JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

A Socratic approach on climate change

Socratic Adverti, Climate Change, Global Warming, The Australia. The Climate Group.

(Click for the full advert)

The Climate Study Group is trying a new approach with an Advert in The Australian on page 7 today. Or rather, you might say this is a very old approach…:

Socrates
Nice to meet you Mr Smith. I hear you are very concerned about dangerous global warming.

Mr Smith
Yes, we are facing an alarming prospect of a global warming catastrophe.

Socrates
What gives you such concern?

Mr Smith
Emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Socrates
How were these fossil fuels formed?

Mr Smith
Various plant forms grew, died and formed fossil fuels before and during the Carboniferous Period.

Socrates
Was there dangerous global warming prior to the Carboniferous Period?

Mr Smith
No. There’s no evidence of dangerous global warming prior to the Carboniferous period.

Socrates
So where did the carbon in fossil fuels originate?

Mr Smith
Plants absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere prior to the formation of fossil fuels.

Socrates
So the CO2 absorbed by plants is now being released from burning fossil fuels.

Mr Smith
It must be so.

Socrates
You have observed there was no dangerous global warming prior to CO2 being absorbed to form fossil
fuels, so how could the same CO2 now being released cause dangerous global warming?

Mr Smith
I find the implication of your question provocative and disturbing. You should know there is a move to bring charges against you for corrupting youth with your philosophical questions.

Socrates
I am well aware that people are disturbed by my philosophical enquiries which reveal the truth with compelling logic and facts which refute long held beliefs. Our conversation has been no exception.

Mr Smith
I have to go now.

 _________________________________________

Socratic Adverti, Climate Change, Global Warming, The Australia. The Climate Group.

Cue believers now telling us that the Sun has dimmed, don’t we know, therefore even though the world was warmer 7,000 years ago, and 130,000 years ago and 250,000 years ago, etc etc, on and on,  for millions of years, this particular warming is “due to CO2″ and millions of other warmer years were due to “something else”.

Readers will no doubt be able to think of other Socratic approaches. :- )

UPDATE:

Alarmists have caused a malaise,
In our world, by their daft climate craze,
But their angst demagogic,
Could be cured by the logic,
And wisdom of old Socrates.

 – Ruairi

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.2/10 (90 votes cast)
A Socratic approach on climate change, 9.2 out of 10 based on 90 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/jqakw3p

158 comments to A Socratic approach on climate change

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    The answers seem to be out of sequence, but that appears by design. Usually the answers are disjointed.

    50

    • #
      Wijnand

      Not by design. Typo, compared to original in link.

      [Oops. True, a repeat. Fixed thanks! - Jo]

      50

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        Yea, I got curious and went to the original. The down side is you cannot edit a comment once made.

        So egg on my face too!

        31

  • #
    sillyfilly

    The “carbon cycle” for the scientifically ignorant. Well done Jo, keep up the good work.

    817

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      We are not discussing carbon cycles (although I understand they are very light and therefore fast to ride).

      No, we are discussing the basic principles of logical thought, which might probably be a strange and frightening concept for you. So, best that you don’t worry about it.

      343

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Wisdom is not gained from denial.

        315

        • #
          Ian Hill

          Wisdom is gained from experience and the collective experience from all sceptics is that the Greens were doing OK until they were implanted with the idea that carbon dioxide is harmful to the environment. Then the concept of denial was born on two fronts, one of which the Greens will not admit.

          To put it in biblical terms, wisdom begat denial.

          101

        • #
          AndyG55

          Nor is it gained from brain-washed religious dogma.

          122

          • #
            sillyfilly

            “brain-washed religious dogma” is the cornerstone of your scientific delusion.

            313

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Pure projection SF. You used to be better than that. All you have are quotations from some revered climate guru. You have no demonstrable and repeatable science.

              Whereas we have no dogma, what we do have in abundance, is cynicism, and a sense of history that tells us that phlogiston was once accepted, by a wide population of the science community. After all, it stood to reason that fire must be the result of a chemical reagent reacting with other chemicals. Science has moved on from that now, and just as firmly believes that temperature changes must be caused by some form of physical reaction using CO2 as a reagent.

              121

              • #
                sillyfilly

                AGW is a reality no matter what goes on here. If you came up with something realistic and not fanciful, like Force X, maybe you would get some credence. Otherwise it’s just all the same fluffy nonsense based in non-scientific BS.

                311

              • #
                AndyG55

                “AGW is a reality”

                An unproven nonsense hypothesis/conjecture, unless you mean by data “adjustment”.

                Have you got anything other than the same fluffy, nonsense based, non-scientific BS you have always posted? If you did you might gain some tiny amount of credence.

                Any proof that CO2 causes any warming in a convective atmosphere?

                Waiting, waiting………….

                ………………………………………………. Waiting

                82

            • #
              AndyG55

              You are the one that “believes” without being able to ever produce any scientific back-up.

              That is religion, dopey donkey, nothing more.

              Back up your religious dogma with something, anything…

              …. or forever be what you are… an asinine ass.

              92

            • #
              sophocles

              If you don’t know history, you know nothing.

              80

              • #
                sillyfilly

                I take it history and science are not your strong points.

                310

              • #
                AndyG55

                Poor DD, has no strong points at all. Certainly zero science.

                And since it is a “believer”, no history either

                A good look at climate history DESTROYS the AGW scam, because anyone can then see that nothing unusual is happening with the weather or the climate…

                History shows that the world is actually cooler than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years except the LIA and that a little bit of warming wouldn’t hurt anything.

                72

        • #

          Wisdom is gained from knowing that you do not ‘know.’
          Oh Socrates. )

          50

  • #
    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Have you ever noticed that these reports never mention how much faster, or heavier, or hotter, or warmer (they never mention cooler) these phenomena will be?

      Neither have I. It is like saying, “I am twice as rich, today, as I was yesterday, yeah!” Whereas, yesterday I had five cents, and today I have ten.

      Is this the best that the finest of the Boston Globe can do? It is kindergarten propaganda. It is also an insult to those of us who can think for ourselves, (mostly).

      191

      • #
        Frank

        RW,

        One of Socrates’ quotes:

        “The use of logic with misused facts will win every time”

        414

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Really Frank>

          Where did he say that?

          71

          • #
            Frank

            RW
            I got it from The Climate Group’s mission statement.

            38

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I got it from The Climate Group’s mission statement.

              Really?

              I didn’t know that Socrates was a member of The Climate Group. It must have been around for a long time. But you are kidding me, right?

              So to clarify: You find what is purported to be a direct quotation from Socrates, quoted on a advocacy web site, which many of us haven’t even heard of before today, and this becomes your definitive statement of truth? This is the sum total of your ability to think logically?

              But to quote from the “Scientific Paper”, that started this subthread:

              The region’s temperatures are projected to rise by an average of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit above pre-industrial levels by 2025, according to the study, published this week in PLOS One, a journal published by the Public Library of Science(my emphasis).

              But wait, there is more:

              The authors’ findings, based on 32 different computer models for how climate change will unfold …

              Just one computer model would have been sufficient if these “scientists” really understood how the climate worked. But they don’t, so they have to run umpteen simulations using 32 models, and homogenise the results out of all existence, until they get the “solution” they expected to see.

              And Frank, do you think that this could be considered as a good example of how science should be conducted?

              131

              • #
                sophocles

                The authors’ findings, based on 32 different computer models for how climate change will unfold

                … and they all gave different answers, except for one thing: it will continue to warm

                Ptui.

                62

            • #
              AndyG55

              Has anyone looked at the “leaders” of this so call “Climate Grope”

              Is this them??? https://www.theclimategroup.org/people?name=

              If so, I am having trouble finding anyone with even the slightest understanding or comprehension of actual science..

              These guys are low-end climate scammers of the very worst type: money/non-profit (as if)/ ideologists

              Let’s have a look at just one of these scammers…..

              https://www.theclimategroup.org/person/bill-moomaw

              “Convening Lead Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001; Board of Directors, Consensus Building Institute; Science Advisory Committee, Earthwatch; and Lead author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2003.”.

              And who says that “Climate Change™” and the consensus scam is not a conspiracy of the worst sort.

              113

              • #
                AndyG55

                And here is another one…

                https://www.theclimategroup.org/person/steve-westly

                “ed the effort to commit more than $1 billion to clean technology investments. Westly ran for Governor in the 2006 Democratic Primary and was narrowly defeated”

                “He currently sits on the boards of the electric car company Tesla and the biofuels company Altra”

                Absolutely no conflict of interests there.!!!!!!

                I invite everybody to look further into this nest of climate scam vipers.

                113

              • #
                AndyG55

                And thanks Fronk, for encouraging me to look deeper ;-)

                63

              • #
                AndyG55

                BIG OOPS..

                Seems this is “The Climate Study Group”

                I should have looked at the pdf more closely.

                Jo.. you have side-tracked me by calling them “The Climate Group” in your text !!!!

                Oh well, stuff happens. !!!
                [---Yep. Sorry. Totally my proof reading fault. :-( Jo]

                43

            • #
              AndyG55

              Hi AZ. Fronk says “I got it from The Climate Group’s mission statement.”

              Since the group is actually “The climate study group” and I can find no “missions” statement, I can only assume is that Fronk is “probably” lying.

              I did use the word “probably”

              Fronk can prove me wrong by linking to where this mission statement is… or NOT !!

              Until then , I stand by my comment that he is probably just “making it up.”

              43

              • #
                Matty

                To be frank, Frank possibly meant missing statement, if you can’t find it.
                If the Climate Group were to have a mission statement it would probably contain what Frank has made up for them.

                51

            • #
              AndyG55

              “I got it from The Climate Group’s mission statement.”

              I don’t think you did. I think you are “fabricating”.

              Please provide a link to this “mission statement”

              I bet you can’t, Fronk.

              32

        • #
          AndyG55

          Poor Fronk…

          … so now all you need to do is put some logic with your misused facts, and you might not continue to be a loser.

          83

          • #
            AndyG55

            Still.. the fact that something like “The Climate Group”, (as shown above), even exists, shows just how deep and wide this anti-carbon scam goes.

            33

        • #
          tom0mason

          Frank
          What facts?
          The FACT that climate modelers keep retweeking (tuning in their parlance) the computer models to get semi-reasonable output shows they have nothing worthy to offer. And that’s a FACT.
          Logically –
          If the ‘science’ is settled and understood then this proves the models are programmed incorrectly.
          If the ‘science’ is not complete or in error then the models contain omissions and errors, so can never be correct.

          A FACT is that the IPCC main projections (predictions) from 20 years ago have failed to materialize. Not unreasonable as these predictions depended on even worse computer models, and most of these model’s deficiencies were known at the time. This shows the UN-IPCC did not want this scare to be based on science or facts, they wanted government officials to make emotional responses.

          51

    • #
      James Bradley

      They already have…

      62

  • #
    el gordo

    Socratic Irony

    ‘Socrates would pretend to be ignorant of the topic under discussion, to draw out the inherent nonsense in the arguments of his interlocutors.’

    I like it and will utilise it.

    201

  • #

    Prior to the Carboniferous period it was ordinary CO2. Now it’s Russian CO2.

    261

  • #
    Tom O

    For logic to work, the person whose mind you are trying to change needs to at least be open to logic. The emotional mind is not open to logic, it is open only to fight or flight. The whole “pitch” of the ever changing thing named “climate change” now is to the emotional mind. It avoids logic, enforces emotional reactions – “Oh the poor cuddly polar bear cubs are dying” etc., just as most other “green” battles are fought over emotional things, baby seals, eaglets, anything that appeals to the emotions. Unless the emotions can be removed from the argument, logic doesn’t have a prayer. And that is why showing data to a “green” has no affect and never will.

    311

    • #
      Speedy

      Morning TomO

      To quote Jonathon Swift (and others who concurred):

      Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired

      Which is why the alarmist message is always told in emotional terms. Perhaps we need to parachute a few Hollywood “elite” into a refugee camp with 50 cents in their pocket and explain that the corn is expensive because Americans need to drive ethanol-fuelled cars.
      Then leave the “elite” there a week. Or two.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      91

      • #
        Margaret Smith

        I like analogies:
        All the scientific evidence on this side goes nowhere because on both sides the truth is known and always has been. More scientific evidence is just brushed aside because the political scammers are in a castle with thick walls made very strong because of political patronage and money. All attacks are useless and undermining the walls is impossible. Suddenly we have the Trump Superbulldoser that can smash straight through the walls and those inside are terrified. They hope they can shore up the walls round a smaller keep and hold out. The trolls are part of that shoring up.

