Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

April 29, 2015, 10:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by John Moore

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

Bernie1815,

You made the criticism in your first comment, and I accepted it. Since then you’ve repeated the criticism about half a dozen times, but without asking a clear, concise question I can address. That’s unhelpful. If you want to ask a question to clarify something, state it clearly, and I’ll endeavour to answer it. the Submission and this post was not intended to cover all the many issues debated about wind power, or all the necessary background or the electricity system. It’s about the significance of CO2 abatement effectiveness on the estimates abatement cost with wind power. I wanted to avoid, initially, getting diverted into all the many side arguments. Most people have moved on now, so if you have questions, please go ahead and ask them. But no need for more criticism about how I write. I got that.

---

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by John Moore

April 29, 2015, 10:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Mike Flynn

≪ Previous: Comment on Wind turbines’ CO2 savings and abatement cost by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Sorry, but the plea on birth control is misplaced. UN population projections show the population peaking and then dropping back in this century, without that intervention.

The Church’s teachings on birth control are not political. They come from the Church’s very long held holistic view of family and children, and are philosophically and theologically deeply consistent. Bugging the Church about birth control will get you nowhere, and it is going after the wrong problem. Those views also do not detract from the Church’s moral authority – quite the opposite. They are pro-life in the deepest sense.

The current pope is too much informed by liberation theology. Coming from Argentina, he simply is not equipped to understand capitalism, and apparently, science. The good news is that we Catholics do not have to follow him on his neo-Marxist quest against capitalism, and his journey along with the alarmists. That’s not how Catholicism works./

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Mike Flynn

April 29, 2015, 10:42 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Punksta

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by John Moore

$

0

0

sciguy54,

I guess an example one of the laws of unintended consequences can be seen by the enormous increase in deforestation where electric lighting is supplied either free or close to it.

People stay up later, and as a consequence need additional heat.

I’ve spent quite a lot of time in Nepal, and can read, write and speak a little Nepali. Many Western assumptions turn out to be inappropriate. Nepal has great topographical and climatic diversity, many different ethnicities, cultures and languages.

I agree with you about the benefits of cheap (free) electricity, but I have also seen negative effects. Things don’t always turn out the way we hope. Time will tell, but I find Jim D’s comments a little naive, from time to time.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Punksta

April 29, 2015, 10:56 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by Mike Flynn

$

0

0

Cook, Lewandowsky, Mann, Oreskes et al. are conspiracy theorists – they see a fossil fuel funded, conservative conspiracy of ‘climate denial,’ the so-called merchants of doubt meme.</i/

But strangely no government-funded conspiracy of 'climate belief' belief – with government having untold orders of magnitude more to spend, untold orders of magnitude more to gain, and untold dishonesty and bias (eg Climategate) in the process followed by its climate science stooges like Mann and friends.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by beththeserf

April 29, 2015, 11:06 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by mosomoso

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by Punksta

$

0

0

That which may not say it’s name.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by mosomoso

April 29, 2015, 11:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by beththeserf

$

0

0

To give it utterance would be the most shocking outing since Bruce Jenner revealed he was a conservative.

Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by beththeserf

April 29, 2015, 11:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by mosomoso

$

0

0

I will keep quite.

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

April 30, 2015, 12:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

≪ Previous: Comment on Making (non)sense of climate denial by beththeserf

$

0

0

I will just point out that the book and person in question aren’t speaking towards economics. They are speaking towards specific political and economic goals being pursued by organizations and individuals.
The facts in said book – you can examine them as you please – but we all have present day clear examples: The World Bank today specifically points towards climate change as an organizational goal, and as a result refuses to finance coal fired electricity generation even in the poorest nations with populations lacking night-time lighting much less small household machinery like washing machines.
The World Bank and IMF were formed by the US specifically to accomplish economic goals. Examination of testimony and early charter of these organizations showed that they were looking specifically to guide European and Japanese rebuilding into areas which did not compete with American economic focuses – I’ve yet to see anything which signifies that these types of organizational goals within said institutions have changed.

---

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

April 30, 2015, 12:09 am

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

$

0

0

You make a very good point, and in doing so, highlight a serious potential problem with the Pope’s climate actions:
while it is unfair to say that environmentalists are against human life, it is completely fair to say that environmentalists – particularly the more radical types – are against prioritizing human life over all other life.
And this is a problem. The Church is concerned with souls. Animals and plants don’t have souls. I would be very interested to see how a Pope can reconcile the demotion of emphasis on human souls to be replaced with an emphasis on environmental friendliness.

