The Alternative Green Energy Thread

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

No, we haven’t wasted that money - a cleaner environment is a bonus and we have developed new more efficient clean technologies for the future.

Then we agree. What about the other scenario, where the 'deniers' are wrong and they lead us to doing nothing about the environment?

ABrass

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Then we agree. What about the other scenario, where the 'deniers' are wrong and they lead us to doing nothing about the environment?

I've never liked the 'Pascals wager' approach to decisions. It relies on the probability of both cases to be equal which is rarely the case and humans are crap at judging without pen and paper.

I'm this case where 97% of scientists believe that we're producing too much CO2 and that it's a very bad thing giving equal weight to the argument that actually CO2's great is giving it too much credit.

Ps. YouTube links are almost always a sign of !!!!!!!!.

pile-o-stone

ABrass wrote: »

I'm this case where 97% of scientists believe that we're producing too much CO2 and that it's a very bad thing giving equal weight to the argument that actually CO2's great is giving it too much credit.

The trouble is that deniers think that the scientists are liars, wrong, have a vested interest, part of a global conspiracy, etc. etc. So you can't weight the decision like this. All you can do with them is to give them a 50/50 option and determine which is the worst outcome,A or B.

JKenH

ABrass wrote: »

I'm this case where 97% of scientists believe that we're producing too much CO2 and that it's a very bad thing giving equal weight to the argument that actually CO2's great is giving it too much credit.

Ps. YouTube links are almost always a sign of !!!!!!!!.

I’m not denying there is a consensus that CO2 is bad. The extent of the consensus has however been questioned. My understanding is that it isn’t climate scientists who came up with the 97% but a certain Ms Oreskes, basher of tobacco and FF industries.

Let’s face it, a high proportion of people commenting on AGW (both sides) most probably have an agenda. Most people only regard opinions as independent if they concur with their own and rationalise any contrarian view as coming from someone biased. That’s the nature of confirmation bias. When people feel their views are under threat there is a tendency to try and isolate any one putting forward a contrarian view and stifle any debate often using pejorative terms.

That leads to polarisation of views instead of the sides getting together and talking through the differences of opinion. Sadly all discussion (witness Brexit) now seems to go in that direction nowadays.

People talk about facts. There are perhaps only 3 genuinely undisputed facts about AGW. One is that CO2 levels are measurable, rising and continuing to rise. The second is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The third is that the rise in CO2 is directly linked to human activity.

I would not doubt that there is a 97% consensus on those facts but not necessarily on anything else about AGW.

Despite not liking the term, I can understand that anyone disputing those facts might be labelled a ‘denier.’

However, those who reasonably question the science - e.g. some of the data such as interpretation of tree ring evidence, the actual trend of temperatures over the last 100 years - are not deniers they are sceptics. The science is disputed.

The science of climate modelling depends entirely on the input into the models and while I stand to be corrected by the scientists on here, I suspect that you can programme a model to predict anything you want it to There are some who say that experience has borne out what the earlier climate models predicted and others who dispute that. I am willing to be corrected but I don’t believe there is any one definitive model that everyone agrees on. Different scientists will no doubt have slightly different views about the mechanisms in play and also the past data to be used to predict the future. We do appear over the last 20 years or so to have gone past the ‘tipping point‘ several times so have any of the earlier models and assumptions used been discredited?

We then have the arguments such as the one by the scientist put forward in the video I posted that more CO2 might not be bad. Does that make him a ‘denier’? To some people yes it does but he is not actually denying anything that has happened in the past, he is just disputing what the impact will be in the future.

Do the 97% of scientists who make up the consensus actually understand the chemistry at atomic level sufficiently to comment on whether there is a certain level of CO2 beyond which the impact on temperatures tails off? Probably not but it goes against the consensus so it must be wrong seems to be the view.

I don’t know the future so I am reliant on what the scientists predict. The problem is what the scientists say is drowned out by environmentalists and industrialists and governments pushing their agendas. This is when the conspiracy theories start getting bandied about and the arguments cease to be about science but about people on both sides mistrusting each other and their motives. Is it wrong in those circumstances to be sceptical that one is being told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

My own view is that we have theories about the future but no hard facts as to what our world will be like in 30 years time so keep an open mind which lets me change my view as I learn more.

While I am sceptical about some of the scientific predictions I believe the hysteria generated by AGW has had a very positive effect in driving new renewable technologies that in the long term can only benefit everyone. While I might question some of the motivation, philosophy, science and predictions that have led to the direction in which we find ourselves travelling, I see the accelerating roll out of RE as a positive and the right thing to do.

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

Then we agree. What about the other scenario, where the 'deniers' are wrong and they lead us to doing nothing about the environment?

Fortunately we don’t have to address that as there is the political will in the U.K. to promote green energy so the ‘deniers’ are unlikely to stop that.

It might turn out we have done it for the wrong reasons but it was still the right thing to do.

JKenH

ABrass wrote: »

Ps. YouTube links are almost always a sign of !!!!!!!!.

Yes, I have railed against them as well but it is how a lot of us get our information.

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

My understanding is that it isn’t climate scientists who came up with the 97% but a certain Ms Oreskes, basher of tobacco and FF industries.

This NASA web page has links to various studies that agree the with 97% consensus:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

I did see a study that has shown it is now at 99% consensus...

JKenH

pile-o-stone wrote: »

This NASA web page has links to various studies that agree the with 97% consensus:

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change/

I did see a study that has shown it is now at 99% consensus...

I think the 97% quoted by NASA is from the Cook/Oreskes et al report.

ABrass

Oh god, we're not back to you pretending that someone doesn't have a PhD again?

Just in case you're able and willing to change your mind when it turns out you're wrong: You're wrong.

The 97% stat has been found by multiple independent assessments by multiple different authors in repeatable and indeed repeated studies.

Have a read here and in return I'll soil myself by watching your YouTube link.

JKenH

ABrass wrote: »

Oh god, we're not back to you pretending that someone doesn't have a PhD again?

Just in case you're able and willing to change your mind when it turns out you're wrong: You're wrong.

The 97% stat has been found by multiple independent assessments by multiple different authors in repeatable and indeed repeated studies.

Have a read here and in return I'll soil myself by watching your YouTube link.

Not pretending that at all. The link you provided also just refers to her as Naomi Oreskes. I was just going with the convention on here to refer to important people such as the POTUS by their surnames.