        So now the fight must be to expose the political ends being aimed at: dictatorship and population reduction.

        The science battle was won a long time ago and the political battle is now underway.
        Well…that’s how I see it.

        20

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    The thing missing is the long standing argument about how we know what we know. One side knows by the individual applying logic to experience and experiment. The other side knows by agreeing with like minded significant others. There is no common ground between the two approaches.

    The same word means very different things to the two sides. On the applying logic to experience and experiment side, a word is a mental symbol for something that exists apart from the mind. thus it can be pointed to by one individual and another individual can himself apply logic to experience and experiment. Thereby, each individual can discover the truth by them selves.

    On the side that knows by agreeing with like minded significant others, a word is a mental symbol for a mental symbol that is in the minds of the significant others. He has no way nor process by which he can examine the reference independently of that other mind. All he can do is repeat the sounds of the words so that he will appear to be in agreement with his significant others. In other words appear to be politically correct.

    It is the eternal argument between the idea that reality is what it is and it is and it is possible for us to know what it is (Aristotle et.al) and the idea that it is impossible for us to know what reality is and that we can only agree about what we think it is (Plato et.al.).

    The one side is a negation of the other. There is no possible argument that can bring the two sides together.

    150

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      … the long standing argument about how we know what we know …

      Personally, I have never gotten past the point where I don’t even know, what I don’t know. Worrying about how I know what I think I know, is way above my pay-grade.

      But I do agree with you, Lionell. Your powers of argument are as logical as ever.

      How do we separate the mental concept of something, from the tangible manifestation of that something, and do so in a way that is unambiguously clear regarding which mode we are addressing?

      As I said, “Way above my pay grade”.

      70

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        It is as simple and as difficult as holding onto the context under consideration. When you drop the context, all that follows is without the necessary relationship to what is being discussed.

        50

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Lionell,

      As usual, if I don’t read you very carefully I can become confused. Also as usual, a careful reading makes you make sense.

      Unfortunately making sense of it doesn’t ever show us a way of beating it. So the human condition goes on as it has for millennia with gurus leading the people instead of someone with a firm grip on what is and is not real, what is and is not useful, what is and is not worthy of our time to even discuss much less worry about.

      Am I hoping for too much when day after day I look for a way to beat this climate change monster into the dust forever? Probably I am.

      70

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        Roy H:

        The advertisement is aimed at those who haven’t thought about the subject but having been bombarded with propaganda think there is something in the scheme. They might well start questioning what they are told to believe, especially as many are having doubts about it.
        You can never hope to change the mind of people like sillyfilly, unless brain tansplants become possible, that’s what it would take..

        31

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          That is essentially it. There is no possible point of contact between the two frames of reference. A thing either exists or it doesn’t. If it exists it is something and its identity can be discovered. If it doesn’t, then it has no identity to be discovered.

          Those who follow the notion that the identity is found only in their mental fog or the mental fog of their significant others, their reference is nothing more than that mental fog. Rather like a snake who is expecting to get fat by eating its own tail: it is self defeating.

          41

      • #
        Lionell Griffith

        Ultimately, the climate change monster will be beaten to dust by reality being itself. Our challenge is not to be caught in the conflagration that follows the beating.

        An alternate way of looking at the same thing is that they are at war with reality. That is a war that cannot be won. Sadly, there will be a lot of collateral damage during that war that sometimes is very difficult to avoid being one of the victims. Yet, that is what we must learn how to avoid becoming.

        There are no easy answers.

        51

  • #
    thingodonta

    Ah…most of the coal in Australia is Permian, which is after the Carboniferous. In numerous other places it’s Tertiary etc.

    90

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I did not have a clue what you were on about, so I looked it up. What I found was:

      Permian: From a city or providence, west of the Urals; a system of rocks dating from this time.

      Tertiary: A member of the third order of a monastic body.

      So from this, I deduce that you are talking about Ukrainian rock music, played by monks?

      I feel like I am sitting in a darkened room which, when a light is turned on, gets darker.

      21

      • #
        thingodonta

        “Socrates
        What gives you such concern?

        Mr Smith
        Emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

        Socrates
        How were these fossil fuels formed?

        Mr Smith
        Various plant forms grew, died and formed fossil fuels before and during the Carboniferous Period.”

