Flat Earther and AGW Denier to head nasa into obscurity.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 08:53:05 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

It is true that scientific questions aren't decided by counting heads.

"Decided", no. But valued? Most certainly. Consensus is a key
component of the modern scientific method. It's unclear how modern
science could even function without it.

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:14:16 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The wrong choices in the AGW problem would be:

1. We don't cut down future CO2 emissions and this eventually leads to
temperatures so high that the human civilisation might collapse.

But that won't happen. What will happen is that it will lead to temperatures so
high that millions of people will die needlessly - in Third World countries.
*Then* we will know it's real, and cut down CO2 emissions in time to prevent any
real disasters where _we_ live.

2. We do cut down future CO2 emissions but it turns out that increased
CO2 wasn't as catastrophic as previously believed. Then we've "lost some
money" by switching to energy sources not requiring fossil fuel. Would
that be such a big deal? Eventually we'll run out of fossil fuels anyway
so we will sooner or later be required to make this switch. Now we made
the switch a little earlier, that's all.

Most of the mainstream suggestions for addressing global warming involve
switching from fossil fuels to wind energy and solar power. The best options for
energy storage are only available in places that already have hydroelectricity.

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society towards
less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would downgrade heavy
industry, and thus impact the military defense capabilities of the United States
of America.

Thus, the stakes are much higher than you seem to think: if we do what some
people are telling us, the likely consequence is that Russia or China will end
up ruling the world.


Now you perhaps may see why there is some resistance to AGW.

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually is the
alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating consequences, while it's
the risk of doing nothing that's small.

However, none of this has anything to do with the science of whether AGW is real
or not. Some people are just excessively optimistic, and seem to think that the
laws of nature will conform to our convenience - instead of every alternative
having unpleasant consequences sometimes.

As I've pointed out, though, the situation isn't as bad as it seems. There is at
least one proven way to generate abundant electrical power anywhere which is
carbon free.

So we heat our homes with electricity, and go to work on trolley buses, and get
the electricity from *nuclear power plants*... and, thanks to breeder reactors,
we don't need to use just the limited supplies of U-235. We can last that way
while continuing to have an industrialized society with heavy energy usage, long
enough to come up with something more permanent (solar power satellites, fusion
power, and so on).

Then alternative 2 ends up having the relatively low costs you outline. But
right now, this is an alternative that's off the table; the Greens don't like
nuclear power. (The issue isn't really proliferation, as the countries that
aren't either major industrialized democracies, or countries that already have
nuclear weapons make up a very small fraction of world energy use, and could
continue to use fossil fuels without appreciable impact.)

John Savard

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 8:14:16 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

The wrong choices in the AGW problem would be:

1. We don't cut down future CO2 emissions and this eventually leads to
temperatures so high that the human civilisation might collapse.

But that won't happen. What will happen is that it will lead to temperatures so
high that millions of people will die needlessly - in Third World countries.
*Then* we will know it's real, and cut down CO2 emissions in time to prevent any
real disasters where _we_ live.

It might not happen, but it cannot be excluded either. Millions of people
needlessly dying will certainly cause unrest and massive amounts of
migration on a scale we haven't seen so far. Certainly there will be wars
over this too. And it's those side effects which could be a danger to our
civilisation. Some nukes detonated, in India or Pakistan, or in the
Middle East, could be enough.

2. We do cut down future CO2 emissions but it turns out that increased
CO2 wasn't as catastrophic as previously believed. Then we've "lost some
money" by switching to energy sources not requiring fossil fuel. Would
that be such a big deal? Eventually we'll run out of fossil fuels anyway
so we will sooner or later be required to make this switch. Now we made
the switch a little earlier, that's all.

Most of the mainstream suggestions for addressing global warming involve
switching from fossil fuels to wind energy and solar power. The best options for
energy storage are only available in places that already have hydroelectricity.

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society towards
less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would downgrade heavy
industry, and thus impact the military defense capabilities of the United States
of America.

Thus, the stakes are much higher than you seem to think: if we do what some
people are telling us, the likely consequence is that Russia or China will end
up ruling the world.

More like China than Russia then. But don't you think that would cause
huge conflicts?

Now you perhaps may see why there is some resistance to AGW.

I understand that the desire of most americans to continue "the american
way of life" as before is a major reason behind the denial of AGW.
There's a similar problem in Europe where the AGW denial isn't as
explicit as in the US but still most europeans continue their old life
style which, compared to the globally average lifestyle, is quite
extravagant.

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually is the
alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating consequences, while it's
the risk of doing nothing that's small.

However, none of this has anything to do with the science of whether AGW is real
or not. Some people are just excessively optimistic, and seem to think that the
laws of nature will conform to our convenience - instead of every alternative
having unpleasant consequences sometimes.

As I've pointed out, though, the situation isn't as bad as it seems. There is at
least one proven way to generate abundant electrical power anywhere which is
carbon free.

So we heat our homes with electricity, and go to work on trolley buses, and get
the electricity from *nuclear power plants*... and, thanks to breeder reactors,
we don't need to use just the limited supplies of U-235. We can last that way
while continuing to have an industrialized society with heavy energy usage, long
enough to come up with something more permanent (solar power satellites, fusion
power, and so on).

