodology and standards of the research is good, but to always dismiss scientific findings because we don't like what they say is just wrong. Of course some researchers can be dismissed out of hand due to their lack of personal integrity, but that is the small minority of researchers and scientists. The rest are contributing to an exponential increase in information, data, and knowledge that can hopefully help us correct some of our errors, and otherwise just increase our common knowledge of the world and space around us.

Regards,

Doug

PS - On a personal note I don't give a hoot what anyone says, Pluto is a planet! (Yes, even I can be a hypocrite!)

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

In all honesty, the one thing that bothers me about the debate over climate science is that science in general gets bashed as collateral damage in the process.

The "margarine good, butter bad" thing wasn't proof that science is bad. It was proof that sometimes science is done badly. The general public bashes all science as some kind of revenge for being duped, not realizing that it's to their own detriment and that, just maybe it would be good to learn a little more about this science stuff so that they might be able to not be duped in the future. (Lots of people never believed the margarine hype)

I think it's possible that humans have not and could not affect our global climate and that the whole thing is made up for political and/or financial gain.
I also think it's possible that humans have and are affecting our global climate and that the "deniers" are motivated by political and/or financial reasons.

Either way, it seems to suggest to me that getting to the root of THAT argument might not be as important as getting to the root of WHY we're having the argument.

 

[Leadeye]

Always follow the money.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I heard it said one time that the whacko-environmentalist movement is the new home for the communist party. It's hard to dispute that because they seem to share the goal of the communists to destroy capitalism and western way of life. I was pretty young when Silent Spring came out. But we've been on a torrent ever since then. It was one thing to stop polluting rivers and lakes, burying toxic chemicals, and that sort of thing. But since then, it's been one faux emergency after another to redirect and restrict western lifestyles. And as Leadeye suggests, it's been assisted by the cronies and opportunists riding the environmental scares to mountains of wealth.

 

[Route 45]

My belief is that at some future time, indeterminate by me, this world will be completely remade anyway

To my thinking the beauty of science is that it always questions itself. It seeks truth and is willing to course correct when proven wrong. There is no ego in pure science, only the search for the truth.

The thing is, I also believe it is better to go with what is proven by all testing now, not what may or may not be confirmed in the future. Once a scientific theory is proven or dis-proven, go with that "new" truth. There is nothing wrong with admitting you weren't 100% correct 30 years ago. This is how we survive longer and longer, how modern medicine has improved our lives and increased our likelihood of surviving cancer along with numerous other illnesses.

As to global warming I think the scientific community would completely agree that temperatures have risen and fallen significantly over the billion year history of our planet. It isn't that we have global warming, but rather the RATE at which the planet is warming. Huge swathes of coral reefs have already been destroyed by an increase of only 2 degrees. Had that 2 degree rise in temperature occurred over several thousand years, or even several hundred, the damage may have been far less. However it has occurred over less than 100 years. Bad juju for coral reefs. This loss then impacts fish, ocean PH levels, currents, etc etc etc.

There are now reports of good wine coming out of England. Yes, the Brits making good wine. Whooda thunk? The reason they can do this in some larger areas now is because of the temperature rise allowing better grapes to grow, so good for them.

The problem will potentially arise when Someplace like Indiana can no longer grow corn or soybeans in a short timespan of 20 years? How quickly could farmers and industry respond. It isn't that we cannot respond, but rather perhaps not fast enough.

I guess one of the main reasons I believe in the science of man-made global warming is that there is no profit motive for the vast majority of scientists out there. Some yes, sure, but the vast majority? No. It isn't like they all bought stock in Tesla or solar panel technology and now want to make gazillions on their new companies. They are just following where their studies have led them. Coal companies, oil companies, natural gas companies on the other hand...? They have a vested, financial interest in keeping the status quo. Investing in new technologies and alternate venues would cost billions of dollars in the short term, so why go along when your bottom line will be hurt and your investors unhappy? I also believe in the short sightedness of many humans, something I think most on here would agree with.

But skipping the idea of global warming it does seem like the search for truth is itself derided in some circles due to its flexible nature. Years ago many studies initially found a link between cholesterol and heart disease, so we did further studies along with developing drugs to reduce cholesterol. Today, more and more studies are showing the link we once thought was there isn't, so science is derided for not getting it right the first time. Except that there was no intent to deceive the public, only to protect. Scientists were wrong - possibly. Yet now we have pharmaceutical companies that have invested billions of dollars in cholesterol busting drug research and make tens of billions of dollars selling those drugs. They aren't exactly on the express train to embrace the new science and stop pushing their pills.

And yet scientists can be their own worst enemy by deriding people without having an honest discourse. While I believe in vaccinating children, there are honest risks to getting a vaccine. I believe the people who cite those risks as an excuse not to vaccinate are wrong, but I'm not going to insult them or deny that there are risks. My approach would be to show a risk/reward analysis of vaccines. However, all too often those who support the "science" of vaccines (which I agree with) are woefully horrible in their treatment and derision of those who don't want to vaccinate. They don't discuss, they preach, and that is wrong.