        Most of the coal in the northern hemisphere is in the Carboniferous (hence ‘Carbon-iferous’), but most in Australia is Permian; elsewhere such as Indonesia much is Tertiary.

        Coal can be any age from about the Devonian when plant-rich swamps first evolved; up to almost the present day (it takes several hundred thousands years of temperature and pressure, so although coal is still forming in places like SE USA and swamps around the world, these aren’t ready to mine).

        Also, other fossil fuels like natural gas, coal seam methane, peat, tar sands, oil shale, and methane clathrates form in other ways and at other times.

        50

  • #
    diogenese2

    I recently found the following account in the family archive;

    Socrates: I recently conversed with, and upset, Mr.Smith but what he said about CO2 caused me to think. You’re a chemist, how
    much of this stuff is in the atmosphere?

    Diogenese: 720 Gigatons

    S: That seems a lot but all of life is carbon based, how much does that contain?

    D: Living 800gt dead 1200gt.

    S: That’s 2.8 atmospheres worth, how much fossil fuel is there?

    D: That we know of 4130gt.

    S: So life has extracted at least 9 atmospheres worth of CO2, where does it all come from?

    D: Well the oceans contain a bit dissolved, well actually 38,000gt.

    S: That’s 63 atmospheres worth well that sums it up.

    D: Not quite, sediments from the sea bed form much of the lithosphere and they contain organic carbon remains.

    S: How much?

    D: 15 million gigatons plus carbonate rock formed from sea shells – some 60 million gigatons.

    S: I make that another 104,000 atmospheres worth. Surely then most of the time there has been more CO” in the atmosphere than now?

    D: That is the case.

    S: Very interesting. Diogenese before you go would you like some herbal tea. Mr Smith sent it to make amends after my gentle mocking of what he called his Al-gore-ism. I’v not had any before – he called it Hemlock.

    D: I’ll drink to that.

    The document ends at this point.

    250

  • #

    A timely inclusion of philosophical insight into this topic. A fundamental modern confusion exists between Knowledge and Opinion, about which the ancients and other philosophers were quite clear.

    The torrent of “Fake News” is exactly due to reporters stating their opinions rather then providing us with knowledge through observation of events. The pattern is particularly rife regarding global warming/climate change.

    https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/01/12/yellow-climate-journalism/

    121

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      The problem is that these days,as I often say, is that people are only as smart as their search browser results, but often don’t have the requisite abilutybto actually understand what Dr google gives them. Its very much the blind leading the blind I’m afraid….

      60

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I wish I had a “requisite abilutybto”. :-)

        There appears to be a divide between predictive text, and productive text.

        40

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          Its all about how you hold your face when you type, and the fact my fingers need to go on a diet…. :-)

          40

    • #

      In ‘The Open Society and Its Enemies’ Karl Popper
      describes Plato’s program of utopian engineering in
      his ‘Republic,’ an attempt to realize an ideal state
      requiring the strong centralized rule of the few, the
      ‘wise’ possessors of truth, philosopher kings educated
      in dogma that allows no criticism. Popper contrasts
      this with Socrates curiosity and intellectual modesty,
      arguing that a politician should be a seeker of truth
      and wisdom and that he is ‘wise’ only if he knows his
      limitations. (Ch 7 Vol 2.)

      Popper compares trial and error reform that allows for
      feedback and correction, with Plato’s blue-print for change,
      that does not.

      50

      • #
        Speedy

        Morning BeththeSerf

        The fatal flaw in Plato’s Utopia is the implicit assumption of perfect human nature. In an ideal world, where we had altruistic leadership, a benevolent dictatorship might work as long as the dictator continued to be wise and noble.

        Whereas, in reality, our modern experience with dictators is that they are neither. I’m sure you can think of a few.

        Churchill said something about Democracy being the worst form of government, but the only one that works…

        Cheers,

        Speedy

        70

        • #
          PeterPetrum

          The actual quote by Churchill, quoting an unknown source is -

          “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

          70

      • #

        Agree Speedy, re human naychur and
        re our ability to predict the fuchur,
        black swans out there … But what we
        seem to be quite good at is adaptation
        and innovation. (If’n the guvuhmint gits
        off our backs and let’s us go about our
        own business.)

