[Al_U_Card]

As always, belief is the problem when it superceeds facts and reality as provided by (relatively) unbiased observational information.
Just look at the raw data and see where it leads and how people treat it.
The more strident and certain, the less likely the position is valid.

[y66]

From Paris climate deal to ignite a $90 trillion energy revolution by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Quote

The fossil fuel industry has taken a very cavalier bet that China, India and the developing world will continue to block any serious effort to curb greenhouse emissions, and that there is, in any case, no viable alternative to oil, gas or coal for decades to come.

Both assumptions were still credible six years ago when the Copenhagen climate summit ended in acrimony, poisoned by a North-South split over CO2 legacy guilt and the allegedly prohibitive costs of green virtue.

At that point the International Energy Agency (IEA) was still predicting that solar power would struggle to reach 20 gigawatts by now. Few could have foretold that it would in fact explode to 180 gigawatts - over three times Britain’s total power output - as costs plummeted, and that almost half of all new electricity installed in the US in 2013 and 2014 would come from solar.Markets will do the job under the right terms and they are already making the switch as they discover a potentially lucrative new home for the world’s glut of excess savings and capital.

...

A Carbon Tracker forum in the City this week was packed with bankers and fund managers itching to find a way into the biggest investment boom of all time, which is what the Paris accord promises to ignite.

The COP21 emission targets imply an assault on multiple fronts at once. Fossil subsidies worth $600bn a year - or $5.3 trillion under the International Monetary Fund's elastic definition - are already sliding fast. They will inevitably fade away.

There will have to be a carbon price, whether a tax or a trading scheme, and it will have to rise over time as the “year zero” of negative CO2 emissions comes closer.

Carbon capture and storage can perhaps save large parts of the fossil industry if it moves in time, which is why the World Coal Association has belatedly become a cheerleader for what was once an outlandish idea of the greens.

Shell says a carbon price of $40 would bring CCS into play under current technology - some say $80 - but that in itself would shift the balance of advantage further in favour of renewables just as the cross-over point arrives. In large parts of Africa it already has: it is cheaper and quicker to install micro-grids based on solar power than to bother with power stations.

The old energy order is living on borrowed time. You can, in a sense, compare what is happening to the decline of Britain’s canals in the mid-19th century when railways burst onto the scene and drove down cargo tolls, destroying the business model.

Technology takes no prisoners. Nor does politics. World leaders have repeatedly stated that they would defend the line of a 'two degree planet’, and now they are taking the concrete steps to do so. Fossil investors have been warned.

[baraka]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-November-08, 11:20, said:

those that believe that all changes to the climate are manmade or natural, will continue to believe so, whatever anyone else says.

Well said. The problem lies here... An attornay may be extremely brilliant and efficient in his field of work. But who is he to evaluate the science of climate change ? The same can be said of an accountant and people in many other spheres of human activity. Only someone with a formal education in science and the scientific approach, be it chemistry, physics, engeneering, etc, can evaluate the truth of a theory through experimental data measurements. Anyone else can have a belief but it will always be a simple belief, not a scientific evaluation. The proof of what I say is right here in many posts I've red. I have noticed that many people can't even distinguish between harmful and harmless chemicals. They can't even begin to imagine that you can scrub out harmfull chemicals comming out of a stack and let go of the harmless ones. How can they evaluate climate change ? Since most people dont have the scientific approach, the bigest propaganda will win in the end since people tend to stick to their beliefs no matter what !

Please... no hate responses !

[PassedOut]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-November-08, 11:20, said:

...those that believe that all changes to the climate are manmade or natural, will continue to believe so, whatever anyone else says.

I'm not sure that anyone on these boards (except, possibly, Baraka) has such an extreme belief. However, the human contributions are those that we can control.

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-08, 14:32, said:

Only someone with a formal education in science and the scientific approach, be it chemistry, physics, engeneering, etc, can evaluate the truth of a theory through experimental data measurements. Anyone else can have a belief but it will always be a simple belief, not a scientific evaluation.

And yet you have offered a strong belief yourself, a belief that is contradicted by real scientists.

In fact, you insulted those real scientists when you wrote this:

 baraka, on 2015-November-06, 13:23, said:

Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax. They are out for your money in the form of a carbon tax. Don't let yourself be fooled.

