Post Reply
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Green energy speeding up in Europe
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 2:02AM #21
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 26, 2012 -- 12:32PM, mindis1 wrote:


What do you call the people who ask for the evidence from which one can conclude that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is true or is more likely true than not?



What about people who demand evidence for the allegations of "non-Green" you issued, specifically for German wind energy plants and Norwegian dams? US data don't really count here, right?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 9:27AM #22
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,164

Jun 22, 2012 -- 10:37PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 22, 2012 -- 9:42PM, jane2 wrote:


We graduate first-rate engineers and scientists from our MITs and CalTech's, etc.



For every US engineer graduating, seven engineers graduate in Asia.


There are almost as many lawyers as engineers today, in the USA.


Over the last decade, half a million engineer jobs were lost.


It's because of capitalism. Being a lawyer or a physician pays WAY better!
(To the individual I mean, not to society at large...)




IF you consider five years of education for engineers  verses eight  for law and 12-16 for medicine,  factor in  the cost of  insurance and business, an engineer is  making more than doctors or lawyers.  Many Asian engineers are educated in the US.

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 1:15PM #23
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jun 27, 2012 -- 2:02AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 26, 2012 -- 12:32PM, mindis1 wrote:


What do you call the people who ask for the evidence from which one can conclude that the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is true or is more likely true than not?



What about people who demand evidence for the allegations of "non-Green" you issued, specifically for German wind energy plants and Norwegian dams? US data don't really count here, right?



I don’t have any derogatory names for people who ask for evidence. I consider it rational and admirable to ask for evidence to substantiate a scientific hypothesis claimed to be true. Asking for, providing and critiquing evidence are things that happen far too rarely around here.


I am not sure what “allegations of ‘non-green’” you are referring to. I asked how hydroelectric dams came to be called “green,” and I asked you how you define “green”. You haven’t answered either of these questions. I provided a good deal of information about the documented environmental destruction wrought by both hydroelectric dams and wind farms. It seems to me that anyone who is actually interested in the environment would want to have that information and would be troubled by it. I am happy to defend any of my claims, and I do so often in my posts, or else acknowledge that I cannot defend my claim. I take it that no one else will be doing likewise on this thread.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 1:17PM #24
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jun 26, 2012 -- 9:43PM, solfeggio wrote:


Burning fossil fuels has unnaturally heated the atmosphere, and evidence of human activity causing this is unequivocal.



Solfeggio, you’re not able to defend either of your claims here, are you?  


No scientific study has ever concluded that the “evidence of human activity causing [the unnatural heating of the atmosphere] is unequivocal,” has it?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2012 - 7:04PM #25
solfeggio
Posts: 9,557

Since you've been arguing against human-caused climate change for years, Mindis, I very much doubt that anything I or anybody else could post would cause you to think differently.


But, what the heck?


iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/...


The gist of this research paper is that there is a more than 90% likelihood that global climate change is the result of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 1:50AM #26
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 27, 2012 -- 1:17PM, mindis1 wrote:


No scientific study has ever concluded that the “evidence of human activity causing [the unnatural heating of the atmosphere] is unequivocal,” has it?



That's because scientific studies never make a claim of "unequivocal", unless we speak of mathematics. Empirical sciences can only make probabilistic statements. Claims of "unequivocal" are not scientific. But we've been through that. You seem to expect true/false statements where none can be made. The usual way to disregard evidence, if that is the plan to begin with...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 2:05AM #27
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 27, 2012 -- 1:15PM, mindis1 wrote:


I am not sure what “allegations of ‘non-green’” you are referring to. I asked how hydroelectric dams came to be called “green,” ...



Well, exactly this is what I call an allegation of non-green.



... and I asked you how you define “green”.



You asked me to define "green", indeed, albeit in a context packaged together with the question how mass killings of birds and fish came to be called 'green'. I don't consider such packages of questions a serious contribution to dialogue, but pure opinionated polemics. And I do not encourage opinionated polemics by giving a serious response.