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

April 30, 2015, 12:14 am

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

$

0

0

Dr. Curry,
Cheers for again bringing a level headed viewpoint into a politically – and now religiously – charged situation.
I am personally persuaded that the Pope sees climate change as an opportunity to push for the betterment of the lives of the many poor in the Catholic flock.
The devil will be in the details, however. Would the Pope endorse electrification programs which are able to serve 1/10th or less poor Catholics via (expensive even for 1st world) alternative energy vs. coal fired electricity?
Would the Pope accept many 1st world aid programs which come with strings attached such as the requirement to provide and teach birth control?
What about the demotion of the primacy of the human soul and religious salvation in favor of the animals and plants of the environment?

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by beththeserf

April 30, 2015, 12:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by beththeserf

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by ticketstopper

$

0

0

Guess they haven’t seen this in the Vatican.

Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by beththeserf

April 30, 2015, 1:13 am

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Appell (@davidappell)

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by beththeserf

$

0

0

Between the pre conception
and the mis-conception lies
the con -firmation shadow.

Between ass-sumtion
ant the reality
lies the data.

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Appell (@davidappell)

April 30, 2015, 6:59 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Pope Francis, climate change, and morality by beththeserf

$

0

0

“Professional societies, working hand in hand with professional journals, to assure conformity to the dogma of the day and the appearance of consensus, all to the end of trumping the principles of science.”

Really? Then how has any breakthrough science ever been published?

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Lang

April 30, 2015, 7:09 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Appell (@davidappell)

$

0

0

Dead right. It’s taken:

– Solar thermal engine 100 years to get to 0% of total world electricity generation
– PV: 60 years to get to 0%
– nuclear: 60 years to get to 18% and now down to 12%
– hydro 130 years to get to 16%
– gas turbines: 220 years
– steam turbines: >100 years
– diesel engines: >100 years
– batteries: 200 years

to develop these technologies to the state of maturity they have reached now.

That provides a reality check to inventors, investors, enthusiasts as to how quickly technology inventions and ‘breakthroughs’ take to reach maturity and become economically viable.

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Jim D

April 30, 2015, 7:12 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Lang

$

0

0

It is one thing to listen to experts, but it is another thing to misrepresent them to the public. Lamar Smith misrepresented them in his WSJ op-ed, for example.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/lamar-smith-climate-change_n_7183314.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

---

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Lang

April 30, 2015, 7:16 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Jim D

$

0

0

It also takes a lot of material (10 times more than nuclear per unit of electricity delivered). That means a lot of mining, milling, processing, refining, smelting, manufacturing, fabrication, construction, decomissioning, disposal, roads, water supply, transport, and fuels used between every step.

And finally, the energy return on energy invested is insufficient to make them sustainable. That last one is the real killer! http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Don Monfort

April 30, 2015, 7:17 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Appell (@davidappell)

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Peter Lang

$

0

0

The doo-doo word got it sent to moderation, Mark. Now that I know Judith will let it through, I will work it in often. Although it’s possible you are getting a special dispensation, because you are decent.

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Appell (@davidappell)

April 30, 2015, 7:24 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by oz4caster

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by Don Monfort

$

0

0

I asked Judith the question precisely to point out the logical fallacy. Everyone in the world thinks they’re right and totally objective and their conclusions have nothing to do with their ideology. It’s only the OTHER guy who is biased.

So how does Judith solve this problem? Otherwise, why should we believe her?

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by oz4caster

April 30, 2015, 7:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by David Appell (@davidappell)

$

0

0

Judith, this would be a good discussion to cross-post over at CCNF. I know John N-G and Barry and I hope that some of the others over there might learn from these ethics guidelines. I would recommend bolding this part:

“1. Never use rewards and punishments to stifle dissent within the community of experts. Rewarding mere conformity or punishing disagreement would seriously compromise the community’s quest for truth and hence its claim to be a community of experts. It should be equally obvious, however, that there will be a temptation to encourage conformity, both because professional consensus presents a better face to the public and also because of our natural tendency to see those who agree with us as more competent and more ethical than those who disagree with us.”

Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by curryja

April 30, 2015, 7:26 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by curryja

≪ Previous: Comment on Ethics of climate expertise by oz4caster

$

0

0

I talk about it and challenge people to consider what it means to be ethical, subject to groupthink, rethink how climate science deals with uncertainty, etc. If you are not aware of these things, it is more difficult to fight against them.