Then alternative 2 ends up having the relatively low costs you outline. But
right now, this is an alternative that's off the table; the Greens don't like
nuclear power. (The issue isn't really proliferation, as the countries that
aren't either major industrialized democracies, or countries that already have
nuclear weapons make up a very small fraction of world energy use, and could
continue to use fossil fuels without appreciable impact.)

Spreading nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors, in every
country over the world as you suggest will of course strongly reduce CO2
emissions. But doing so has its own risks, making radioactive substances
much more easily available -- not like you could buy them in your grocery
store of course, but still easy enough to get to enable some highly
motivated terrorist groups to get their hands at it. Imagine e.g. some
future equivalent to ISIS, armed with not very large but still nukes - I
think you'll get the idea.

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:28:56 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

It might not happen, but it cannot be excluded either. Millions of people
needlessly dying will certainly cause unrest and massive amounts of
migration on a scale we haven't seen so far. Certainly there will be wars
over this too. And it's those side effects which could be a danger to our
civilisation. Some nukes detonated, in India or Pakistan, or in the
Middle East, could be enough.

It's already happening. There are small scale resource conflicts
happening all over. The most far reaching for most of the world is the
Syrian civil war, which probably would not have occurred but for
anthropogenic drought.

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 2:29:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

Spreading nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors, in every
country over the world as you suggest

Proliferation is a legitimate concern when it comes to nuclear power.

So I don't suggest that - putting breeder reactors in _every_ country.

But having breeder reactors in Finland, Estonia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, New
Zealand, and so on does not pose a danger of proliferation.

The world's rich countries can sell, or give, liquid hydrogen to the nations of
the Third World for their energy needs, where it would be impractical to run
power lines for electricity.

John Savard

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 3:39:07 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It's already happening. There are small scale resource conflicts
happening all over. The most far reaching for most of the world is the
Syrian civil war, which probably would not have occurred but for
anthropogenic drought.

That could be, but I'm thinking of something more unmistakable. Say massive crop
failures in Indonesia and similarly situated nations.

John Savard

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 15:14:29 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 3:39:07 PM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

It's already happening. There are small scale resource conflicts
happening all over. The most far reaching for most of the world is the
Syrian civil war, which probably would not have occurred but for
anthropogenic drought.

That could be, but I'm thinking of something more unmistakable. Say massive crop
failures in Indonesia and similarly situated nations.

Oh yes. It's certainly going to get worse. It's uncertain whether this
is something we can actually deal with anymore, however. It's possibly
too late already. But even if we can reverse things, we're looking at
a miserable century to come.

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:31:39 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

First of all, it appears to me that nearly EVERYONE is forming their
opinions on emotion. Second, I don't really care WHAT you think about
me as you have demonstrated a biased view (like equating not being a
gung-ho supporter of AGW with being a flat-earther).

While the position is overstated - even being a Creationist is not flying as
directly in the facts as believing the Earth is flat - thie basic principle,
that questioning AGW is a denial of the current consensus of the scientific
community is true, not biased.

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased, even to the point of denigrating skeptics with claiming
that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since they're concocting
a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad hominem rather than to
the discussion.

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red herring;
it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than carbon
dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect.
Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes
an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than
what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect
is less than what the climate models predict.

And I've mentioned other problems with the models. So there is NOT
universal agreement about AGW, as advocates are VERY prone to claim
Saying that MOST scientists agree with AGW is just saying that voting
counts in science, which is total bull plop.

It is true that scientific questions aren't decided by counting heads.

The fact that most of the "climate skeptics" among scientists have turned
out to be in the pay of oil companies, though, is indicative.

And "climate scientists" work for governments, which they rely on for their
paychecks.

If dissenting views have trouble getting published in orthodox peer-
reviewed venues, that usually says something about the quality of the
work involved;

Or it says something about the bias of the "peers."

I could has easily accuse a "conspiracy" of preventing chemical journals
from publishing papers on the chemical (as opposed to nuclear)
transmutation of lead into gold.

The true sciences are much more "settled" than climate change is. We know
A LOT about the energies of the nucleus versus electron energy levels.
There are no "big problems" hanging out there in chemistry, and there are
few in physics.

"Most" is one thing. "Nearly all" is another.

Funny, I know a few PhDs in science ranging from physicists to soil scientist
who claim AGW is bunk and politically motivated. I know none who are AGW
advocates. So my own "survey" is in stark contrast to the claims bandied
about by the advocates.

There are working electrical engineers who are Creationists.

John Savard

Even a few climate scientists :-)

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society
towards less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would downgrade
heavy industry, and thus impact the military defense capabilities of the
United States of America.

Indeed, but there are other consequences. Anthropologist Carleton Coon
pointed out that civilization itself is determined by converting
available energy into social structure, so less dependence on energy
means a debasing of society.

Furthermore, the developing countries are where the increasing CO2
emissions will be coming from, so it is pointless to harm the USA
in a fanatic process of self-immolation.

