@TMTisFree

I believe you have seen this video,
The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See,
already.

Any thoughts about it?

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FEu2 on Sam440ep-flex 800MHz 1GB RAM
C128, A500+, A1200, A1200/40, AmigaForever 2008+09+16, 5 x86/x64 boxes
Still waiting (or dreaming) for the Amiga revolution...
m4rko.com/AMIGA

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Occam's Razor suggests nevertheless to select the simplest explanation when possible. In this case, the alternative hypothesis has no physical basis (if you check the 4 IPCC reports, you will not find any physical explanations, only qualitative claims), is not supported by historical measurements and is not supported by current observations

When something is a 90%+ consensus how does it get to be the alternative view?

As for Occam's Razor that's just silly. We're talking science here. Certainly Occam's Razor worked as it perfectly predicted the sun going around the earth, material comprised of earth, wind, fire, and ether, and that Dr's don't have to wash their hands. Occam's Razor isn't proof of anything. At best it's a hypothesis. And it comes in many forms. For example a while ago I posted a video for you of a US Senator stating his reason for not caring about the planet is Jesus will come and take us all away before the planet is destroyed. Occam's Razor in action, or as he understands it.

Quote:

I do not know any other effort at least as exhaustive as CO2Science and with such easy visual demonstration of a worldwide MWP

The plus of the site is it provides a neat list which one can search out and verify. The plus of Wikipedia is it provides the link to the direct articles. Even with this large working my question still stands and more has to be done. It'd be nice when the science can agree when the worldwide MWP actually occurred and the net heat was for the world.

The existence of a MWP does nothing to prove or disprove the present warming state. We're clearly warming.

Quote:

I plan to switch most of my low voltage (25W) lamps (about 40) with LED at next time replacement

I've switched some lamps to LED. What I find is they are good for spot lighting and not quite as good for general room lighting. Incandscents are the best for room lighting with CFLs close behind and LED at the bottom. LED makes a great reading light, OTOH.

Quote:

My point is that it is difficult to find a ratio pollution per unit power produced of the said technologies over their entire lifespan. Sure it is interesting to be energy-independent even at the home level, but I find it strange to not find such basic study and information easily.

I agree it's hard someone should pull all the data together, as it is out there, and do a single easy to use chart. Most studies I've seen look at a 30 year lifespan.

Quote:

t was more than a theory.

If it would work or not was tested in the lab. What I mean is that it's real world application/usage has yet to be shown. One would have to build a plant, run it a good # of years and demonstrate it actually does all it's proponents claim it will do.

Quote:

It remains to be proved. Because of the discontinuity and inverted offer/demand in production problems renewable energies will not be main production paths. Then an effective (measurable) action on softening energy price is probably overestimated (dilution), especially if energy prices increase greatly

The answer is one must pick the right technology mix for the area. For example -- geothermal in Iceland. Saying no and using solar instead would clearly not have the same benefits. Here in Minnesota we have no coal. We pay to ship it in and it produces the majority of our power. We have lots of farmland including turkey and chicken farms. Recently a plant was opened that burns farm waste to generate electricity. LINK Energy independence will come by using what you have in your own backyard to make power.

Quote:

Wind competes because of subsidies.

I don't know a new power project in the USA today that does not get some sort of government subsidy. Nuclear in the USA competes because of the same reason.

Quote:

I am not sure that is an ecological advancement.

IMO if oil rigs get to declare themselves ecologically friendly because of the life that lives around them in the water then wind can claim the same.

Quote:

If you add the loss of jobs in the balance by switching to green technologies,

It remains to be proved.

Last edited by BrianK on 14-Apr-2009 at 04:35 AM.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10192
Quote:

Playing God with the Weather Will Outdo Mother Nature’s Worst Nightmares

@marko

No. I stopped watching TV or reading newspapers 10-12 years ago because the news was always the same (lighty, scary, inaccurate, gory, repetitive, etc). I am somewhat disconnected from this world and enjoy it (I prefer books btw, the video experience on a PC is dreadful when you are used to 1920x1080p). The video you link to is simplistic and Gore-like, that is to say, made to impress the gullible: the title says it all. What is interesting is what is to be found behind the whiteboard.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@BrianK

Quote:

When something is a 90%+ consensus how does it get to be the alternative view?

You are back with your political view. The % number is meaningless until all climate scientists have been questioned and have made their responses public. Even if you have this result, that does not means they are true. Because one has to be convinced by scientific arguments, not by surveys or polls or the 'stop-thinking' attitude pushed by some vested politicians and the mass media .

Quote:

Occam's Razor isn't proof of anything. At best it's a hypothesis

Neither proof nor hypothesis. It is an efficient method to decide between different propositions.

Quote:

We're talking science here.

You are not. Talking 90% consensus in Science is like taking seriously a 'democratic' 99% voting in a dictatorship.

Quote:

The existence of a MWP does nothing to prove or disprove the present warming state.

The existence of MWP demonstrates that the current supposed warming is not 'unprecedented' as claimed wrongly by alarmists. And then that the current supposed warming is largely in bounds of natural variability.

Quote:

It remains to be proved.

It is an obvious requirement if green technologies want to be competitive with others technologies.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

You are back with your political view. The % number is meaningless until all climate scientists have been questioned and have made their responses public. Even if you have this result, that does not means they are true

Not a political view. If GW is the 'alternative' what is the scientific consensus that it's the alternative to? The answer is nothing. Because GW is the scientific consensus it is mainstream it is not the alternative. This is not political. Various studys and queries of both scientific publications and the climatologists indicate this is the case. And no we don't need 100% response to the question. Statistical sampling can be done.

Is the science wrong? Could be. Though that doesn't change the statement that GW is the mainstream science today.

Quote:

It is an efficient method to decide between different propositions.

Efficent? Perhaps. Though it seems that flipping a quarter might be a more efficent decision maker. Scientifically accurate Occam's Razor is not.

Quote:

t is an obvious requirement if green technologies want to be competitive with others technologies.

Yet many studies demonstrate increased employment domestically for green technologies. I wonder if anyone did a study of Iceland and it's impact to the energy employment for their nation with the switch to geothermal and hydroelectric. I'd be interested to see not just number of jobs but type of job and average salary.

@marko

Quote:

The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/url], Any thoughts about it?

To find complaints read up on Pascal's Wager.

@BrianK

Quote:

If GW is the 'alternative' what is the scientific consensus that it's the alternative to? The answer is nothing.

As there is no consensus in Science, your question and its own reply are nonsensical.

Quote:

Because GW is the scientific consensus it is mainstream it is not the alternative.

IPCC was build up to perpetrate this myth ("because we can't think of anything else..."). They 'forgot' that natural variability was/is a sufficient driver and then explanation.

Quote:

Is the science wrong? Could be. Though that doesn't change the statement that GW is the mainstream science today.

Model based research is not Science, it is conjectures that have to be proved. It is clear that models are unreliable: no clouds modelling at all or assumption of positive feedback, assumption of moisture's constancy, ad hoc tuning of radiative parameters, flux adjustments to avoid drifting, parametrizations to the taste of the modeller, etc. Not one of these tunings is based on physical laws or principles. The very fact that models persistently drift is consistent with their false assumption of positive atmospheric forcing : given that past climate temperatures are strictly bounded, this suggests strongly that atmosphere is under drastic negative feedback(s), the most probable being clouds. Put yourself under a cloud in a sunny day and enjoy the fresher temperature. It seems prudent, while searching deeper to circumvent problems, to retain any conclusion. But no, it is contrary to modern scientist's 3 rules of deontology: publish at any price, make alarmist predictions and have media coverage.

Edit: typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 15-Apr-2009 at 09:59 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@marko

Quote:

Any thoughts about it?

the video became very strange for me because it was the first time I saw google running ads at the bottom while the video was running. Made the video very confusing.

_________________
"The system no longer works " -- Young Anakin Skywalker

@TMTisFree
Quote:

As there is no consensus in Science,

Wow! Of course there is. You provided Kuhn who has quite a bit in his philosophy of science where he discusses consensus. Kuhn's change of acceptance to a new paradigm is the transition state from one consensus state to another consensus state. There's a consensus that Darwinin evolution is more accepted than Lamarck evolution. There's consensus on Einstein's Theory of Gravity. And there is consensus on GW.

Quote:

IPCC was build up to perpetrate this myth

If we accept this is true it doesn't change that GW is the most widely accepted Theory by Climatologists.

Quote:

Model based research is not Science, it is conjectures that have to be proved.

In order to build a model one needs to research the past and the characteristics of a system. In this statement it appears you believe that the model isn't based on anything.

Quote:

no clouds modelling at all

This is an incorrect statement. All 18 models contain cloud modeling. IPCC Link @ inclusion of clouds

Quote:

The very fact that models persistently drift

Models are based on observations of activities in the past. Certainly the environment and clouds are a complex factor. Dealing with the different complexities in slightly different manners produce multiple models and the associated ranges.

There's a problem with climate science as there are to date no duplicate planets for our testing. So we observe conditions and feed them into virtual earths, eg computer models. Models have showng correct in a number of ways. They've shown a few thing also not to be the case. It's through those and with deeper observations that we can better understand the factors at play and continue the work. For example, El Nino effects. Of course we've already touched on climatologists observed 10 year trends in weather and therefore using a scale large enough to show cooling, or warming, while helping smooth the variabilities within the system.

Answer for this problem is simple.

There was GW for about 40-50 years, now we have Global Cooling.

Check the data about ice one poles and we have more and more in last 5 years etc. etc.

Where are this tsunami?

About computer models... how you want to build model of GW/GC when we have data from last... 50 years from like 10% of surface of Earth?

more:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92557

_________________
I change my mind. Now when I know AmigaOS4.1 is legal... :D. Thank you Hyperion!

@BrianK

Quote:

Wow! Of course there is. You provided Kuhn who has quite a bit in his philosophy of science where he discusses consensus.

This is your interpretation of Kuhn. I see nowhere in the quote I provided a discussion about a so-called 'consensus' in Science no matter you want to find one where there isn't.

Quote:

If we accept this is true it doesn't change that GW is the most widely accepted Theory by Climatologists.

AGW you mean? Theory no, an hypothesis at best. Really accepted, no one knows. Studied probably, widely, sure, money is a great incentive. Btw supposed GW is just a matter of observations and measurements which can/will be re-analysed and compared with past observations to support other theory(ies).

Quote:

In order to build a model one needs to research the past and the characteristics of a system.

Models are based on a set of equations (NSE) that are supposed to mimic the physical atmosphere but with approximations to fit the spatio-temporal sub-gridding requirement for computation, eventually leading to defeat the purposes of NSE. Even with these simplifications models drift in the future without parametrizations. With parametrizations to avoid future drifting, models are unable to postdic (predict the past) even input with the known past observations and past real world measurements. This means that not one of the IPCC's models is validated against real world data. They have no quality checking and thus this explain why there is no plot in IPCC reports with postdictions (predictions of past) as they all begin at the date of the report: for AR4 it is worst as they state "These projections were adjusted to start at the observed decadal average value of 1990." but without actually drawing the curves! One wonders why:

In addition, as pointed out by former AR4 IPCC's scientists contributors (McIntyre, McKitrick), models that predicted cooling or no warming were systematically rejected for reviewing. Once again, one wonders why...

Quote:

This is an incorrect statement. All 18 models contain cloud modeling. IPCC Link @ inclusion of clouds

It appears that once again you provide a link without reading it. The first § reads as follows: Quote:

The potential complexity of the response of clouds to climate change was identified in the SAR as a major source of uncertainty for climate models. Although there has been clear progress in the physical content of the models, clouds remain a dominant source of uncertainty, because of the large variety of interactive processes which contribute to cloud formation or cloud-radiation interaction: dynamical forcing - large-scale or sub-grid scale, microphysical processes controlling the growth and phase of the various hydrometeors, complex geometry with possible overlapping of cloud layers. Most of these processes are sub-grid scale, and need to be parametrized in climate models.

and Quote:

the cloud schemes presently in use in the different modelling centres vary greatly in terms of complexity, consistency and comprehensiveness.

Just clouds schemes and parametrizations in models, ie no cloud physics: a clear confirmation by IPCC of what I said.

Quote:

For example, El Nino effects.

It is an effect (together with other cyclic oceanic events) that is poorly described by models but yet is essential to understand European climate for example. How is it possible to forecast anything without PDO, AMO, clouds, etc? Models are inchoate to say it all.

Edit: typos
Edit: more typos

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 16-Apr-2009 at 10:51 AM.
Last edited by TMTisFree on 16-Apr-2009 at 10:45 AM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

This is your interpretation of Kuhn. I see nowhere in the quote I provided a discussion about a so-called 'consensus' in Science no matter you want to find one where there isn't.

Then you need to read the meaning. I'd suggest instead of you trying to read 1 quote that you get the actual work. Kuhn stated the acceptance of a new paradigm occurs when the old scientists die off. What is acceptance? It is the general agreement on what theory is correct. What Kuhn means by the presently'accepted paradigm' is the same concept that one refers to when they call it the 'scientific consensus'. If you want replace the terms you'll see validity and no change in meaning.


Quote:

AGW you mean? Theory no, an hypothesis at best. Really accepted, no one knows

Accepted? Yes! Surveys of climatologists show this, surveys of published science show this, and various accounting for climatological organizations show this. The majority climatological view is GW is here and real.

Quote:

Models are based on a set of equations (NSE) that are supposed to mimic the physical atmosphere

I agree and the build of such equation occurs by basing the math off of a set of observe values within the environment. Your claim that GW does nothing to view the climate is wrong. Many models do correctly predict the past.

Models might be imperfectly formed. But, that's the point of the model is to check that our observed understanding of the past and present can be modeled into the future. They model better than anything the anti-GW crowd has presented. A model being wrong doesn't change that GW is the present day scientific consensus. The alternative view, as you called it, is the one you are espousing.

Last edited by BrianK on 16-Apr-2009 at 12:40 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Then you need to read the meaning. I'd suggest instead of you trying to read 1 quote that you get the actual work. Kuhn stated the acceptance of a new paradigm occurs when the old scientists die off. What is acceptance? It is the general agreement on what theory is correct. What Kuhn means by the presently'accepted paradigm' is the same concept that one refers to when they call it the 'scientific consensus'. If you want replace the terms you'll see validity and no change in meaning.

There is a big gap between 'acceptance' and 'general agreement'. Because a theory gained acceptance, it by no means says that it is widely accepted (not to say agreed). Acceptance means that theory is able to be discussed by scientists because of its plausibility, weighting its strong and weak points and checking its predictions against measurements, observations and reproducibility in a perpetual challenge and questioning of the theory framework against the physical reality: the epitome of Science. What you called 'scientific consensus' is the very opposite of Science at work. Thus, you are here wrongly distorting and extending the meaning of the author to fit the antinomical 'scientific consensus'. The following thought might (perhaps) be of some help: Quote:

"Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticisable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism."

- Karl Popper

Quote:

Surveys

Ah polls, surveys, all these political tools that have no meaning in the Science framework.

Quote:

Many models do correctly predict the past.

A claim not supported by any papers...