So I guess in the end I am willing to embrace science because it is willing to say it was wrong yesterday, when it finds new facts and new studies to support a different conclusion. Science doesn't hold onto an idea just because it likes it, but humans do.

Regards,

Doug

A perfect example of someone who has stopped thinking vs. an inquisitive mind.

Science is not perfect, as humans are not perfect. But if we are going to advance as a species, it ain't going to be from the efforts of the doomsday cult that's greatest mission is to get me up early on Sunday to overdress and apologize for being human.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I think that science is perfect. It's just imperfectly understood.

 

[Route 45]

Yeah, I should have said that the study of science is not perfect. Because humans.

 

[2A_Tom]

GREEN is the new RED

My problems with the man made part are,

• Similar to PC it is required that you comply (Marxism)
• The Meteorological Society declared that meteorologists that deny MMGW will be censured.
• East Anglia falsified their research.
• The latest sea study used faulty methods and found very little, I think .04° change.

• The Great Barrier Reef is thriving in the warmest seas in the world. The reef studies were falsified.
• You lie time and again, I'm sorry I don't believe anything you say.
• If you use force to make people to comply you are a Marxist,

Call me a denier, a neanderthal and a CHRISTIAN, fine with me.

Demonstrable and verifiable data can be called science = knowledge = nature = the study of Gods creation.

Unverifiable data is science so called.

 

[indiucky]

No matter what one believes Craig gives a pretty good response and Buckley actually made the phrase "Put that in your pipe and smoke it" and makes it sound funny...And then of course who didn't think of this song (if you're a certain age) when they came to this thread....

[video=youtube;3vnjNbe5lyE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE[/video]


[video=youtube;Y2VNxmn0lNA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2VNxmn0lNA[/video]

 

[Spear Dane]

Why people are marching for science: ‘There is no Planet B’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/big-turnout-expected-for-march-for-science-in-dc/2017/04/21/67cf7f90-237f-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.a92038aad773


Hmmm, sounds like something I would say. Oh wait, I did.

 

[BE Mike]

Why people are marching for science: ‘There is no Planet B’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/big-turnout-expected-for-march-for-science-in-dc/2017/04/21/67cf7f90-237f-11e7-bb9d-8cd6118e1409_story.html?utm_term=.a92038aad773


Hmmm, sounds like something I would say. Oh wait, I did.

Here's what this protest was really about: (1) Emily Fink, 28, and Kayla Denson, 29, are biomedical researchers who drove seven hours from Buffalo, N.Y., to attend the march, and they said they fear the Trump administration’s proposed budget cuts will imperil their careers.
(2) But many people present are veterans of protests. Grace Francis, 33, and Ron Frerker, 36, of Washington, said they’ve been to a series of protests since Trump took office.

 

[BugI02]

A perfect example of someone who has stopped thinking vs. an inquisitive mind.

Science is not perfect, as humans are not perfect. But if we are going to advance as a species, it ain't going to be from the efforts of the doomsday cult that's greatest mission is to get me up early on Sunday to overdress and apologize for being human.

Eat right, exercise, die anyway

Science has limits. But don't mistake me for a science denier as I am an engineer, science and math are my go-to choices in areas where they can be rationally applied. On climate change I tend to hew to the viewpoint best expressed by Scott Adams; to whit that complex formulas, composed of poorly understood variables and interelation of same, have never worked well for predictive purposes (see:economics) and until climate science can settle on one equation as best rather than a suite of such, it will not be able to make a convincing case that such prediction is possible and reliable. Without the ability to predict the results of actions to mitigate climate change, or even tell whether man-made actions will be of sufficient magnitude in their effects to matter, it is foolish to make changes in economies that may cause more harm than good. These people have had more than twenty years to come up with at least some basic outline of a mathematical relationship and they still cannot separate the dependant variables from the independent ones. As in careful investment strategies, no investment worth making ever needs to be made 'right now, or the opportunity will be lost' - from such haste are fools and their money translocated

 

[BugI02]

I heard it said one time that the whacko-environmentalist movement is the new home for the communist party. It's hard to dispute that because they seem to share the goal of the communists to destroy capitalism and western way of life. I was pretty young when Silent Spring came out. But we've been on a torrent ever since then. It was one thing to stop polluting rivers and lakes, burying toxic chemicals, and that sort of thing. But since then, it's been one faux emergency after another to redirect and restrict western lifestyles. And as Leadeye suggests, it's been assisted by the cronies and opportunists riding the environmental scares to mountains of wealth.

