Words of wisdom from Bill Gates

[living sounds]

Same back at you.. Use you imagination to think what this Agnotist would call you in response.  8)

JR

Correction, this wasn't phrased corretly, since you are not "doing"  the Agnotism per se, but arguing along their lines.

I don't hold you in low regard. This ain't personal. But you obviously hold science and the scientists practising it in low regard when it contradicts your world view.

I see myself as a skeptic and strife to reason by the standards of scientific skepticism. It is all about methodology, not about outcomes, so if the science shows different results I am willing to change my mind.

When you can't even find any experts in the respective fields disagreeing with the fundamental assessment that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality, that has to be good enough for me. I cannot even imagine the level of understanding they have in their fields of expertise, and neither can you or anyone else outside their field.

It's not scientific dissent when a physicist like Fred Singer, a guy with a hard right political cold warrior agenda, public denier of the health risks of passive smoking, denier of the links between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,  questioner of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates etc. again argues about something he doesn't have fundamental expertise in. Or all those marketing experts and MBAs from the so-called think tanks.

Here's a good run-down regarding climate-change vs natural cycles BTW:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm


http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycle

 

[ln76d]

Not so long time ago "scientists" were making lobotomy to cure the patients...

 

[Phrazemaster]

To say it's the "prevailing opinion" or consensus amongst scientists that global warming has anthropomorphic roots is to deny the reality. Plenty of scientists don't agree with this viewpoint, and as such gives pause when assigning causality.

Call me a neocon all you want, but follow the money and a picture emerges that global warming and carbon credits are big business.

Since when does government take the side of reason or pure applied science when money is involved?  We are fed bullshit by the media and are bludgeoned into the corner of what they tell us, if we let them.

Take pharmaceuticals. Why on earth are we not allowed to label herbs with their actions in the human body? Is it because they don't work? No, thousands of years of medicine using them has proven their efficacy. And pharmaceutical companies get drugs from herbs then resell it.

Government is not your friend - this is not paranoia but a position gleaned by basic observation.

Why is Nestle allowed to  pump out 150 million gallons of water from Lake Charlotte in California - from public lands, during the worst drought in recorded history here? They pay nothing for it, then sell it back to us in bottles that go to landfills.

We are talking about big business here, with global warming. To nullify this aspect of the situation is to face it without the bigger picture. Who stands to profit from the government position? They say science advances one funeral at a time.

That being said, in the end, what we can and should agree on is that cleaner energy is a must. If the heat don't get ya, the pollutants will. It's not wise to shit where you eat.

 

[ln76d]

From five years or more, almost day after day, these fuckers are spraying the sky out of my window.
My government denied chemtrails some time ago...
Whose are those planes? Whose paying for that (it's a freaking expensive fun)? ...and what they are really spraying?
What i can hear on my local news? "American scientists" discovered... "russian researchers" found...
What "scientists"? "What researchers"? Give me some name, institutes... Anything...
"Magic box" says that there is a global warming and we have a mass hysteria... and a bunch of cunts doing their bussines on it...
This whole shit is a fucking bussines...
People would believe on anything... Show them some charts and they will believe that zyklon B sprayed under their heads is healthy - approved and traditionally made by beyer!
Sorry Guys for the language, but this pissed me off.
Goodnight everyone  :-*

 

[living sounds]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change


Facts.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Same back at you.. Use you imagination to think what this Agnotist would call you in response.  8)

JR

Correction, this wasn't phrased corretly, since you are not "doing"  the Agnotism per se, but arguing along their lines.

Maybe you can become a copy editor if your political advocacy doesn't pay. I don't even know if that was a word...  let alone used correctly. Did you misunderstand what I meant?

I don't hold you in low regard. This ain't personal. But you obviously hold science and the scientists practising it in low regard when it contradicts your world view.

Only thing more offensive than putting words in my mouth is ascribing motives, or conclusions to me that I do not hold. My world view covers a lot more than climate science. There is a great deal that needs work. Contrary to our leader in chief, climate change is not our biggest threat. (duh).

I see myself as a skeptic and strife to reason by the standards of scientific skepticism. It is all about methodology, not about outcomes, so if the science shows different results I am willing to change my mind.