I provided a good deal of information about the documented environmental destruction wrought by both hydroelectric dams and wind farms.



Despite being explicitly asked for it, you didn't bring ANY information about German and Norwegian installations, which is what this thread here is about. Can you? Will you? Then a meaningful dialogue in this direction could be started.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:38PM #28
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jun 27, 2012 -- 7:04PM, solfeggio wrote:


Since you've been arguing against human-caused climate change for years, Mindis . . .



Solfeggio, I do not recall that I have ever argued, or ever claimed to have argued, “against human-caused climate change”. I consider the AGW hypothesis a logical possibility and a falsifiable hypothesis, and I have never presented any evidence from which I concluded, or asked anyone else to conclude, that it is false. I have often asked for the evidence by which one can conclude that the AGW is true or more likely true than not; and I have often critiqued what people have presented in response to my request for evidence. Most often people respond exactly as you did in your first response to me here, by asserting the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum. “There is a consensus . . .”


I very much doubt that anything I or anybody else could post would cause you to think differently.



In your mind, what reasons would I have for denying a valid conclusion deduced from empirical evidence that the AGW hypothesis is true, or is more likely true than not? It isn’t as though I am “anti-science” or “anti-logic”--just the contrary. I am obviously not tied to any partisan position on the AGW hypothesis, which seems to be what motivates most people’s opinions on the AGW hypothesis--I really do hate Democrats and Republicans equally (but for different reasons).


I make an effort to investigate and ponder scientific questions with an open and unbiased mind. If you know of any instance where I have not done so, then please point it out.


iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/...


The gist of this research paper is that there is a more than 90% likelihood that global climate change is the result of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases.



A few questions:


[1] Can you tell us what is the empirical evidence from which the authors of that letter derived that “gist”?


[2] Can you list the premises by which the authors deduced that there is a >90% probability that the AGW hypothesis is true? If so, list them.


If you cannot list the premises, then you are unable to determine that the premises are true, and that the conclusion is either valid or true. Correct?


[3] The outputs of all general circulation models such as used in this analysis depend upon factors such as (a) the sensitivity of the climate to radiative forcings (such as GHG effects), and (b) whether water vapor and cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. None of these factors has been determined empirically, as the IPCC admits. Moreover, no such general circulation model has ever been validated. It is not rational to assume that the output of an unvalidated model is correct. Right?  


[4] Does the analysis distinguish warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions from warming caused by CO2 from natural sources such as decay of organic matter, wildfires and respiration of organisms, which constitutes the majority of CO2 added to the atmosphere during the past century?


If not, then one cannot deduce from this analysis that there is any likelihood that the AGW hypothesis is true. Right?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:42PM #29
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jun 28, 2012 -- 1:50AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 27, 2012 -- 1:17PM, mindis1 wrote:


No scientific study has ever concluded that the “evidence of human activity causing [the unnatural heating of the atmosphere] is unequivocal,” has it?



That's because scientific studies never make a claim of "unequivocal", unless we speak of mathematics. Empirical sciences can only make probabilistic statements. Claims of "unequivocal" are not scientific. But we've been through that. You seem to expect true/false statements where none can be made. The usual way to disregard evidence, if that is the plan to begin with...



You seem to be confused as to who made the comment that the evidence for AGW is “unequivocal”. I am the one who pointed out that no scientific study has ever concluded what Solfeggio claimed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2012 - 4:44PM #30
mindis1
Posts: 8,142

Jun 28, 2012 -- 2:05AM, CharikIeia wrote:


Jun 27, 2012 -- 1:15PM, mindis1 wrote:


I provided a good deal of information about the documented environmental destruction wrought by both hydroelectric dams and wind farms.



Despite being explicitly asked for it, you didn't bring ANY information about German and Norwegian installations, which is what this thread here is about. Can you? Will you? Then a meaningful dialogue in this direction could be started.



It isn’t my fault that you are unable to defend your claim that Norway’s dam and Germany’s wind farm(s) constitute “green energy”. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 3 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook