Jump to content


Forbidden History


  • Please log in to reply
264 replies to this topic

Nunya_000 #21 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 18:10

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 08:39, said:

 

Argument from authortity

https://rationalwiki...Richard_Lindzen

 

 

 

 

Sorry Mark, but posting a link of an obviously bias source as being the "authority" on the "authority" figure used by another poster.....in order to argue against the "Argument from Authority" principle is a bit over the top.

Darkbee2Bee #22 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 18:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 36110 battles
  • 3,522
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

I'm curious OP, do you find mankind to be wasteful and/or destructive of our environment (the planet), or do you feel that it is under control and we know all we need to know about the impacts of our actions?

 

It's not a trap.  I'm not really interested in getting in to a debate (because I know it will be pointless) just curious to know where you're coming from.

 

 



Markd73 #23 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 20:49

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,136
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostNunya_000, on Nov 22 2017 - 17:10, said:

 

Sorry Mark, but posting a link of an obviously bias source as being the "authority" on the "authority" figure used by another poster.....in order to argue against the "Argument from Authority" principle is a bit over the top.

 

rationalwiki is a biased source? I think we have different definitions to what a biased source means. They debunk conspiracy theories and ridiculous ideas by referencing peer reviewed scientific evidence. Sounds about as unbiased as one can get in the echo chamber that is the Internet. 

 

If you read the actual article that I linked to, it describes how the scientist that the OP is quoting has has his evidence debunked by his peers at MIT. I am not quoting the scientists (as this would be an argument from authority) but the evidence that they have provided.

 

I didn't think I would have to spell all of that out, but I guess I am doing so now.

 

 


Edited by Markd73, Nov 22 2017 - 20:53.


Nunya_000 #24 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 21:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 21138 battles
  • 13,771
  • [PACNW] PACNW
  • Member since:
    09-20-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 11:49, said:

 

rationalwiki is a biased source? I think we have different definitions to what a biased source means. They debunk conspiracy theories and ridiculous ideas by referencing peer reviewed scientific evidence. Sounds about as unbiased as one can get in the echo chamber that is the Internet. 

 

If you read the actual article that I linked to, it describes how the scientist that the OP is quoting has has his evidence debunked by his peers at MIT. I am not quoting the scientists (as this would be an argument from authority) but the evidence that they have provided.

 

I didn't think I would have to spell all of that out, but I guess I am doing so now.

 

 

 

Yes, rationalwiki is a bias source.  While I do agree with what you describe as their intent, they are still bias.  The bias can be clearly seen in many of their articles.  While they do post a lot of facts, their message is also full of a lot of opinion.  In the article you provided a link to, you can see some of their bias clearly in the second sentence with the strike through:

 

Block Quote

He is also affiliated with the industry shill front group Heartland Institute.

 

I'm not saying that what they post is factually incorrect.  I'm saying that their message drips with bias and they often tend to spin things to fit their narrative.  Btw...I have been reading and using rationalwiki for years. 

 

With that said, it is still ironic that you used a source of "authority" to dispute the source of "authority" of another poster....to argue against "Argument from Authority".

 



Klaatu_Nicto #25 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 22:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 08:39, said:

 

Argument from authortity

https://rationalwiki...Richard_Lindzen

 

 

 

 

Lindzen is probably the one most responsible for the denialist talking point about models not taking clouds into account. The Lindzen-Choi paper is the most often cited, but it's been trashed by other scientists for poor methodology and overstating its conclusions.[5][6] Naturally, Lindzen's skepticism has attracted funding from fossil fuel interests and he's worked on projects underwritten by Exxon and OPEC.[7] He is trotted out by deniers as "proof" that "real scientists disagree" about global warming and that there is no scientific consensus, even though he does accept the theory (just not most of the predictions made by the IPCC). His op-eds in popular media have increasingly fallen back on refuted denier talking points as well. This makes him a massive enabler.
https://rationalwiki...Richard_Lindzen

 

That's the kind of response, an ad hominem argument, I expect from people like you.

 

BTW, the amount of money spent by the fossil fuel industry disputing human caused climate change is, at the most, in the millions of dollars. The amount of money spent by proponents of human caused climate change is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The amount of money spent by governments to prove and to combat human caused climate change is, at the very least, in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

Here is a professor who believes humans area causing global warming exposing the fraud and corruption in climate science that Lindzen spoke about. 

 

 

As for clouds..............Lindzen was right.

 

Here is what I mean by 'real' science.

 

Dr. Jasper Kirkby talks about the results of the study that indicates solar activity has played a larger role in climate change than the global warming alarmists would like us to know.

 

 

Why would no science publications publish Dr. Svensmark's work? As we learned in climategate the leading AGW proponents threatened to blacklist any science publication that published anything they did not agree with. That is not science.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Markd73 #26 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 22:27

    Major

  • Players
  • 32795 battles
  • 5,136
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostNunya_000, on Nov 22 2017 - 20:47, said:

 

Yes, rationalwiki is a bias source.  While I do agree with what you describe as their intent, they are still bias.  The bias can be clearly seen in many of their articles.  While they do post a lot of facts, their message is also full of a lot of opinion.  In the article you provided a link to, you can see some of their bias clearly in the second sentence with the strike through:

 

 

I'm not saying that what they post is factually incorrect.  I'm saying that their message drips with bias and they often tend to spin things to fit their narrative.  Btw...I have been reading and using rationalwiki for years. 

 

With that said, it is still ironic that you used a source of "authority" to dispute the source of "authority" of another posters....to argue against "Argument from Authority".

 

 

I would agree that I should have spelled out my argument a little better. We all make mistakes and that was mine. My point is that the MIT scientists in question have debunked his position based on evidence, so by definition it is not an argument from authority.

 

Fair point on bias with rationalwiki. I can see how that kind of language could be seen as biased.

 

All of this does not change the fact that the OP continues to make arguments from authority and cherry picking his data.

 

Note - to be honest I had no hope of changing the OPs mind, as I have read his posts on this topic in the past and all he does is double down on refuted/debunked evidence whenever challenged. I am just hoping to help others identify his fallacious positions and not fall into the same trap.

 

 

 



Klaatu_Nicto #27 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 22:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostDarkbee2Bee, on Nov 22 2017 - 09:50, said:

I'm curious OP, do you find mankind to be wasteful and/or destructive of our environment (the planet), or do you feel that it is under control and we know all we need to know about the impacts of our actions?

 

It's not a trap.  I'm not really interested in getting in to a debate (because I know it will be pointless) just curious to know where you're coming from.

 

 

 

We have come a long way since the first Earth Day was held when I was in high school and became an environmentalist. In the Western world we are not as wasteful or as destructive of our environment as we once where. We used to dump toxic waste wherever it was convenient and had smokestacks that poured out massive amounts of pollutants. There is still more we can do but it has to be based on reason, logic and real science with regard for all the consequences instead of unreason, fraud, hysteria, unproven theory and with no regard for all the consequences.  

 

My current disdain for many environmental organizations and so called environmentalists began with their claims that the ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered in the 1980s and was caused by the human use of CFCs. No, it was not discovered in the 1980s. The ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered during the International Geophysical Year, 1957-58 and before CFCs were in common use. Since then I have discovered this kind of deception and fraud has become common place in the environmental movement and in the mainstream media.



Klaatu_Nicto #28 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 22:42

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 11:49, said:

 

rationalwiki is a biased source? I think we have different definitions to what a biased source means. They debunk conspiracy theories and ridiculous ideas by referencing peer reviewed scientific evidence. Sounds about as unbiased as one can get in the echo chamber that is the Internet. 

 

If you read the actual article that I linked to, it describes how the scientist that the OP is quoting has has his evidence debunked by his peers at MIT. I am not quoting the scientists (as this would be an argument from authority) but the evidence that they have provided.

 

I didn't think I would have to spell all of that out, but I guess I am doing so now.

 

 

 

That the word "denialist" was fraudulently used in the Wiki article should tip you off about the bias of that article.   

Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Nov 22 2017 - 22:43.


Klaatu_Nicto #29 Posted Nov 22 2017 - 23:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 13:27, said:

 

I would agree that I should have spelled out my argument a little better. We all make mistakes and that was mine. My point is that the MIT scientists in question have debunked his position based on evidence, so by definition it is not an argument from authority.

 

Fair point on bias with rationalwiki. I can see how that kind of language could be seen as biased.

 

All of this does not change the fact that the OP continues to make arguments from authority and cherry picking his data.

 

Note - to be honest I had no hope of changing the OPs mind, as I have read his posts on this topic in the past and all he does is double down on refuted/debunked evidence whenever challenged. I am just hoping to help others identify his fallacious positions and not fall into the same trap.

 

 

 

 

Meanwhile, the predictions of the proponents of the anthropogenic global warming theory keep failing and have failed so bad the scientific leaders behind the C02 budget finally had to admit two months ago they overestimated by 50% effects of C02 on climate. The predictions of the natural climate change crowd, of which I am a part of, are occurring.

 

What you should be taking from my posts is that the factors that we know about that contribute to climate change not fully understood and there are factors we don't know about. Considering what we don't understand or know you should ask yourself how can any scientist say mankind is responsible for the current global warming phase that began just a few decades ago?



Klaatu_Nicto #30 Posted Nov 23 2017 - 01:12

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 08:39, said:

 

Argument from authortity

https://rationalwiki...Richard_Lindzen

 

 

 

 

This is not the first time you have invoked the fallacy of 'appeal to authority' and like before you do not understand what appeal to authority is.

 

Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist who has been involved in climate change research and been involved with the IPCC. If someone is an expert or authority in their field then linking to them is not an appeal to authority. The fallacy of appeal to authority occurs, in the case of climate change, if someone links to Al Gore (who was a politician, not a scientist), or Bill "Mr. Science" Nye (who became a Seattle area  comedian after working as a mechanical engineer for Boeing).

 

 

As for those still at MIT disputing Lindzen.....how many of them are experts in the field of atmospheric physics, astropyhsics or climatology?  Besides, even if they know Lindzen is correct they know what will happen to them if they support him - loss of funding, personal attacks and perhaps job loss

 

 

 

 

What evidence considered 'scientific fact' did those MIT scientists present to debunk Lindzen?

 

Can't leave without posting this Here is Mr. Science talking with a mainstream media person. This is a perfect example of the mentality of most in the mainstream media when it comes to science issues.

 

 


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Nov 23 2017 - 01:16.


Klaatu_Nicto #31 Posted Nov 24 2017 - 10:58

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Here we have Larry King asking Bill Nye why Richard Lindzen is wrong. If you don't want to believe what I've said about Nye maybe you will believe what Nye says.

 

 

Thank you Bill.  :D


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Nov 24 2017 - 11:12.


Darkbee2Bee #32 Posted Nov 27 2017 - 16:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 36110 battles
  • 3,522
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

View PostKlaatu_Nicto, on Nov 22 2017 - 16:38, said:

 

We have come a long way since the first Earth Day was held when I was in high school and became an environmentalist. In the Western world we are not as wasteful or as destructive of our environment as we once where. We used to dump toxic waste wherever it was convenient and had smokestacks that poured out massive amounts of pollutants. There is still more we can do but it has to be based on reason, logic and real science with regard for all the consequences instead of unreason, fraud, hysteria, unproven theory and with no regard for all the consequences.  

 

My current disdain for many environmental organizations and so called environmentalists began with their claims that the ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered in the 1980s and was caused by the human use of CFCs. No, it was not discovered in the 1980s. The ozone hole over Antarctica was discovered during the International Geophysical Year, 1957-58 and before CFCs were in common use. Since then I have discovered this kind of deception and fraud has become common place in the environmental movement and in the mainstream media.

 

Why do you think that fraud and deception has become common place?  Sensationalist media sells; I get that.  Surely that is easily debunked?  What else drives this?  Everyone is just in it for the money (even the so called unbiased scientists)?  How do we know who to believe?  In my mind, all the "climate change deniers" do, is succeed in spreading just as much FUD.  The net result?  Apathy, status quo, nothing changes.  Which means as a species, we are doomed to failure (since it would seem doing nothing is rarely the best option).  I'm actually okay with impending doom. If we kill ourselves as a result of our own greed and stupidity, we deserve it.  It's just a shame we have to take the rest of the planet with us in the process.

