pretty good rant

whit3rd, I'm mostly agnostic on climate science.. it's become political, with stupid behavior on both sides. I'm not in the field so I don't really know. But the standard model of climate science is nothing like the standard model of particle physics. (There's way more many particles, than climates.. to state the obvious.)

I'm guessing that if I was in the field, there are several models of climate science.

George H.

Sure thing--there's no reason to optimize things that don't matter. You wer e using it as an example of when to use SPICE spitballing instead of actual design, though, and that's what I was disagreeing with.

(I've visited Cold Quanta in Boulder--fun outfit.)

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

cientists agree

ical unity.

any importnt

that don't

greement

an

For agnostic, read ignorant. Agnostic means that you believe that there isn 't an intellectual case to be made. If you dug down you'd find that climate science is real, and does makes sense, and the denialist case is just stra w men and flim-flam.

Like I've said, it's not political, but economic. The people who dig up fos sil carbon and sell it for fuel see climate science as threatening their ca sh flow, so they are spending money to generate doubt about climate science , just as the tobacco companies spent money (some of it with the same peopl e) to cast doubt on the health science that said that smoking was bad for y our health,

They've also bought politicians - Jim Inhofe comes to mind

so the political content is just part of the denialism propaganda package.

It's unsavoury behaviour, but not stupid, if you are willing to sacrifice f uture prosperity for cash-flow right now (which does strike me as irrationa l, or at the very least, unkind to our kids).

You don't have to be in the field to understand enough of the science to ap preciate what's actually going on.

The standard model of climate science is about as well established as the s tandard model of physics - it's all standard physics, after all.

Don't guess. Do a bit of reading. There's essentially only one physical mod el, but that can be realised as a variety of computational models, all whic h are decidedly complicated. How the finite elements get sliced up and what gets parameterised vary with the phenomena being looked at.

Don't let the fact that it's complicated and not all that mathematically tr actable obscure that fact that we do know what's actually going on in quite some detail.

as Christopher Hitchens once said, we don't have another planet to run the experiment on, the worst thing that could happen if we assume there is man made global warming is make a mistake that can be corrected

-Lasse

That's sounds great, however in reality it's a hammer used to control the people. Socialism is a great idea, in theory. Once reality hits, not so much.

e scientists agree

litical unity.

ind any importnt

ts that don't

% agreement

mean

l,

e the

There's nothing socialist about keeping the planet running in a state that lets the next generation use it.

The people who don't favour this idea are making a lot of money out of shif ting the planet into a different - a less than perfectly predictable but ob viously undesirable - state, which is to say they are capitalists of a rath er irresponsible kind.

You could definitely use free-market mechanisms to persuade them to be less short-sighted, but these mechanisms have to be imposed by society as whole , and krw sees that as socialist - and thus communist, since he never bothe red to work out the difference between socialism and communism back when hi s brain was capable of learning anything new.

Any grand scheme to control CO2 runs smack into the basic architecture of the nation-state. The approach of warning people about it seems to be having measurable results and is far better.

Just a small nudge towards alts and bridge technologies like nat. gas are already making coal disappear.

There's plenty of time to bury Obama's empty gestures in the back yard. He was apparently asleep when the Kyoto Protocol was under scrutiny.

There are about a billion people on the planet that make the equivalent of $1 per day and have no electricity, no medical care, no reliable water or food source, no access to education. They need energy. To deny them access to energy is genocide. Smug movie stars and climate-change millionaires sitting in their private planes and air-conditioned mansions and heated pools want to do that.

Those super-poor people, and the billions of fairly poor people in China and India and Africa, are going to get refrigerators and cars and clean running water, like we have. Better get used to that.

When the solution to every problem is higher taxes, the issue *is* higher taxes. Obama doesn't give a s*it about CO2 but it's sure a way to get his hand in our pocket.

Not given other constraints being lifted. The economy views taxation as censorship and routes around it.

I am quite sure does, and I'm even reasonably sure he probably should. but he probably cannot formulate a well-thought out, effective response.

To be fair, no other POTUS likely can, either.

When in doubt, do nothing.

ere using it as an example of when to use SPICE spitballing instead of actu al design, though, and that's what I was disagreeing with.

