235 comments on The Global Energy Crisis and its Role in the Pending Collapse of the Global Economy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
235 comments on The Global Energy Crisis and its Role in the Pending Collapse of the Global Economy
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
My concern with Prof. Svensmark is that he doesn't mind being part of heavily AGW skeptical documentaries before his results and theory have been assimilated and cross-checked by the scientific community. Mistakes do happen and it takes time to find them:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut20...
Svensmark trotted out his cosmic ray theory a decade ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm
He's a loon/denier.
Again I have to ask what are your qualifications for using that kind of language? Do you have an in depth knowledge of this field? As someone who makes a living as a scientist I can tell you that this sort of behaviour is not how science is normally conducted. Theories stand and fall based on the available data and ad hominen attacks are very much avoided. You say that you are suspicious of new theories. Well, as recently as the early 1970s plate tectonics still fitted into that sort of category. Science is far from settled in many fields. People should bear in mind that the main greenhouse gas is actually H2O rather than CO2. From what I have been able to piece together the role of clouds is still very poorly understood in current global climate model. It is far from inconceivable that some mechanism relating to cloud formation has a bigger impact than is currently generally realised. As Euan Mearns points out it will be interesting to see what happens with the experiments that CERN conducting to test Svensmark's theories.
http://public.web.cern.ch/PUBLIC/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
If it requires specialist qualifications to attack someone, it requires specialist qualifications to defend them.
So if he has to be silent, then you do, too.
Presumably you do not wish to be silent, so you cannot expect him to be, and ought to contend with the actual evidence and papers he linked to, rather than crying about "that kind of language."
Of course, deniers of climate change and peak oil don't like contending with evidence.
"It is far from inconceivable that some mechanism relating to cloud formation has a bigger impact than is currently generally realised."
It is far from inconceivable that aliens from Xeta Bootis V are manipulating our climate as a giant test tube. But until you present evidence to that end, we will naturally remain sceptical.
You have missed the point. I have no problem at all with people believing in and posting about AGW. It is a very plausible theory, which may well prove to be correct. What I object to is his use of terms like "deniers" and "loons". That sort of behaviour is more akin to a medieval inquisition hunting down heretics who have challenged a faith based belief system than to the application of the scientific method. It is actually a sign of weakness rather than strength, in my opinion, that people so often seem to resort to that sort of behaviour where AGW is concerned.
Once again, you address the tone of a post without contending with its content. We must then take it that the content is unassailable.
We thank you for your graciously allowing us to "believe" in the "theory" of AGW.
Likewise, because I'm such a fine chap, I will express my contentment at your expression of belief in a purely biological origin for oil, the round Earth going around the Sun, at the theory of gravity, of relativity, quantum uncertainty, evolution, plate tectonics, that smoking causes lung cancer and HIV is responsible for AIDS, and the Big Bang theory.
All of these have their "sceptics", all of these have people with letters after their name who speak against them.
And they are all speaking bollocks. The abuse comes not because they raise doubts, but because the doubts are shown to be groundless due to reams of evidence, and ignoring all that they make the same comments again and again and again and again.
Repetition and wilful ignorance, deliberate obtuseness and blind obstinacy, these are things which, amazingly enough, really annoy people.
Let us have a supporter of the idea of abiotic oil come and post again and again to threads on TOD, ignoring all evidence posted against his ideas, and see how politely he gets treated. Or we could send a Creationist to a geology forum, or an AIDS denier to a medical forum, and see what they say.
In the end, if a person insists on being a horse's arse, he has to expect to be whipped.
Are you a scientist who is active in the field of climate science? If not, why do you even feel qualified to be so strident with your opinions on this subject? Do you think a scientific body like CERN normally waste their time and resources on the ideas of a "loon"? His ideas are being tested out because highly qualified people in Henrik Svensmark's field of research take them seriously and see a need to apply the standard scientific process of conducting controlled experiments to collect data in order to test the validity of the theory. It will be interesting to see what happens with that. As a scientist I have an open mind and will wait for the data before making my mind up.
Well, I am not a scientist but I know a loon/denier when I hear one.
Back in the distant recesses of time there was a scientist who made the most meticulous observations imaginable but he was also a loon/denier.
He couldn't stand a certain simple theory which challenged his
position in his universe so he evolved an alternate which also preserved his values system. He then hired a mathematician to
'validate' his conception scientifically, who (unfortunately) turned out to be honest.
The scientist didn't go about challenging the rival theory in a 'objective' way; his observations were only to be used to prove HIS model and to disprove the others.
Even today I would say that he is in many respects a model scientist.
He is also the archetype of the loon/denier.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe
OTOH,
There was another scientist who proved in a very simple way the
truth of the heliocentric orbit of the earth by direct observation of the phases of Venus.
He was wrong about a number of things but on this particular idea he was mind-bogglingly correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
IMO, it is a mere coincidence that Svensmark and Tycho are both Danes.
I don't have qualifications in the field of climate science, however unlike you (Exiled Scot) in your post above, I don't claim that you need specialist qualifications to speak intelligently about a subject. If we did, then our conversations would be rather limited. We'd have to be professional football players to talk about football, schoolteachers to talk about schools, oncologists to talk about palliative care for terminally ill patients, chefs to talk about food, and so and so forth. That is obviously absurd.