The science for predicting climate response to various stimulus is incredibly complex, too complex for the current models to be remotely accurate.  I do not  hear much thoughtful discussion about the models but divisive us vs them polarized invective. 

When you can't even find any experts in the respective fields disagreeing with the fundamental assessment that anthropomorphic climate change is a reality, that has to be good enough for me. I cannot even imagine the level of understanding they have in their fields of expertise, and neither can you or anyone else outside their field.

Methinks you didn't look hard enough. Perhaps in like-minded circles everybody sings the same chorus, but there is plenty of dissent, that hasn't been completely squashed yet. 

It's not scientific dissent when a physicist like Fred Singer, a guy with a hard right political cold warrior agenda, public denier of the health risks of passive smoking, denier of the links between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss,  questioner of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates etc. again argues about something he doesn't have fundamental expertise in. Or all those marketing experts and MBAs from the so-called think tanks.

Yet another call to authority to somebody I never heard of does not hold much weight with me.

I wrote about this years ago, some chicago economists put this in good perspective. If there is a real (warming) problem there are several things we could do that would actually change the globe's temperature.  As I said back then, we better be damn certain about what we're doing if/when we actually start changing climate on purpose. 

Here's a good run-down regarding climate-change vs natural cycles BTW:

You're wasting more of my time... just more similar regurgitated conclusions.

Saying the same thing over and over does not make it true.  Finding like minded websites is not very hard and does not prove much.

I invite more thoughtful research, but do not choose to take your word for it because in you opinion your judgement is better than mine. I value my own judgement very highly,

JR

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm


http://www.climatecentral.org/library/faqs/how_do_we_know_it_is_not_a_natural_cycle

 

[ruffrecords]

PS: I don't know if I'm smarter than all those scientists but I'm probably smarter than the sheeple blindly following them. I don't respond well to calls to authority, and I remain unconvinced that it's somehow different this time.

It's the authority of the scientific method. It very much looks to me like you are following the authority of your tribe (US conservatives) instead here.

If the scientific method were being used in this field I would agree with you. The scientific method is to create a theory to explain the observed facts, use it to predict as yet unobserved events and subsequently conduct experiments to verify those observations and hence demonstrate the veracity of the theory.

Cheers

Ian

 

[Gold]

Not so long time ago "scientists" were making lobotomy to cure the patients...

Medicine is not a science.

 

[Phrazemaster]

Not so long time ago "scientists" were making lobotomy to cure the patients...

Medicine is not a science.

Amen.

 

[jasonallenh]

I hated giving up swordfish years ago over mercury threats, I haven't checked that fish lately but eat somewhat safer fish (salmon?) I hope.  Big fish that eat smaller fish are notorious for accumulating toxins. Salmon eat lots of plant matter so are relatively safer.

John,

As a Gulf Coast guy, I'm not too far from Deepwater Horizon as well. The absolute havoc that came from that (my seafood addiction took a major hit) was all in an attempt to harvest oil from an inconceivably difficult area- in a part of the map that typically (although not lately, thank goodness) gets thrashed with hurricanes. Even when Katrina hit the area, rigs were lost and oil was spilled (their shutoff valves worked, I guess? Still, 44 spills reported by the USCG), it just wasn't enough to be newsworthy. Even ON LAND, in Meraux, there was a spill that ended up in people's front yards.

These 'dirtier' forms of energy come with a cost that those companies just aren't paying. I imagine the claims that BP is still paying out would have been money better suited to investing in other forms of energy. I guess my point here is that if these companies can afford billions in claims, settlements, and lawsuits, they should just go and build some stinkin' solar panels instead.

 

[ln76d]

Not so long time ago "scientists" were making lobotomy to cure the patients...

Medicine is not a science.

That's why i wrote "scientists" not scientists

On the other hand - tell this to the "doctors"  ;D

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not so long time ago "scientists" were making lobotomy to cure the patients...

Medicine is not a science.

That's why i wrote "scientists" not scientists

On the other hand - tell this to the "doctors"  ;D

I like my local clinic doctor but in my judgement they are like auto mechanics working on self-healing cars (except for my arthritic knee that isn't ever going to heal :-( ).