 

So if I don't know which scientists to trust, and which data/facts are accurate, then all I'm left with is common sense.  Common sense tells me that huffing a tailpipe is bad.  So when someone tells me that we should change how our automobiles work to decrease the amount of crap they're pumping into the atmosphere, I'm inclined to agree.  Maybe it will "save the world", maybe it won't, but it certainly won't hurt (in the long run).  So why isn't that something I should work towards or promote?  It often seems like the "climate change deniers" message is, it's not man-made so ignore people trying to get you to stop using your car!   Maybe that isn't their message, but that's the impression I get.  If it isn't their message then maybe they need to change their approach because it seems like it's asking me to go against my own common sense.



Klaatu_Nicto #33 Posted Nov 27 2017 - 20:22

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

View PostDarkbee2Bee, on Nov 27 2017 - 07:01, said:

 

Why do you think that fraud and deception has become common place?  Sensationalist media sells; I get that.  Surely that is easily debunked?  What else drives this?  Everyone is just in it for the money (even the so called unbiased scientists)?  How do we know who to believe?  In my mind, all the "climate change deniers" do, is succeed in spreading just as much FUD.  The net result?  Apathy, status quo, nothing changes.  Which means as a species, we are doomed to failure (since it would seem doing nothing is rarely the best option).  I'm actually okay with impending doom. If we kill ourselves as a result of our own greed and stupidity, we deserve it.  It's just a shame we have to take the rest of the planet with us in the process.

 

So if I don't know which scientists to trust, and which data/facts are accurate, then all I'm left with is common sense.  Common sense tells me that huffing a tailpipe is bad.  So when someone tells me that we should change how our automobiles work to decrease the amount of crap they're pumping into the atmosphere, I'm inclined to agree.  Maybe it will "save the world", maybe it won't, but it certainly won't hurt (in the long run).  So why isn't that something I should work towards or promote?  It often seems like the "climate change deniers" message is, it's not man-made so ignore people trying to get you to stop using your car!   Maybe that isn't their message, but that's the impression I get.  If it isn't their message then maybe they need to change their approach because it seems like it's asking me to go against my own common sense.

 

Nobody is denying climate change. That you use a word, "denier," that is employed as a physiological tool to make people equate 'human caused climate change skeptics' with holocaust deniers is dishonest.  A valid argument does not need dishonesty.

 

Paleoclimatology clearly shows the only thing constant about climate is it's always changing and always will. The true deniers are the people who ignore that fact. The question is is the general warming trend which began 200 years ago, or is the recent warming phase that began in the late 1970s/early 80s during an extremely high solar maximum, all natural or has human emissions of C02 played a part and how much of a part?

 

Nobody is saying we should not do more to clean up our act and I said in my earlier response to you "There is still more we can do but it has to be based on reason, logic and real science with regard for all the consequences instead of unreason, fraud, hysteria, unproven theory and with no regard for all the consequences."  What are the consequences of the current hysteria over 'human caused climate change?' To begin with there are hundreds of millions of people in third world countries who are suffering because of lack of affordable, reliable energy. Then there is the hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars governments are spending to combat climate change instead of using that money for AIDS research, cancer research, helping the homeless and impoverished, real climate science, etc.

 

As for impending doom, we are not going to take the planet with us. In fact, considering the planet has destroyed 99% of the species that have existed, it is more likely the planet or the universe will destroy us. There is no doubt, it's a fact, the universe will eventually destroy every living on earth. The earth tried 700 years ago but failed.

 

 

Pulsations in the Earth's Lower Ionosphere Synchronized With Solar Flare Emission
Our results reveal that the Earth's ionosphere is more sensitive to small-scale changes in solar soft X-ray flux than previously thought and implies that planetary ionospheres are closely coupled to small-scale changes in solar/stellar activity.
http://onlinelibrary...024647/abstract


Edited by Klaatu_Nicto, Nov 27 2017 - 20:47.


ket101 #34 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 02:28

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,403
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostDarkbee2Bee, on Nov 28 2017 - 01:01, said:

 

Why do you think that fraud and deception has become common place?  Sensationalist media sells; I get that.  Surely that is easily debunked?  What else drives this?  Everyone is just in it for the money (even the so called unbiased scientists)?  How do we know who to believe?  In my mind, all the "climate change deniers" do, is succeed in spreading just as much FUD.  The net result?  Apathy, status quo, nothing changes.  Which means as a species, we are doomed to failure (since it would seem doing nothing is rarely the best option).  I'm actually okay with impending doom. If we kill ourselves as a result of our own greed and stupidity, we deserve it.  It's just a shame we have to take the rest of the planet with us in the process.