We don't need specialist qualifications in a subject to talk intelligently about it. But we do need to make an effort to learn about it, and if during discussions people point us to new sources of information, we should look at them.
Climate change deniers, like peak oil deniers, HIV/AIDS connection deniers, evolution deniers and so on, these are people who refuse to look at evidence presented by anyone except them. Whereas those who accept the mainstream theories will look at any evidence; they look at that presented by the deniers, deal with it and move on. But the deniers battle on obliviously, showing up in place after place with the same debunked ideas.
The denier refuses to look at any information but his own, but expects the mainstream to look again and again at his own information.
That is deliberately obtuse, wilfully ignorant, and is why people get annoyed and start tossing around such vicious unbearable insults as "loon".
Then I invite you to look into abiotic oil, into those denying the connection between HIV and AIDS, into Creationist geology, into the Flat Earth theory, Intelligent Design in biology, orgone theory, Lysenko's genetics, and... well, there are others, but that ought to keep you busy for a while.
You should keep your mind open, but not so open that the wind whistles through it emptily.
Kiashu, please Stop the nonsense already.
1. Euan posted this for discussion.
2. Euan, and anyone else, can post comments - regardless of qualifications.
3. We the readers already know the level of Euan's expertise - he did NOT pretend to be an expert. So there is certainly NOTHIING wrong with anyone requesting the Same Courtesy from a very "assertive," anonymous, respondent who disagrees.
Finally, whether we like it or not the study of Climate Change is still in it's infancy. The Climate System is just as complex - if not more so - than the mechanics/processes of evolution.
And That grand theory is still being refined and expanded upon today, afer 150 years of debate.
Also, it is absurd to compare the "creationism vs evolution, flatearthers, etc " debates with questions about the mechanisms involved in climate change, and how each mechanism interacts with the others.
I'm glad you agree. But don't tell me, tell Exiled Scot, who says that if you're not qualified in that specialist area, you can't comment.
Or rather, he says that an unqualified person (Mearns) can doubt the consensus of mainstream science, but an unqualified person (me) can't defend the consensus of mainstream science. So qualifications matter when you disagree with Exiled Scot, but are unimportant when you agree with him.
For my part, I say that qualifications are unimportant for intelligent discussion of issues of public affairs - whatever your opinions are. What matters is to learn as much as you can before expressing an opinion, and to consider seriously any evidence placed before you afterwards - but hey, once each for each bit of evidence is enough, it gets tedious hashing over the same stuff for years.
Unfortunately, this tends not to be the way human minds work. Rather than collecting evidence and then forming an opinion, we often form an opinion and then look for evidence to support it. That is fair enough - so long as we don't deliberately ignore anything against our opinion.
For my part, I've responded to many climate change denier points in this discussion. "No warming since 1998" I've debunked. The bizarre "thirty year cycle" I've knocked down. Of course I've not had a response to this.
Yes and no. On the one hand, he hasn't fluffed up his resume or anything like that. On the other hand, he presented a big old slideshow and an article on TOD presenting what he considers to be The Truth. So he's presenting himself as an expert, making an "argument from authority" as himself.
But I don't think that's a big problem. The problem is not whether he's an expert on climate change, but that he's wrong about climate change.
But even being wrong is not the true problem. The true problem is deliberately ignoring anything presented to him to show he's wrong. This is why deniers always seize on the tone of critiques and quibble with details - so they can avoid the actual point, the evidence that shows their ideas are a nonsense.
Absolutely. But while the details of evolution are still argued about, the general trends of it are not - except among the deliberately obtuse deniers. There's a general consensus on many areas of it. Likewise, while the precise details of climate change are argued about, the general trends of it are not - except among the deliberately obtuse deniers.
That humans are the single biggest cause of global warming in our time is not in doubt.
It's rather the way that medical professionals may argue over whether (say) a pack a day will knock 5 years off your life, or 10 years - but none argue that it does on average reduce your lifetime. Well, no-one except cigarette companies and their flunkies, anyway.
Again, you're confusing the general trends with the details. Scientists argue over the details of everything. If they didn't, they'd have no profession, after all. The scientific method is a long process of hypothesising, testing, measuring, analysing, arguing and then starting again.
But there exists a general consensus on many and various things. One of those things is that humans are the single biggest cause of global warming in our time. And there exist many deliberately obtuse people who deny this.
In this, the issue of climate change is exactly like those of peak oil, evolution, the round Earth and so on.
If people wish, I could write an article supporting the theory of abiotic oil. After all, Mearns has already told us that it's good to be "deliberately controversial". When people critique my article, I could focus on the tone of their posts, ignore any evidence brought before me or quibble with its details, and so on.
Of course, such nonsense wouldn't get a hearing on TOD - and rightly so. Nonsensical climate change denials are welcomed, nonsensical peak oil denials are not. I think the ideal is that nonsense is in general should be rejected here.
Bull. No area of scientific inquiry that has achieved a 99% certainty level can be said to be in its infancy. This is your agenda talking, not the facts.
It's intellectually dishonest.
Cheers