        30

    • #
      Matty

      The Internet is an enormous pool of belief, some of scientific belief & some not so , some of it true belief & some of it not so, but knowledge is something else ?
      From Socrates in the Meno

      10

  • #
    Andrew

    Hello, I hear you’re an advocate for renewables.
    They’re great – free energy, cheaper than coal and better
    So what’s the issue?
    They need massive subsidies and coercion to compete with coal
    Despite being cheaper and better?
    Yes because Da Carbon is subsidised
    By paying money to their competitors and forcing Da Big Coal to buy from renewables under the RET? Doesn’t sound very subsidised
    But but roads
    Aren’t roads paid for by petrol taxes? Are there fuel taxes on EVs to pay for roads?
    No
    So doesn’t it appear that Da Big Carbon subsidised renewables, and despite this they still can’t compete? They don’t sound as cheap or reliable as you say
    But we have to invest now for when coal runs out
    How many years of reserves in La Trobe?
    300, but that was before they flooded it to make a man made lake
    I see – and what is the average life of a windmill?
    About 5 years before the gearbox or blades fail and it catches fire or falls over in a strong wind

    121

  • #
    tom0mason

    The Unpleasant Ending
    ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
    Phlato was Socrates’ most famous student. Although he was not present at his “mentor’s” death, he did know those who were there. Phlato describes the scene through the narrative voice of the fictional character Phroedo.

    His fictional narrative continue thuslike –

    When Critin heard, he signaled to the slave who was standing by. The boy-girl went out, and returned after a few moments with the green-haired transexual who was to administer the Kool-aid which he bought ready mixed in a biodegradable eco-friendly cup.
    When Socrates saw her/him, he said in his characteristically gruff voice,
    “Now, good sir, you understand these things. What must I do?”

    The lisping, husky voiced of the beautiful Siren with the sparkling green coiffure replied carefully.
    “Oh, just drink it dear. And walk around like so, until your head feels light and legs begin to feel heavy, then just lie down.”

    And Socrates felt sure he saw a smile on those perfect lips as she/he continued.

    “We’ll, err, no, no… It, yes. It will soon act.”
    And with that, his/her bangled arms were suddenly thrust to Socrates. His/her bejewelled, hennaed hands held the recyclable, sustainably manufactured, biodegradable cup and the loathsome Kool-aid it offered.

    Socrates drunk the sweet liquid, and children, from that day on, it never, ever stopped snowing.

    50

  • #
    Lionell Griffith

    There is an interesting wrinkle behind my post at #7.

    If the politically correct side is correct about their not being able to know what reality is, they cannot know the politically correct position of their significant others. They have closed themselves of from any possible way of knowing. Thus they are reduced to “I just know” without any possible way of knowing.

    Their so called knowing has even less reality than let’s pretend. As a substitute for knowing, they have nothing more than a foggy, approximate miasma of an undefinable feeling to guide them.

    A crisis arises if anyone dares to disagree with them. Their fragile sense of self is dependent upon that internal fog not being questioned. Disagreement will be seen as an attack on their very existence. Hence, no debate is allowed, no disagreement is allowed to become public, and those who disagree with them will be seen as the ultimate destroyer of their very brittle sense of self. Those who merely disagree are seen as an evil beyond all evils that must be vanquished at all costs.

    The irony is that by their own self imposed way of knowing, they have banished them from any possible way of learning how to vanquish their much feared evil. They have made themselves impotent and have consigned them selves to endless repeating what doesn’t work and can’t work.

    180

    • #
      Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

      Mr. (Prof.?) Griffith:

      OMG!!!!! You have so clearly hit the nail on the head of the mindset of the young brain-washed! May I please use your analysis (WITH attribution) when confronting the members of this dysfunctional/dystopian group, with whom I have all-too-frequent contact?

      Thanks,

      Vlad (the most Deplorable and mostest Despicablititus Impaler)

      70

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Yes which is why CAGW is a belief system, not backed by science or logic….

      91

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      To some people they are what they do and think, they cannot separate their daily thoughts and activities from their identity. They can never change anything because to so so destroys their identity.

      Others are above what they do and can see that they have control over what they think and do and therefore have the power to change at any time they decide it’s necessary. Those people are not afraid to change when the necessity arises because changing doesn’t destroy their identity.

      I cannot figure out what makes the difference — genetics, parenting, experience, teaching. I don’t know. But that’s basically the way it looks to me.