Wow, Phil we are having a bit of mis-communication. As far as spitballing, I think you way over estimate, my design skills, at the time I was throwing things onto copper clad... I think one of my early posts here might be about oscillations of a '3904 in a cap mult. Maybe it was someone here who suggested the 2N4401... Also in stock... It worked great, And I was done... on to the next thing.... other production runs (from the same manufacturer) Were not as good... If you want to blame that, on me not totally knowing what I was doing. Then I agree,

For we of little brain, be careful of golden parts. :^)

George H.

scientists agree

itical unity.

nd any importnt

s that don't

agreement

mean

sn't an intellectual case to be made. Gee Bill, thanks, tell you what, since you know what my words mean, after this, you can just respond as me.. and carry on.

If you dug down you'd find that climate science is real, and does makes sen se, and the denialist case is just straw men and flim-flam.

ossil carbon and sell it for fuel see climate science as threatening their cash flow, so they are spending money to generate doubt about climate scien ce, just as the tobacco companies spent money (some of it with the same peo ple) to cast doubt on the health science that said that smoking was bad for your health,

future prosperity for cash-flow right now (which does strike me as irratio nal, or at the very least, unkind to our kids).

appreciate what's actually going on.

What? of course you do. Look I treat everyone here, (until proved otherwise) as being reasonable intelligent.

Climate science (in the US) is now political. The noise is enormous... from every side, to me it all seems crazy.

Let's see energy-wise I figure we should be doing, (in alphabetical order) Hydro, natural gas, (bridge) nuclear wind

I think I could be a single issue voter, if someone would put money into nuclear... bring costs down. Solar is the rich guys' feel good "fix".

Then again it could turn out that we need to keep pumping particles into the air, and burn more coal! We don't know unless we can believe the science.

You have faith, I don't.

George H.

standard model of physics - it's all standard physics, after all.

odel, but that can be realised as a variety of computational models, all wh ich are decidedly complicated. How the finite elements get sliced up and wh at gets parameterised vary with the phenomena being looked at.

tractable obscure that fact that we do know what's actually going on in qui te some detail.

te

in > > > > > the name of political unity.

find

d to

me

d,

Agnostic is quite a specific word. Thomas Huxley - Darwin's bulldog - coine d it to cover a particular attitude to religion, which says that the existe nce/ non-existence of God can't be determined by rational argument.

The existence of anthropogenic global warming has been determined by ration al argument and investigation, so you can't be agnostic about it. The peopl e who deny that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and the companio n group who admit that it's going on but declare that it's unimportant, don 't use rational argument but rather go in for straw man rhetoric.

Look at what Will Hay allowed to be published over his name, and think abou t the way it's structured.

ense, and the denialist case is just straw men and flim-flam.

fossil carbon and sell it for fuel see climate science as threatening thei r cash flow, so they are spending money to generate doubt about climate sci ence, just as the tobacco companies spent money (some of it with the same p eople) to cast doubt on the health science that said that smoking was bad f or your health,

ge.

ce future prosperity for cash-flow right now (which does strike me as irrat ional, or at the very least, unkind to our kids).

o appreciate what's actually going on.

James Arthur is rather more than reasonably intelligent, and John Larkin is at least reasonably intelligent. Neither of them take anthropogenic global warming seriously, John Larkin because getting to grips with the scientifi c details would require more work than he's prepared to put in, and James A rthur because he'd be stuck with endorsing a society wide - socialist - pro gram to deal with it, if he took it seriously.

There's a lot of political noise about climate science, but that's not beca use the science was ever political, it's because the science clearly indica ted that we should stop digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel as soon as possible, which would damage the economic interests of a lot of peo ple with money and political clout.

There are well-established techniques for minimising the political effect o f inconvenient scientific findings - as is spelled out in "Merchants of Dou bt" - but that doesn't make the inconvenient science "political".

Nuclear is good - from the anthropogenic global warming point of view - but we haven't yet worked out what to do with nuclear waste after some sixty y ears of generating it, so it has other problems.

Solar is already competitive with pretty much every other energy source on price per kilowatt hour, and another factor of ten increase in the installe d base would halve the capital investment per kilowatt hour again.

It's the cheap-skate's fix too. Thermal solar, with energy storage in reall y large pools of molten salts, gives us through-the-night solar power, thou gh PV really needs better batteries than we've now got.

Why can't we? It was saying much the same thing long before it's conclusion s got to be inconvenient for certain well-heeled economic interests.