We had a minor disagreement during my last visit so I did my own research and printed out two pub-med abstracts that supported my viewpoint for her to read.  The modern diagnostic technology gets better but I don't feel like we are close to understanding everything about the "glorious machine". Blood test reveals some marker out of whack so supplement this or that to get the stats back in spec. Kind of like how government looks at the economy, while we need better blood tests for the economy or less economic doctors trying to manage it.

Audio on the other hand is science, is simpler and is much better understood.

JR

 

[dmp]

Medicine is not a science.

Hummm.....
Antibiotics, Vaccines, Heart Surgery, Defibrillators, Pacemakers, Organ transplants, hip replacements, etc etc
The increase in quality of life for those privileged (wealthy) enough is incredible compared to 50 yrs ago. Let alone 100 yrs ago.
What's done these days would be unfathomable to someone from a previous generation.
What should really be baffling is the poor health decisions people make (nutrition, lack of exercise, voting to undermine pollution restrictions... 
I really can't understand the arguments against pollution restrictions. The same things said about CO2 were said about everything else in the past - NOx, Mercury, etc.etc. 
We're changing our environment and not for the better.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I hated giving up swordfish years ago over mercury threats, I haven't checked that fish lately but eat somewhat safer fish (salmon?) I hope.  Big fish that eat smaller fish are notorious for accumulating toxins. Salmon eat lots of plant matter so are relatively safer.

John,

As a Gulf Coast guy, I'm not too far from Deepwater Horizon as well. The absolute havoc that came from that (my seafood addiction took a major hit) was all in an attempt to harvest oil from an inconceivably difficult area- in a part of the map that typically (although not lately, thank goodness) gets thrashed with hurricanes. Even when Katrina hit the area, rigs were lost and oil was spilled (their shutoff valves worked, I guess? Still, 44 spills reported by the USCG), it just wasn't enough to be newsworthy. Even ON LAND, in Meraux, there was a spill that ended up in people's front yards.

BP was found to be guilty of gross negligence and willful misconduct. Halliburton and Transocen just negligent.

These 'dirtier' forms of energy come with a cost that those companies just aren't paying. I imagine the claims that BP is still paying out would have been money better suited to investing in other forms of energy. I guess my point here is that if these companies can afford billions in claims, settlements, and lawsuits, they should just go and build some stinkin' solar panels instead.

The deepwater horizon accident (they didn't do it on purpose, and it wasn't inevitable) was unfortunate. BP will pay $5-$20B far more than the $400M insurance policy, so clearly bad business on their part. I won't re-litigate the spill, we looked at this closely, but I recall issues with how they cemented in the well head. The blow-out preventer did not work as planned.

Oil seeps into the gulf all the time and is generally bio-degradable, while that much oil is surely toxic in those concentrations. Fertilizer washing into the gulf is also toxic causing  oxygen depletion, killing living things. If you are familiar with oil industry behavior in LA they were guilty of playing fast and loose with control and disposal of the really toxic chemicals used in drilling. Lots of bad behavior with land based drilling too.

In light of subsequent oil patch developments, there are easier and cheaper oil reserves to tap, while long term the industry is looking at the arctic  region. I read that US oil companies recently abandoned their efforts up there, but russia is still aggressively pursing that region.  The <$50 barrel oil price has gutted most oil companies appetite (and budgets) for new drilling, while long term they still want more reserves. The low price of oil is hurting Alaska that depends heavily on oil revenue for state government funding.

Windmills and solar panels, seem like no-brainers, but I am critical of both as incapable of replacing conventional energy sources, They can be useful in the margin to supplement, but when their fraction becomes too large you need to keep conventional sources available and on-line  to support demand flows.. Elon Musk's plans to install his batteries in every home may help level demand but that is a huge infrastructure cost.  No doubt he is counting on government subsidies for that and will probably get his wish. Funny how all his businesses get government support... that's part of his genius.  The government just announced a lease to allow windmills in the atlantic off NJ. Hopefully there are less bald eagles out in the atlantic.