Quote:

The alternative view, as you called it, is the one you are espousing.

I am not convinced by a non-physical hypothesis not corroborated by observations. Until someone proposes another explanation of the supposed very small GW that occurred more than 10 years ago and disappeared then, I am convinced that natural variability is the most probable driver in climate. I am ready to change my mind about that if something more convincing is proposed.

Edit: added the quote

Bye,
TMTisFree

Last edited by TMTisFree on 16-Apr-2009 at 01:55 PM.

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

No. I stopped watching TV or reading newspapers 10-12 years ago because the news was always the same (lighty, scary, inaccurate, gory, repetitive, etc). I am somewhat disconnected from this world and enjoy it (I prefer books btw, the video experience on a PC is dreadful when you are used to 1920x1080p). The video you link to is simplistic and Gore-like, that is to say, made to impress the gullible: the title says it all. What is interesting is what is to be found behind the whiteboard.

Thank you for your thoughts.

@BrianK

Quote:

To find complaints read up on Pascal's Wager.

Oh, thanks, pretty interesting reading...

@Interesting

Quote:

the video became very strange for me because it was the first time I saw google running ads at the bottom while the video was running. Made the video very confusing.

Yeah, those ads are somewhat annoying... I click the close gadget as fast as possible when they appear.

_________________
AmigaOS 4.1 FEu2 on Sam440ep-flex 800MHz 1GB RAM
C128, A500+, A1200, A1200/40, AmigaForever 2008+09+16, 5 x86/x64 boxes
Still waiting (or dreaming) for the Amiga revolution...
m4rko.com/AMIGA

@TMTisFree

Quote:

There is a big gap between 'acceptance' and 'general agreement'.

The single line from Kuhn is within a discussion relating to paradigm shifts within science. Kuhn's paradigm shifts is when one theory uproots another theory. Kuhn credits the death of theory to come with the death of the scientists who supported that theory.

Quote:

"Scientific theories are distinguished from myths merely in being criticisable, and in being open to modifications in the light of criticism." - Karl Popper

Great quote from Popper. Since GW is continually researched, criticized, debated, and being modified it fits well with other scientific theories, as defined by Popper.

Quote:

I am not convinced

And that's fine. But, when we are asking what the leading science of today is this opinion is the view held by the minority of climatologists.

Quote:

polls, surveys, all these political tools that have no meaning in the Science framework

The statement is true that polls have no meaning in science itself. However, no one ever made a statement to the contrary. Be careful not to create a strawman here.

The question being answered by the poll and the survey is what is the current accepted paradigm by climatologists today. The paradigm with the leading acceptance is GW. When the question is asked what is the current accepted paradigm of gravity it's Einstein's Theory. When the question is asked what is the current accepted paradigm that explains diversity of live it's the Theory of Evolution. What is the state of climate science is answered by looking at the consensus. That of GW, or as you want to tip the arguement and a call AGW, is the most widespread view.

Certainly consensus can be wrong. We know, for example, Einstein's Theory of Gravity falls down on the nanoscale level. So there's definitely problems there waiting to be solved. Even discarded ideas can come back. Symbiogenesis was rejected by Evolutionary Theory. Now it might be back as there's indication that singled celled organisms may well merged into a single entitiy. As research continues part of the 'Tree of Life' might be a lattice instead of a branch.

@marko

Quote:

Oh, thanks, pretty interesting reading...

You are welcome. It was interesting to see Pascal's logic applied to a subject that wasn't a diety.

@BrianK

Quote:

The single line from Kuhn is within a discussion relating to paradigm shifts within science. Kuhn's paradigm shifts is when one theory uproots another theory. Kuhn credits the death of theory to come with the death of the scientists who supported that theory.

I mostly agree with this interpretation. Shifting is beginning of acceptance, long before a general acceptance.

Quote:

Great quote from Popper. Since GW is continually researched, criticized, debated, and being modified it fits well with other scientific theories, as defined by Popper.