I know a couple of those scientists personally, and they are bright, honest, and dedicated. They are not trying to fool anyone -- just the opposite really. And neither has a particular ax to grind concerning what the political solution to the climate change problem should be. They certainly don't deserve insults from posters like you, no matter how strong your beliefs.

[Winstonm]

Quote

people tend to stick to their beliefs no matter what !

I agree that we all tend to stick to our beliefs. The better question is: how do we develop those beliefs? Most rational people I know rely on facts - when the facts change they change their minds. In the case of something as complex as climate science, most people I know make a reasonable effort to understand what scientists in that field have to say on the subject and support those conclusions. Therefore, I do not believe this part of your statement to be accurate:

Quote

Since most people dont have the scientific approach, the bigest propaganda will win in the end since

Perhaps if one refused to accept the views of nearly all climate scientists then one might be swayed by propaganda. Propagandists have a motive; concerning climate, it would seem wise to follow the money to uncover motives.

[Al_U_Card]

Be wary of the "cost-effectiveness" of solar and wind as their intermittent nature (reliance on idling therm-electric plants) as well as massive subsidies (our tax $ ...) and short lifetimes, make them prohibitively expensive to say nothing about their hidden carbon costs.

As well, China has already embarked on a massive nuclear energy development that will do more to lower ghg than anything else.

[Zelandakh]

 Al_U_Card, on 2015-November-08, 13:34, said:

The more strident and certain, the less likely the position is valid.

Am I the only poster that sees the irony in this?

[Daniel1960]

[quote name='Winstonm' timestamp='1447018329' post='867611']
I agree that we all tend to stick to our beliefs. The better question is: how do we develop those beliefs? Most rational people I know rely on facts - when the facts change they change their minds. In the case of something as complex as climate science, most people I know make a reasonable effort to understand what scientists in that field have to say on the subject and support those conclusions. Therefore, I do not believe this part of your statement to be accurate:

Perhaps I overgeneralized here. Yes, may people, including scientists have changed their mind regarding climate science (both in favor of and against anthropogenic climate change). However, this topic has become so politicized, that many people tend to stick to the party line, rather than rely on the facts. A big part of the problem is that the two parties tend to distort the facts to suit their own needs. The climate is complex, and our understanding of it is rather low (compared to other fields of science). A substantial number of scientists have been studying these effects for quite some time now, with each contributing in their particular field of expertise. While we have established many of the climate drivers, we are still lacking in the ability to attribute relative strengths to each. Even though some scientists claim to know which drivers predominate, science, has a whole, does not, and cannot, with any reasonable certainty, make predictions into the near future. This is where I believe that people's beliefs enter the picture. Since there are enough facts to support numerous beliefs, many people tend to accept those facts which support their own beliefs only, and rejects those that do not. Time will tell, which facts have the greatest climatic influence.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-08, 15:13, said:

And yet you have offered a strong belief yourself, a belief that is contradicted by real scientists.

In fact, you insulted those real scientists when you wrote this:

I'm M.Sc. in chemistry.

So I guess I must have insulted myself

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-09, 06:56, said:

I'm M.Sc. in chemistry.

So I guess I must have insulted myself

No. You insulted real scientists.

[Al_U_Card]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-08, 17:30, said:

Am I the only poster that sees the irony in this?

Ironic, isn't it.

[baraka]

 Daniel1960, on 2015-November-09, 06:27, said:

Since there are enough facts to support numerous beliefs, many people tend to accept those facts which support their own beliefs only, and rejects those that do not.

Well said.

There was a time when people in power would burn others at the stakes to protect their own beliefs and power. Happily those days are over. We just yell at each other these days.

What I see is climate change being stuck in the same room as creationism vs evolution. No matter what the science says, creationists will always stick to their antiquated beliefs. So, many will be stuck with what to believe or not in the CO2 propaganda, with no way to figure it out.

[baraka]

 PassedOut, on 2015-November-09, 07:11, said:

No. You insulted real scientists.

You don't even know who I am ! So I take it that this is a hate post.

[PassedOut]

 baraka, on 2015-November-09, 07:18, said:

You don't even know who I am ! So I take it that this is a hate post.

I do know who you are. You are an internet poster who puts up nonsense like this about real, honest, dedicated scientists:

 baraka, on 2015-November-06, 13:23, said:

Climate change due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is just a hoax. They are out for your money in the form of a carbon tax. Don't let yourself be fooled.