I am disappointed that we have pretty much abandoned nuclear power with faint support. Modern nuclear technology is far safer than the decades old technology still in use. Legislators have ignored their own laws regarding nuclear waste storage.

Rather than forcing car makers to double gas mileage, we need to incentivize improved energy efficiency for heating and cooling homes, lots of low hanging fruit there.

But that's just my opinion and I don't have as much money as Bill Gates.

JR

PS: As a joke while ordering lunch in a local restaurant, I asked the waitress if the swordfish was fresh. She said of course they bring it up from the gulf coast daily. But this was before the spill. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Medicine is not a science.

Hummm.....
Antibiotics, Vaccines, Heart Surgery, Defibrillators, Pacemakers, Organ transplants, hip replacements, etc etc
The increase in quality of life for those privileged (wealthy) enough is incredible compared to 50 yrs ago. Let alone 100 yrs ago.
What's done these days would be unfathomable to someone from a previous generation.
What should really be baffling is the poor health decisions people make (nutrition, lack of exercise, voting to undermine pollution restrictions... 
I really can't understand the arguments against pollution restrictions. The same things said about CO2 were said about everything else in the past - NOx, Mercury, etc.etc. 
We're changing our environment and not for the better.

CO2 is part of the natural cycle, not remotely toxic pollution like mercury or other heavy metals.  We have made great strides at cleaning up the environment and should not confuse the issue with hyperbole about CO2.

Everyone could do their part to reduce CO2 by just skipping every other breath.  Nah.. I don't think that works. 

JR

 

[dmp]

Hopefully there are less bald eagles out in the atlantic.

Picture is an Osprey. Bald Eagles and Osprey are doing  well I think as pollution has been reduced.  Isn't it a straw man argument with respect to wind energy? Lead shot is a significant threat that could be addressed. Of course, the gun rights wackos would blow a gasket about it.

I am disappointed that we have pretty much abandoned nuclear power with faint support.

Aren't all Nuclear Power plants built with government money?

Rather than forcing car makers to double gas mileage, we need to incentivize improved energy efficiency for heating and cooling homes, lots of low hanging fruit there.

Both can be done. As with reducing pollution from tailpipes, it is more a function of forcing consumers to pay for the technology (whether it is pollution reduction of improved fuel efficiency).  I work in the field - it is possible and on the way.  But in a capitalist system,  improvements in emissions isn't worth the cost to consumers;  improved fuel efficiency isn't paid for by fuel cost reduction. If carmaker A puts out a clean car, and carmaker B puts out a cheaper dirty car, carmaker B makes more money. The FAILURE of capitalism. It leads to a tragedy of the commons. I've said this before, but I don't get why intelligent people don't get it. 
Question: how do YOU suggest incentivizing improved energy efficiency?

 

[dmp]

CO2 is part of the natural cycle, not remotely toxic pollution like mercury or other heavy metals.  We have made great strides at cleaning up the environment and should not confuse the issue with hyperbole about CO2.

Just dismissing something you disagree with as 'hyperbole' is not very interesting.
hyperbole: "exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally."
I am much more interested in hearing a response supported with facts. 

The storage of carbon in fossil fuels is fundamental to the current  ecosystem of the planet, to make it favorable to human life.
Just like other pollution (mercury, NOx, Asbestos, etc...) , the material exists on the planet, but was stored in a way that is not harmful to human existence.  Take a millennium of carbon that has been stored by the natural process and release it into the atmosphere - what happens? The ecosystem is profoundly changed. We KNOW at one point the atmosphere had very high CO2 content. That indicates the amount of carbon storage is immense. Changing that storage is a bad idea. Period.
Not hyperbole.
Maybe we are not there yet, but the time to act is now.

 

[living sounds]

CO2 is part of the natural cycle, not remotely toxic pollution like mercury or other heavy metals. 

Hm, naturalistic fallacy? Very often commited by liberals, BTW. 

Rape and genocide are part of naturally evolved human behaviour, that doesn't mean we should allow it.

First rule of toxicology:  It's a question of dosis. A little salt is mandatory for humans to stay healthy, too much will kill them.