I also agree with this one except that AGW is just an hypothesis at best, and consequently Science is far from being settled on the subject.

Quote:

And that's fine. But, when we are asking what the leading science of today is this opinion is the view held by the minority of climatologists.

No one knows if it is a minority because of the number, or because of the silence (and thus it can be no more defined as a minority). It seems that US Congress is hearing pro-AGWists and skeptics scientists equally. Time will tell.

Quote:

Symbiogenesis was rejected by Evolutionary Theory.

As every theory, and thus clearly underlining, if still needed, the absence of so called 'consensus' in Science, Darwin's theory has evolved and will continue to evolve. In this case, I don't see where symbiosis can be rejected as it is an observation (it is known since ages that mitochondria and chloroplasts came from ancient entities that have integrated cells in a point in time) and this integration precisely defined the limit between (or the transition from) prokaryotes to eukaryotes. Because Darwin's theory considers mostly the vertical transfer of genes as a component of evolution, this does not oppose that horizontal gene (or whatever information or entity) transfers can not occur: bacteria and eukaryotic cells are able to exchange genes, virus and other materials horizontally. This is not new. I don't know who rejected symbiosis or symbiogenesis but clearly it falls against evidences. Nature is ontologically true. At least, this very example demonstrates that a so called 'consensus' is antinomical of the Science framework: because Science perpetually evolves, it does not require a 'consensus', a frozen opinion. That some humans require consensus on something because their brains are unable to support changing or shifting paradigms is undeniable, but unrelated to Science.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@marko

Quote:

Thank you for your thoughts.

My pleasure. I understand that my response was somewhat short. Let me expand on it. I will not discuss AGW catastrophysics because I did it already in the last 900 posts but mostly what can be done or not in the more stringent problem of energy.

I said the video is simplistic because we have not only 2 choices but an entire palette. In this respect Pascal's wager is also simplistic because not only there also are other possibilities (that God don't care you belief in Him but care about what you do to respect Its words) but especially because AGW can be prove or disprove as a 'natural' ie phenomenological hypothesis (as opposed to a 'supernatural' one), thus falling in the Science framework.

Thus for energy we can choose for example:
1/ to do really nothing (no shift)
2/ to begin to adapt (energetic shift)
3/ to incentive (economic shift)
4/ to mitigate (local politic shift) or to impose (global politic shift)

All of the above can be and will be probably mixed. Let expose my view.

1/ Is business as usual. This is probably fine for developing countries as India, China and some other nations because they possess abundant and cheap energy (coal) resources: India recently says that CO² cut/tax is "morally wrong" when most of its population has no electricity. China opens a coal plant per week. In addition given their population growth, the faster they level their living standard, the faster their population will stabilize.
What about the West? We are currently under heavy environmentalism marketing campaign to reduce our living standard. Is it what people want? I clearly doubt. But are resources sufficient to conserve our living standard? It is not know for sure but what is sure is what is consumed is 'lost' and at least resource in coal is not indefinite (estimated 90-120 years in USA). It is not know how long oil or uranium will last (peak oil theory versus deep abiotic theory).

2/ Most of western countries are oil- and/or coal dependant (except here where we are oil-, coal- and uranium-dependent). Is it a good thing? No because dependence means scarcity that is to say is the ideal breeding ground for war(s). So we clearly need to adapt and use technologies we have (modern tokamaks, fast reactors reusing nuclear wastes, etc) for the next 50 years while researching new forms of energy and/or processes to extract energy more efficiently (current nuclear is 5-6%). Because we already possess the technology to shift from carbon to nuclear, the economy will adapt easily. In this period of time, developing countries will higher their standard to mostly our level and also shift to efficient energy resulting in a stabilization of their resource/population ratio.

