Tuesday, May 19, 2015

How far the Science has fallen.

Republished with permission from http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/19/what-can-we-do-about-climate-change/

Willis Eschenbach
Both Gutting and Jamieson accept the IPCC conclusions, and even seem to think that ‘dangerous’ climate change is already happening. So starting from that particular premise (with which I know many people here will disagree), Gutting and Jamieson bring some refreshing realism to debate on how we should think about climate change and what we should do about it.
So this is how far science has fallen? Here’s the new scientific paradigm.
Someone “thinks” that something dangerous is happening. He doesn’t know how it’s happening. He can’t say why it’s happening. He doesn’t have any data to show that anything dangerous is going on. But by gosh, he’s convinced it’s happening … or to be more accurate, that it will happen in a decade or two. Of course he’s been saying this for three decades now, but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..
So what scientists should do, according to this paradigm, is to assume that Chicken Little is right and the sky actually is falling, and start looking for solutions to a problem when:
• we don’t know if the “problem” is actually happening, and
• all predictions of calamities which this “problem” is claimed to cause have proven wrong to date, and not just wrong but calamitously wrong … and
• if the “problem” is happening, we don’t know why, and
• the models of the “problem” have all diverged from reality,
• we don’t know if we can establish climate causality or predict the future evolution of the climate even in theory, so in response,
• alarmists all sit in a circle and jerk about how to deal with this as-yet-unverified “problem” and talk about poor scientific communication and how “deniers” are psychologically damaged, and meanwhile
• we piss huge unspecified amounts of money into various rose-colored holes in the ground and
• we plan to reorganize the entire energy system of the planet, using untried, unreliable, and uneconomic renewable sources, and
• we give billions to line the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world dictators and apparatchiks, which under the new scientific paradigm is described by words like “compensation, not inaction” and “helping the poor” and “carbon-capture” and “making things revenue-neutral”.
Pathetic. Farkin’ pathetic.
Judith, you tried this “new paradigm” hogwash before, most notably with Captain Ravetz and his Post-Normal Science Avengers explaining why this problem needs new science …
Climate, while it is a wickedly tough problem, does not require some new kind of scientific paradigm. It just requires equally tough, honest science, science of the plain old-fashioned variety that doesn’t start with the assumption that there is a problem and go haring off after an imaginary solution. You know … real science with things like the “null hypothesis” and transparency, the good old-fashioned science which far too many modern climate scientists do their best to ignore.

Thanks, Willis, Appreciate the permission to repost!

Sunday, May 17, 2015

Thor Hammers on the Poor

(Guest post by @SlagOffTwits from Storify)

Actually RE + storage is THE most expensive electricity option. It is strictly a boutique or prestige item, like a Tesla or a Rolex. There are better, much less expensive options. It would take massive subsidies to move them into the residential market in any scale.

This is the basis of the whole argument... that somehow more expensive power is better. Yet we KNOW that one of the primary reasons for the developed world's rapid advances is cheap energy, and one of the primary reasons the developing world hasn't caught up is the lack of cheap energy.

Well, we certainly agree on this one point. FIT has been a nightmare Ontario can't wake from...

One OR the other, not of... stupid fingers... We get to the logical fallacy part of the ideological argument, false dichotomy in this case. Why does it have to be FIT or carbon tax? It could be something else, or neither. The logical response to a challenge is to examine whether or not a solution is needed, and if so which is the best. If action IS warranted, a cost/benefit analysis helps determine the best course of action.

Non sequitur

No, I am wary of solutions that are worse than problems. That's why analysts exist. That's why we have insurance. That's why risk assessment and abatement is a growing field.

A simply bizarre statement that again highlights the partisan blinders in use... Wind and solar are the least effective and most expensive solutions in almost all circumstances. And require backup generation at idle. Just try heating your house with wind and solar on those loooong, still -40F northern nights. And forget about using them to power your car to drive somewhere warm.

Don't answer to my point. Go for the redirection ad hom...

Well this confirms what I just said about "ideological position". You aren't giving reasons. You aren't weighing costs vs benefits. You aren't considering resource allocation. You are just stating something must be, and damn any other considerations. This is the very definition of dogma. And I JUST stated in the previous tweet that this isn't taking into consideration human needs. I guess people can fuck right off when dogma demands.

When you are too lazy or incompetent to back an ideological brain fart with evidence and sound argument, ALWAYS go for the insult.

Corollary to Godwin's Law...

Notice the clever use of hashtag to invite dogpile.