      80

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        I faced that when I retired. For many years I did the same essential job. Then I was faced with having almost all my time at my disposal to do as I pleased. Now what? Am I still a software engineer? Or am I more than that? And I had to decide.

        If I’m still just the software engineer I was for so many years it’s going to be very hard to find other activities and I’m lost in retirement. But if I’m more than that I have the power to make a few decisions about what to do next and I’m not lost at all.

        I chose the latter.

        In a way I pity those whose identity is so locked up with their beliefs and activities that they cannot change. Their daily fight to prevent reality from intruding on there world must be pure hell.

        80

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          …theor world… numbskull.

          not …there world…

          40

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            And then I botched the correction. It’s time for the men with the big net and the straightjacket.

            I give up. :-(

            60

            • #
              Lionell Griffith

              Perhaps it is only that you need a good night’s sleep. One’s brain does get tired and its precision and accuracy degrades. Mistakes follow.

              The biggest mistake I have found is to attempt never to make a mistake. Yet, one really only learns well in response to making a mistake. Hence making mistakes are an integral part of gaining knowledge.

              One of my mottoes is to make mistakes early and often. Make them large enough to see and correct before they become hidden to become exposed at the worst possible moment. It is the small and hard to see mistake that eventually does the most damage.

              60

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Lionell,

                I didn’t have to make it a motto in order to make plenty of mistakes. And since I know you develop software also I’m sure you know it’s an occupation that will teach you humility in a hurry or break you, one or the other.

                I haven’t made a detailed study but I figure that on an average day probably a third of my time was spent on either looking for my mistakes or trying to find the way to fix them once found. It would start out much smaller but got steadily worse as the body of code got larger. Such is the nature of the beast and I suspect, the world in general.

                I was fortunate in a way when I started out back in 1967 that I was given the maintenance responsibility for the computer vendor’s OS and some useful applications. They were riddled with problems and I had to learn how to find them and patch them on the fly or die. In one of them I had to junk and rewrite a complete major function of the program to get it straightened out. That was the most valuable lesson I ever learned, how to be effective at troubleshooting. It was all assembly language stuff then too. No nice easy to read C or C++. And into the bargain much of it was spaghetti code — if you’re reading this and don’t understand what that is, it’s because you’re not an oldtimer at writing computer code.

                40

              • #
                Lionell Griffith

                Been there, done that, and I feel your pain. In the early years (1965 to 1975) I wrote and debugged a mountain of assembly code for more CPU architects than I care to remember.

                However along the way, I discovered a way to structure thinking about and source code to minimize that pain. Make your modules small and single function focused. Choose labels that support the functionality they service. Have an internally documented interface contract for each module. Extend this to having levels of code from application, to feature, to supporting functions, to general functions, on top of a well structured driver level. This approach enables the possibility of producing many programs with up to 80% and more reused code.

                I then stress this body of reused code to as many environments and applications I can. The result is the errors in the reused code are discovered and made consistent with the interface contract. Eventually, the reused code becomes as clean as it is humanly possible to create.

                Finally, I make a working program shell to which I add small functional modules with their own interface contract and verify that they meet their interface contract. The result is that the vast majority of the time, the errors are localized to the new code. That way, I know where to look for my unavoidable stupidities.

                The the next line of defense against code errors is to provide several different ways to accomplish the customer requirements. This enables the customer to continue working in spite of some random coding error.

                The final line of defense is to provide a simple online way for the customer to update his application software bundle. If a significant error is discovered, it can be found, fixed, and turned around for customer use within a few hours or less.

                This is in context of spending decades developing a complex system of software to support volumetric analysis of x-ray images. Except for bringing internal documentation up to date, many of the low level modules haven’t been touched for close to 30 years.

                This is the what that I can provide in detail for others. What I can’t provide is the discipline to execute it consistently. It’s hard work but I find it is worth it. The vast bulk of my effort is spent on adding and documenting new features. A very small portion of my effort is spent on discovering and fixing bugs.

                My body of code is in excess of 300,000 lines of source and provides over 50 programs. Some are small tools and many are large scale highly interactive user application programs.

                The down side is that it took me 30 years to learn how to do it and make it so. It would take a rather large book to explain the process in detail.