 

So if I don't know which scientists to trust, and which data/facts are accurate, then all I'm left with is common sense.  Common sense tells me that huffing a tailpipe is bad.  So when someone tells me that we should change how our automobiles work to decrease the amount of crap they're pumping into the atmosphere, I'm inclined to agree.  Maybe it will "save the world", maybe it won't, but it certainly won't hurt (in the long run).  So why isn't that something I should work towards or promote?  It often seems like the "climate change deniers" message is, it's not man-made so ignore people trying to get you to stop using your car!   Maybe that isn't their message, but that's the impression I get.  If it isn't their message then maybe they need to change their approach because it seems like it's asking me to go against my own common sense.

 

Things that seem to be common sense can sometimes be counter-productive.  In Australia, one state went big into "renewables", solar and wind generation.  I've even driven past the big solar furnace at one place, and I don't live in that state.  Good idea to reduce pollution, right?  That state now has the most expensive electricity in the country, and the most unreliable.  There's a lot of people who are now buying diesel generators to cover their needs, because the state grid doesn't.  Not reliably.  The sources of pollution are still there, they've just shifted.  The same sort of thinking has seen electricity prices increase in other areas of the country, because they don't replace the capacity of the old generators that are taken off line, making other sources of electricity more expensive due to the demand increasing spot prices.  Adding things like recharging entirely electric cars overnight is going to add to baseload woes, especially since solar doesn't work at night, and winds have a tendency to die down during the night.  Colder parts of the country are going to have increased particulate pollution, because people are going to start burning wood, since they won't be able to rely on the electricity to work heaters (in London, they're expecting pea-soup fogs to return, or so I've read).  The government has even proposed paying people not to use electricity, as mad as that sounds, during high peak periods.  You know, like there's a heatwave and people are passing out from the heat so they can get paid for not using their air conditioners.  So people will travel to things like shopping malls, adding pollution from their cars, in order to cool down, while the shopping mall has to cope with increased power demands due to extra heat sources (people), driving up electricity usage.  At least most people won't be travelling as far as they used to in the 1800's, when they would jump on to the train to go to the mountains to cool off, but the idea is similar.

Striker_70 #35 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 04:47

    Major

  • Players
  • 19694 battles
  • 6,544
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 20 2017 - 17:25, said:

This is the same poster who refuses  to acknowledge the validity of human caused climate change.

Must be a giant conspiracy lead by thousands of insanely “rich and powerful” scientists.

 

 

Seems legit

 

One-third of scientists admit fudging research

http://www.abc.net.a...esearch/1589252

 

 

Climate change whistleblower alleges NOAA manipulated data

https://www.washingt...-noaa-manipula/

 

Science is great, but it gets tainted by money, just like everything else.

Striker_70 #36 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 04:52

    Major

  • Players
  • 19694 battles
  • 6,544
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostMarkd73, on Nov 22 2017 - 15:27, said:

 

All of this does not change the fact that the OP continues to make arguments from authority

 

 

Schooling itself is an argument from authority. 

 

Often times the so called experts are not the actual experts.  Which is one reason why we often hear about how the "experts are baffled". 



Darkbee2Bee #37 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 14:44

    Major

  • Players
  • 36110 battles
  • 3,522
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

View Postket101, on Nov 27 2017 - 20:28, said:

 

Things that seem to be common sense can sometimes be counter-productive.  In Australia, one state went big into "renewables", solar and wind generation.  I've even driven past the big solar furnace at one place, and I don't live in that state.  Good idea to reduce pollution, right?  That state now has the most expensive electricity in the country, and the most unreliable.  There's a lot of people who are now buying diesel generators to cover their needs, because the state grid doesn't.  Not reliably.  The sources of pollution are still there, they've just shifted.  The same sort of thinking has seen electricity prices increase in other areas of the country, because they don't replace the capacity of the old generators that are taken off line, making other sources of electricity more expensive due to the demand increasing spot prices.  Adding things like recharging entirely electric cars overnight is going to add to baseload woes, especially since solar doesn't work at night, and winds have a tendency to die down during the night.  Colder parts of the country are going to have increased particulate pollution, because people are going to start burning wood, since they won't be able to rely on the electricity to work heaters (in London, they're expecting pea-soup fogs to return, or so I've read).  The government has even proposed paying people not to use electricity, as mad as that sounds, during high peak periods.  You know, like there's a heatwave and people are passing out from the heat so they can get paid for not using their air conditioners.  So people will travel to things like shopping malls, adding pollution from their cars, in order to cool down, while the shopping mall has to cope with increased power demands due to extra heat sources (people), driving up electricity usage.  At least most people won't be travelling as far as they used to in the 1800's, when they would jump on to the train to go to the mountains to cool off, but the idea is similar.