Focusing on CO2 itself is like saying the copper in the power lines will kill you upon touch, or it's the lead in the accelerated bullet that is dangerous...


As for science vs medicine - recent medical advancements have been brought about by medical science. Medical sciences like pharmacology strictly apply the scientific method, that's why they get these results.

Medical practitioners on the other hand usually don't have a science-based education nor approach. This is changing, partly to the worse (evidenced by all the nonsense like homeopathy or acupuncture that has crept into medicine in recent decades) and partly to the better (as evidenced by skeptical schools of medicine gaining followers).

 

[JohnRoberts]

Last I heard we are carbon based life forms.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

Hopefully there are less bald eagles out in the atlantic.

Picture is an Osprey. Bald Eagles and Osprey are doing  well I think as pollution has been reduced.  Isn't it a straw man argument with respect to wind energy? Lead shot is a significant threat that could be addressed. Of course, the gun rights wackos would blow a gasket about it.

I didn't make that argument just observed parenthetically that ocean based turbines should kill less eagles.

The Bald eagle was removed from the endangered list in 2007, with gains attributed to reduced DDT use and protection of nesting sites. The eagles are still protected by federal law while the current administration has extended license to turbine operators to inadvertently kill protected birds.

Duke energy was prosecuted and pled guilty to killing eagles and other birds at two wind farms in Wyoming (2013). I am reluctant to repeat numbers from left wing websites but they suggest tens of millions of birds and bats killed worldwide. 

Kind of interesting when some endangered snail  darter can be so economically disruptive, while federally protected eagles don't count if it conflicts with green industry. Maybe if they become endangered again.  A 2004 (4 year) study of the Altmont, CA wind farm predicted an average of 116 golden eagles per year.  (That is hopefully a high profile worst case, for eagles at least).

I am disappointed that we have pretty much abandoned nuclear power with faint support.

Aren't all Nuclear Power plants built with government money?

I suspect Southern Company will be glad to hear that... While the government is inextricably entangled with nuclear plant financing AFAIK they only offer government guarantees on those loans. They may end up paying for it if the plants go bankrupt as several have. 

Rather than forcing car makers to double gas mileage, we need to incentivize improved energy efficiency for heating and cooling homes, lots of low hanging fruit there.

Both can be done. As with reducing pollution from tailpipes, it is more a function of forcing consumers to pay for the technology (whether it is pollution reduction of improved fuel efficiency). 

I am not a huge fan of using government force, in this case to get consumers to do what government believes is right. I appreciate the safety progress made in modern cars. That said I installed seat belts in my cars before they were required by law. I also wore a helmet when riding my motorcycle (and now bike) without being forced.

Speaking about tail pipe pollution I am following the VW situation closely. Interesting that detroit could not compete with german clean diesel technology. Now we know how they did it (cheat). The VW board of directors has significant labor and government representation. Apparently that was not enough to make them compete fairly.  Interesting times.

This is more of a pollution problem in Europe than here, because of widespread diesel use, but surely they sample air quality. You'd think somebody would notice, before a small lab in W Va. caught the discrepancy. 

I work in the field - it is possible and on the way.  But in a capitalist system,  improvements in emissions isn't worth the cost to consumers;  improved fuel efficiency isn't paid for by fuel cost reduction. If carmaker A puts out a clean car, and carmaker B puts out a cheaper dirty car, carmaker B makes more money. The FAILURE of capitalism. It leads to a tragedy of the commons. I've said this before, but I don't get why intelligent people don't get it. 

While forcing consumers to buy more expensive vehicles as the pice of gas falls seems a tragedy misapplied government force.  Ford is now making pick-up trucks out of aluminum, silly if it wasn't for severe mileage standards.

Question: how do YOU suggest incentivizing improved energy efficiency?

The good news is improving thermal insulation of homes can result in real energy cost savings almost immediately, so payback for investments in insulation could pay for themselves in a matter of only a few years.  This is already going on, to some extent and new homes are being built to higher standards that  reflect in lower energy bills and lower cost of ownership.

I am not a big fan of government distorting free market decisions, but I find this much less onerous than subsidizing rich peoples Teslas.

JR