3/ Incentive actions will be determinant in energy-induced economic shift. Politics have to give the impulsion and the market will follow. To my view impulsions have to take place at the federal/nation level but more importantly also at the home level to reduce both the local energy dependence and the need of power-grid scaling. Large incentives in micro-wind, micro-solar, micro-nuclear investments should be provided (direct subsidies, etc). Ceteris paribus sic stantibus, it will be a boost for the economy and jobs (large rescaling in energy distribution, from nation-wide to home-wide, drop in energy cost for industry, etc). Economy will profit from energy independence by price stabilization and easy mid-term price forecasting (less fluctuation).

4/ Depending on the country you live in, you will or will not suffer of mitigation and/or imposition. It is worth to be noted that mitigation and/or imposition can not be addressed or understood isolated of broader societal goals (the fuzzy concept of 'sustainable development' in our case) under control of UN agencies (they have to justify their existence). It is also easy to understand that freedom and liberty is/will be in balance with those societal achievements. In my view the worst case that has to be rejected latae sententiae.


In conclusion to this small essay, one can see that there exists ways of development parallel to ways of reducing potential conflicts in the future without impairing our living standard by returning 'back to the trees'. We already have pragmatic and realist solutions to shift the energy problem together with developing nations. When this will be done, the environmentalist eco-catatrophism will extinct himself and will be forgotten by history as the non-problem it was. Because we adapt.

Bye,
TMTisFree

_________________
The engineering approach to our non-problems: "build a better washer".
The scientific approach to our non-problems: "find a new energy source".
The environmentalist approach to our non-problems: "stop washing your shirts".

@TMTisFree

Quote:

Shifting is beginning of acceptance, long before a general acceptance

Before a paradigm is discarded and replaced with another the definition of acceptance you are using can be applied. The new paradigm is accepted as more evidence continues to be reviewed and seen as fitting into the new paradigm more than the old. Kuhn's point is the old paradigm isn't discarded until the old scientists die. So yes there's a political understanding within Kuhn that the majority view is discarded once the guards of that view die. FYI, Carl Sagan would disagree with Kuhn. His statements amount to science is always in the state of reviewing new paradigms and claims to have seen scientists, before they are dead, discard the older paradigm for the newer one.

Quote:

Science is far from being settled on the subject

I'd back Carl Sagan here and claim that science is never settled on any subject. Theories are the best tested explainations we have with the evidence at hand. Kuhn would likely agree and comment that it takes 1 strong experiment to break a paradigm and science should always be searching for this.

Quote:

No one knows if it is a minority because of the number, or because of the silence

If anti-gw scientists are failing to publish their papers then they aren't doing their jobs. The job of science is to continually question.


Quote:

It seems that US Congress is hearing pro-AGWists and skeptics scientists equally

Recently in Texas a debate within the state government was had on what information should be within text books. They heard, equally, the Intelligent Design advocates and the Evolution scientists. Would you claim this evidence of 'no one knows' if Evolution is the consensus of science? I think you'd disagree with that assertion.

Quote:

I don't see where symbiosis can be rejected as it is an observation

It had been for years. It's fairly recent that the observations showed that the scientists might need to reconsider this hypothesis.

Quote:

very example demonstrates that a so called 'consensus' is antinomical of the Science framework

Okay but again no one claimed it was part of Science's framework so be careful of creating a statement with no backers and discarding it. This again verges on strawman tactics. Consensus is part of society's understanding of the state of the science.

Quote:

That some humans require consensus on something because their brains are unable to support changing or shifting paradigms is undeniable

In your words here I've observed that you repeatedly shown a disdain for people as it appears you support a more Ayn Randian type of view of the world. It's one I discard as philosophically corrupt. In my view this is the wrong answer. It's not that people are some how mentally handicapped and can't understand a paradigm shift. It's that people have a lot to do. If everyone in the world was researching Climate we wouldnt have everything else. Who would build the cars or take care of the families. There are certainly more topics of interest for a human than that human could possibly partake in.