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually
is the alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating consequences,
while it's the risk of doing nothing that's small.

Exactly. I'm not saying to do nothing, but I am saying to take it slow,
improve the climate models, gather more data and move incrementally
toward reducing greenhouse gases (but not water vapor :-)

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 3 Jun 2018 22:28:56 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

It might not happen, but it cannot be excluded either. Millions of people
needlessly dying will certainly cause unrest and massive amounts of
migration on a scale we haven't seen so far. Certainly there will be wars
over this too. And it's those side effects which could be a danger to our
civilisation. Some nukes detonated, in India or Pakistan, or in the
Middle East, could be enough.

It's already happening. There are small scale resource conflicts
happening all over. The most far reaching for most of the world is the
Syrian civil war, which probably would not have occurred but for
anthropogenic drought.

Are you saying that our civilisation already is collapsing?

In article ,
says...

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 9:53:07 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Sunday, June 3, 2018 at 6:31:39 AM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

First of all, it appears to me that nearly EVERYONE is forming their
opinions on emotion. Second, I don't really care WHAT you think about
me as you have demonstrated a biased view (like equating not being a
gung-ho supporter of AGW with being a flat-earther).

While the position is overstated - even being a Creationist is not flying as
directly in the facts as believing the Earth is flat - thie basic principle,
that questioning AGW is a denial of the current consensus of the scientific
community is true, not biased.

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased,

It indeed is ... biased towards the truth. Do you prefer some other kind
of bias?

even to the point of denigrating skeptics

Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok.

with claiming
that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since they're concocting
a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad hominem rather than to
the discussion.

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red herring;
it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly than carbon
dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an effect.
Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer, so IF CO2 causes
an increase in temperature, there will be more greenhouse effect than
what comes directly from the CO2. For some reason, however, this effect
is less than what the climate models predict.

On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something
else?

And I've mentioned other problems with the models. So there is NOT
universal agreement about AGW, as advocates are VERY prone to claim
Saying that MOST scientists agree with AGW is just saying that voting
counts in science, which is total bull plop.

It is true that scientific questions aren't decided by counting heads.

The fact that most of the "climate skeptics" among scientists have turned
out to be in the pay of oil companies, though, is indicative.

And "climate scientists" work for governments, which they rely on for their
paychecks.

Which makes them much more unbiased than if they get their paycheck from
some private company with a business agenda. You do recognize that
researchers are humans too which must make their living somehow, don't
you? Give one example of making your living in a way which makes you more
unbiased than if you get your salary from the government.


If dissenting views have trouble getting published in orthodox peer-
reviewed venues, that usually says something about the quality of the
work involved;

Or it says something about the bias of the "peers."

Precisely that argument is used by flat earth activists....

So you don't like peer review. With what would you like to replace it? No
review at all?

I could has easily accuse a "conspiracy" of preventing chemical journals
from publishing papers on the chemical (as opposed to nuclear)
transmutation of lead into gold.

The true sciences are much more "settled" than climate change is. We know
A LOT about the energies of the nucleus versus electron energy levels.
There are no "big problems" hanging out there in chemistry, and there are
few in physics.

"Most" is one thing. "Nearly all" is another.

Funny, I know a few PhDs in science ranging from physicists to soil scientist
who claim AGW is bunk and politically motivated. I know none who are AGW
advocates. So my own "survey" is in stark contrast to the claims bandied
about by the advocates.

How many of those are climate researchers?

Physicists are used to simple problems where fundamental effects are
researched. In addition, physicists are used to systems they can perform
experiments on. They are not used to very complex systems like the Earth
with its atmosphere and its climate. which they can only observe, not
experiment on.

There are working electrical engineers who are Creationists.

John Savard

Even a few climate scientists :-)

So what is being suggested is a radical re-orientation of our society
towards less dependency on energy and less energy use. This would downgrade
heavy industry, and thus impact the military defense capabilities of the
United States of America.

Indeed, but there are other consequences. Anthropologist Carleton Coon
pointed out that civilization itself is determined by converting
available energy into social structure, so less dependence on energy
means a debasing of society.

Furthermore, the developing countries are where the increasing CO2
emissions will be coming from, so it is pointless to harm the USA
in a fanatic process of self-immolation.

Yep -- "harm the USA" -- that's the main preoccupation of climate
deniers. They think it's better to make our civilisation collapse than to
"harm the USA". But they'll shoot themselves in the foot, since a
collapse of our civilisation **also** will "harm the USA"....

Doing something about it, in the way we're generally told to, actually
is the alternative that seems to have genuinely devastating consequences,
while it's the risk of doing nothing that's small.

Exactly. I'm not saying to do nothing, but I am saying to take it slow,
improve the climate models, gather more data and move incrementally
toward reducing greenhouse gases (but not water vapor :-)

If you were an extraterrestial, observing the Earth from space, you could
argue like that. But you are a human living on Earth and whatever happens
here will affect you too. The situation here on Earth is a bit more
urgent than you realize. Waiting a century or so (which would be required
to meet your demands) is very likely waiting too long...