Not something a real scientist would post. And, clearly, you are also an internet poster who likes to insult others, but is easily hurt yourself.

[Zelandakh]

 baraka, on 2015-November-09, 06:56, said:

I'm M.Sc. in chemistry.

So I guess I must have insulted myself

I am a maths graduate but I would not take it on myself to engage and insult Helene in her area of statistics. Having a scientific qualification is not the same as being a scientist. More than that, different areas of science require different knowledge so the idea that having a chemistry qualification would make you a climate scientist or astronomer is laughable and would never be put forward by any genuine scientist.

Your initial post on this subject was:-

 baraka, on 2015-November-05, 15:29, said:

Climate change is preordained and has nothing to do with human activity. It's the orbiting planets, mainly Jupiter, that cause tides in the sun,s plasma, just like the moon causes tides in the earth's oceans. These tides increase or decrease the sun's actibity therebye temperatures on earth. See Vukcevic, R.J. Salvador and Nicola Scafetta on Google.

Not "I think the evidence suggests that..." or "I think it likely that..." but as a definite fact. This alone marked you out as a non-scientist before even read what your pet hypothesis happened to be. Upon reading the evidence supporting the idea, even more so. The truth is that neither you nor I can say for certain what the whole truth of the matter is. The difference is that I do not claim to have that knowledge but rather try to keep an open mind and analyse evidence as it comes in. No doubt you can tell us why your application of the scientific method is more valid.

[Daniel1960]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-09, 09:30, said:

I am a maths graduate but I would not take it on myself to engage and insult Helene in her area of statistics. Having a scientific qualification is not the same as being a scientist. More than that, different areas of science require different knowledge so the idea that having a chemistry qualification would make you a climate scientist or astronomer is laughable and would never be put forward by any genuine scientist.

Your initial post on this subject was:-


Not "I think the evidence suggests that..." or "I think it likely that..." but as a definite fact. This alone marked you out as a non-scientist before even read what your pet hypothesis happened to be. Upon reading the evidence supporting the idea, even more so. The truth is that neither you nor I can say for certain what the whole truth of the matter is. The difference is that I do not claim to have that knowledge but rather try to keep an open mind and analyse evidence as it comes in. No doubt you can tell us why your application of the scientific method is more valid.

I have to agree. That initial post sounded quite definitive. As a scientist, I am quite skeptical on most topics, as most others are. However, I have come across many a scientist who feels that they are certain about various topics, climate change being one of them.

Regarding qualifications, the so-called experts in climate science encompass a rather broad range of disciplines including: physics, chemistry, meteorology, geology, oceanography, paleontology, and several sub-disciplines within them. Each contribute a different aspect to climate science. Also, there exists an entire field of modelers, who are largely mathematicians, using data gleaned from other disciplines.

[baraka]

 Zelandakh, on 2015-November-09, 09:30, said:

I am a maths graduate but I would not take it on myself to engage and insult Helene in her area of statistics.

I would not want to look pretencious indeed and the last thing I want is to insult anyone, which was done to me. So, if you and Helene are math graduates then surely you can appreciate what correllation and lack of correlation means...

http://www.vukcevic....net/CO2-Arc.gif

No correlation with CO2. High correlation with geomagnetic field.

http://wattsupwithth...p_image0022.jpg

High correlation between sunspots and temperature anomalies.

So, what is your conclusion in your humble opinion may I dare to ask Sir ?

[hrothgar]

 baraka, on 2015-November-09, 13:33, said:

I would not want to look pretencious indeed and the last thing I want is to insult anyone, which was done to me. So, if you and Helene are math graduates then surely you can appreciate what correllation and lack of correlation means...

We also have strong enough maths backgrounds to understand concepts like overfitting and the perils of modeling anything using 5th order polynomials.

[baraka]

 hrothgar, on 2015-November-09, 14:17, said:

We also have strong enough maths backgrounds to understand concepts like overfitting and the perils of modeling anything using 5th order polynomials.

Ever red that before...

You were rude to me in a Forum message in mid-November, stating I had no profile. At the time, I did not realize there was such a thing. I since have learned you are naturally rude and vulgar, so therefore I am not surprised by what you said. I had expected an apology, but only gentlemen do that. With sincerest wishes, I hope I never see your name again. Miranda Miles (Meliora2)

And this...

Remember the good old days, when *****tards like Al_U_Card and Lukewarm were isolated on AOL?

It's in your profile !