Indeed. One telling fact for me is that although increased CO2 release into the atmosphere is touted as such a grave, existential threat the environmental movement can only bring itself to embrace renewables such as wind and solar. Nuclear power causes virtually no C02 release and offers scaleable, reliable 24/7 power production for insertion into the grid with the least drama and disruption. If the concern is meltdown or other drastic excursions, well the existing designs all pretty much date to the 60s and early 70s. Bring in the real scientists and update the designs - hell we barely had electronics available for control in those days. If your worries lean more toward the deadliness of the waste and proliferation, investigate the thorium cycle - which would not be wasted effort because there is 100x the fuel available to feed a Thorium cycle reactor as there is a uranium based one

That the global warming chorus can't bring itself to embrace a sensible, intermediate step on the way to power by pure renewables makes me think their movement has much kinship with a religion of sorts. They are not guided by the science they love to invoke. Yes, people can use less power, but how much less? Heating and cooling, including heating for cooking, are still energy intensive and difficult to increase in efficiency. The same is true of transportation.

Using information I pulled up from the University of Oregon, a typical house at 40 degrees latitude using 100M2 of collection area (about 1100 sq ft) receives:

In summer, about 600 watts per square meter x 8hrs of insolation = 4800 potential watt-hours per M2 with an aggregate potential recoverable energy of 480 total KWH. Now, modern polycrystalline panels are 14-15% efficient at conversion of that total insolation so you are working with 72 available KWH per day (assuming you can get 8hrs of sunlight all day every day)

In winter, you can expect half the insolation for about 6hrs per day giving an energy budget of 300 x 6hrs x 100M2 x .15 efficiency = 27 KWH (again assuming 6hrs of sun available every day. i.e.: best case, not factoring in variability)

Typical household winter energy usage (worst case, although cooling uses a fair amount of energy also) is on the order of 2000 - 3000 KWH per month, or about 70 to 100 KWH per day

Add in about 70KWH per day plus 10% losses = 77KWH to recharge your Tesla model S from its discharge limit (easiest car to find good data on). Lets use 1/4 of that figuring you use that percentage of its potential range (that's a top of the head figure, believe its range in highway driving is over 230 - 250 miles) or around 19KWH per day

Totalling winter useage in this admittedly simplistic example say 90 to 120 KWH per day, so solar can provide 1/4 to 1/5 of your energy needs presupposing efficient storage with adequate discharge capability (again, assuming every day is maximally sunny).

Where will the remaining 75 to 80% of your power needs come from? The grid, perhaps?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Indeed. One telling fact for me is that although increased CO2 release into the atmosphere is touted as such a grave, existential threat the environmental movement can only bring itself to embrace renewables such as wind and solar. Nuclear power causes virtually no C02 release and offers scaleable, reliable 24/7 power production for insertion into the grid with the least drama and disruption. If the concern is meltdown or other drastic excursions, well the existing designs all pretty much date to the 60s and early 70s. Bring in the real scientists and update the designs - hell we barely had electronics available for control in those days. If your worries lean more toward the deadliness of the waste and proliferation, investigate the thorium cycle - which would not be wasted effort because there is 100x the fuel available to feed a Thorium cycle reactor as there is a uranium based one

That the global warming chorus can't bring itself to embrace a sensible, intermediate step on the way to power by pure renewables makes me think their movement has much kinship with a religion of sorts. They are not guided by the science they love to invoke. Yes, people can use less power, but how much less? Heating and cooling, including heating for cooking, are still energy intensive and difficult to increase in efficiency. The same is true of transportation.

Using information I pulled up from the University of Oregon, a typical house at 40 degrees latitude using 100M2 of collection area (about 1100 sq ft) receives:

In summer, about 600 watts per square meter x 8hrs of insolation = 4800 potential watt-hours per M2 with an aggregate potential recoverable energy of 480 total KWH. Now, modern polycrystalline panels are 14-15% efficient at conversion of that total insolation so you are working with 72 available KWH per day (assuming you can get 8hrs of sunlight all day every day)

In winter, you can expect half the insolation for about 6hrs per day giving an energy budget of 300 x 6hrs x 100M2 x .15 efficiency = 27 KWH (again assuming 6hrs of sun available every day. i.e.: best case, not factoring in variability)

Typical household winter energy usage (worst case, although cooling uses a fair amount of energy also) is on the order of 2000 - 3000 KWH per month, or about 70 to 100 KWH per day

Add in about 70KWH per day plus 10% losses = 77KWH to recharge your Tesla model S from its discharge limit (easiest car to find good data on). Lets use 1/4 of that figuring you use that percentage of its potential range (that's a top of the head figure, believe its range in highway driving is over 230 - 250 miles) or around 19KWH per day

Totalling winter useage in this admittedly simplistic example say 90 to 120 KWH per day, so solar can provide 1/4 to 1/5 of your energy needs presupposing efficient storage with adequate discharge capability (again, assuming every day is maximally sunny).

Where will the remaining 75 to 80% of your power needs come from? The grid, perhaps?

It seems hard to beat a box car load of coal or barrel of oil for the energy density and efficiency of delivery to the user. The only way they've found to make that renewable chuff seem like it's cheap is to artificially make cheap fuel expensive.

God gave us our intelligence, inquisitiveness, and inventiveness. When it's time to find a way to make wind, solar, and other boutique fuel as cost efficient as gas, oil, and coal, we'll figure it out.