 

What's the solution then?  Do nothing?

ket101 #38 Posted Nov 28 2017 - 23:59

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 9,403
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostDarkbee2Bee, on Nov 28 2017 - 23:44, said:

 

What's the solution then?  Do nothing?

 

No.  You do the most logical, rational thing.  Or things.  But simply saying that one way is the only way, and that you're going to go that way in the face of mounting evidence that it isn't the only way, or even the best way, then logic and rationality are being tossed out the window.

 

Say you have a coal powered station that generates, for the sake of argument, 3,000 megawatts.  A typical wind turbine, the big ones, can generate about 3 megawatts, from what I understand.  The coal station takes up a couple of hectares, and yes it produces pollution of various kinds, though they can be minimised to some degree, particularly screening out particulates.  To provide the same amount of power, you'll need at least 1,000 wind turbines, which would take up quite a lot of room, from what I understand, involving clearing of trees and providing clearances and access roads, and which won't all be working at the same time, and sometimes may not be working at all.  That's happened in the state I mentioned.  There have been days when there was no, repeat no, power generated by any wind turbine in that state.  So what's the logical and rational thing to do?  And that situation doesn't even include any effects from the manufacture of either set of facilities or the digging up of resources to make and power them.



Klaatu_Nicto #39 Posted Nov 29 2017 - 09:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 44044 battles
  • 10,611
  • Member since:
    09-21-2012

Geoengineering Could Have Devastating Side Effects Study Warns

 

A University of Exeter study suggests that artificially cooling regions of the planet to counter the effects of climate change could cause devastation in other parts of the world.

 

https://eandt.theiet...ts-study-warns/



Darkbee2Bee #40 Posted Nov 29 2017 - 14:21

    Major

  • Players
  • 36110 battles
  • 3,522
  • [-FG-] -FG-
  • Member since:
    06-23-2013

View Postket101, on Nov 28 2017 - 17:59, said:

 

No.  You do the most logical, rational thing.  Or things.  But simply saying that one way is the only way, and that you're going to go that way in the face of mounting evidence that it isn't the only way, or even the best way, then logic and rationality are being tossed out the window.

 

Say you have a coal powered station that generates, for the sake of argument, 3,000 megawatts.  A typical wind turbine, the big ones, can generate about 3 megawatts, from what I understand.  The coal station takes up a couple of hectares, and yes it produces pollution of various kinds, though they can be minimised to some degree, particularly screening out particulates.  To provide the same amount of power, you'll need at least 1,000 wind turbines, which would take up quite a lot of room, from what I understand, involving clearing of trees and providing clearances and access roads, and which won't all be working at the same time, and sometimes may not be working at all.  That's happened in the state I mentioned.  There have been days when there was no, repeat no, power generated by any wind turbine in that state.  So what's the logical and rational thing to do?  And that situation doesn't even include any effects from the manufacture of either set of facilities or the digging up of resources to make and power them.

 

Which is effectively, do nothing or maintain the status quo if you prefer... continue with the coal plant.  Which in turn means little reason to invest in alternative sources of energy, which means forever tied to the coal plant... well, until the coal runs out that is.  I understand what you're saying (it is reasonable and rational), I just don't see how any change will come if we're fully invested in maintaining the status quo.

 

I often wonder if the way to go is to decentralize power production. To me, it makes more sense for each home to provide it's own power rather than rely on a centralized system.  Of course, the downside to this is that it drastically reduces the amount of money people can make off of you (repeatedly and in the long term) and god forbid we live in a society where we don't screw people over for every penny we can get.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users