I've got education - in this area - and you haven't bothered to acquire it. Faith doesn't come into it. A catholic would describe you as "incorrigibly ignorant" but the reality is that you could correct your ignorance with re latively little reading, if you could see the point in doing it. Doing it w ould make it more difficult for you to listen quietly to you more rabidly R epublican neighbours, whose opinions are shaped by the same pressures that stop James Arthur from thinking inconvenient thoughts.

in

ind

to

You

one,

her.

l,

les,

Local solar cell farms are a lot easier to fit into low income communities than huge generating plants and country wide grid systems to distribute the centrally generated electricity. Half what I pay for my electricity is the cost of the distribution system.

PV power generation is now competitive with pretty much every other power g eneration scheme except hydro power, and a small solar cell farm is lot che aper and easier to install than a dam and it's turbines and generators.

China halved the capital cost of PV solar a few years ago by manufacturing at ten times the volume of the Germans (who had pulled the same trick a few years earlier).

The third world could be a market for tens times as much solar generating c apacity as we have at the moment, which gives us the chance of halving the capital cost per installed kilowatt hour yet again.

It's a no-brainer.

And so do a whole lot of people with an even better grasp of economics.

And most of it is going to be solar powered. You'd better get used to that too.

te:

mate

ed in > > > > > the name of political unity.

t find

ard to

time

hed,

re

ned it to cover a particular attitude to religion, which says that the exis tence/ non-existence of God can't be determined by rational argument.

onal argument and investigation, so you can't be agnostic about it. The peo ple who deny that anthropogenic global warming is happening, and the compan ion group who admit that it's going on but declare that it's unimportant, d on't use rational argument but rather go in for straw man rhetoric.

out the way it's structured.

sense, and the denialist case is just straw men and flim-flam.

up fossil carbon and sell it for fuel see climate science as threatening th eir cash flow, so they are spending money to generate doubt about climate s cience, just as the tobacco companies spent money (some of it with the same people) to cast doubt on the health science that said that smoking was bad for your health,

kage.

fice future prosperity for cash-flow right now (which does strike me as irr ational, or at the very least, unkind to our kids).

to appreciate what's actually going on.

is at least reasonably intelligent. Neither of them take anthropogenic glob al warming seriously, John Larkin because getting to grips with the scienti fic details would require more work than he's prepared to put in, and James Arthur because he'd be stuck with endorsing a society wide - socialist - p rogram to deal with it, if he took it seriously.

cause the science was ever political, it's because the science clearly indi cated that we should stop digging up fossil carbon and burning it as fuel a s soon as possible, which would damage the economic interests of a lot of p eople with money and political clout.

of inconvenient scientific findings - as is spelled out in "Merchants of D oubt" - but that doesn't make the inconvenient science "political".

ut we haven't yet worked out what to do with nuclear waste after some sixty years of generating it, so it has other problems.

n price per kilowatt hour, and another factor of ten increase in the instal led base would halve the capital investment per kilowatt hour again.

Oh, How many solar panels do you have on your roof? Hmm lots of numbers here.

Anyone else (with no axe to grind) that I could believe?

If solar is so great, why aren't utility companies putting them in everywhere?

George H.

lly large pools of molten salts, gives us through-the-night solar power, th ough PV really needs better batteries than we've now got.

ons got to be inconvenient for certain well-heeled economic interests.

t. Faith doesn't come into it. A catholic would describe you as "incorrigib ly ignorant" but the reality is that you could correct your ignorance with relatively little reading, if you could see the point in doing it. Doing it would make it more difficult for you to listen quietly to you more rabidly Republican neighbours, whose opinions are shaped by the same pressures tha t stop James Arthur from thinking inconvenient thoughts.

e:

e:

rote:

on price per kilowatt hour, and another factor of ten increase in the inst alled base would halve the capital investment per kilowatt hour again.

None. Our apartment is on the eighth floor. The penthouses are on the twelf th floor, and their roof is being reworked for the second time - when the p lace was built, in the late 1980's, the builder didn't do a good job of pre venting moisture penetration, and the first attempt to fix it didn't work ( though the people in the adjacent tower block, built at the same time by th e same builder, managed to do better).

Most of the $1 a day poor that John Larkin was carrying on about live relat ively close to the equator.

He's getting old.

They want something that they can turn on quickly to deal with short term s urges in demand. Their customers are used to flicking a switch.

There's also the point that they make half their money from the distributio n network, and prefer to build huge solar farms a long way from anywhere (w here it isn't going to get cloudy too often). This isn't model that works f or the $1-a-day poor.

The $1-a-day poor are more willing to adapt their activities to the availab ility of power.