                PS: My programming language of choice is ANCII Standard C: fast, efficient, portable, and supports all programming styles within one consistent syntax set: functional, procedural, object oriented, and others. I find it vastly superior for my purposes than any other programming language that ever lived. I agree that it is easy to do bad things in C but all it takes is a little bit of how to knowledge the self discipline to avoid doing things the wrong way. Most other languages, especially the one’s that pretend to protect against programmer laziness and lack of discipline, are just as easy or easier to do badly. A tool can never protect the user from his own stupidity.

                60

        • #

          “If I’m still just the software engineer I was for so many years it’s going to be very hard to find other activities and I’m lost in retirement. But if I’m more than that I have the power to make a few decisions about what to do next and I’m not lost at all. I chose the latter.”

          For fun, you might be interested in (Chiefio)E M Smith’s
          https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2017/01/03/model-ii-dynam-and-the-dynamic-subroutines/
          This is one version of the GISS climate model. This is a finite element model and I cannot see how such can be forced to converge for atmospheric compressible fluid dynamics. Its FORTRAN so don’t get to involved. To me it appears to be curve fitting with new routines to somehow fix what didn’t work last time.

          60

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Will,

            I haven’t seen FORTRAN in so many years it all looks like Greek to me. I remember doing it and even doing a major project in FORTRAN once. I even taught it for a year or two. But it’s all disappeared with time, out of sight, out of mind. And yet I’ll bet there are hundreds of millions of lines of legacy FORTRAN code still running and being maintained simply because the cost of replacing it is prohibitive. I’d even bet that IBM is still selling 1401 Autocoder emulation on their latest mainframes for the same reason. Then there’s Basic…

            20

            • #
              AndyG55

              What’s the problem with FORTRAN?

              If there is code that can’t be replaced with more “politically correct” or “pretty” languages..

              … maybe its because modern programmers aren’t clever enough.

              just make a dll and interface with it.

              22

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Andy,

                It’s a hard decision for management to bite off the expense of moving to a better language. It’s not the cleverness of the programmer, I could do anything in C or C++ that you could do in FORTRAN, it’s just the cost of my time to write in C++ what you did in FORTRAN that they can’t afford.

                It was the same when 32-bit Windows came along. There are some 16-bit programs I keep around to this day simply because they do the job for me and when it works I’ve no incentive to replace — read, no incentive to spend my money. Unfortunately Windows versions beyond XP do not run them or so I’m told. So when I must move from XP someday I’ll have no choice about replacing them.

                20

            • #
              AndyG55

              “being maintained simply because the cost of replacing it is prohibitive”

              Yet the cost of replacing an entire country’s electricity supply with something else basically useless and unreliable, isn’t prohibitive ??

              Recoding to a prettier language would be a minor cost compared to the billions WASTED on unreliables.

              22

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Replacing the an entire country’s electricity supply is another matter and we both know the problem is political, not engineering or cost.

                30

        • #
          James Bradley

          Roy,

          I’d just like to confirm your observations of those whose ‘identity is locked into beliefs and activities that they cannot change’ and add that they resist change so vigorously that they encourage stagnation… just as do those who wish to stop the climate evolving.

          30

        • #
          Lionell Griffith

          Yes, it is pure hell. It is the hell imposed by their belief that there is a Divine Right to Stagnation. This is why they are so hell bent to suppress those of us who create the future. We represent a source of uncontrolled change beyond their ability to comprehend. If, by enslaving us, they can achieve universal stasis (aka death) they no longer have to fear change. Especially they no longer have to understand the world about them and risk making a mistake in the attempt.

          60

  • #
    Doug Proctor

    Ehh. I like Socratic argumentation but this is a strawman argument. The coal CO2 was sequestered over millions of years. The coal CO2 is being released in hundreds of years – out is 50,000 X faster than in.
    Geologists like me would shrug at this.
    I am anti CAGW, but a bad argument is embarrassing. Plus the early Carboniferous WAS a “catastrophic” condition in the minds of the environmentalists behind CAGW.A global tropical rainforest or (going back further) coral reef environment would radically change human lives faster than the conglomeration of modern societies could handle without major conflict.
    Socrates should be questioning the logic-train from current CO2 rise-rates to projections of temperature rise by 2100. This argument would expose the breakdown between observation and modeling, and certainty of out outcome.

    140

    • #
      AndyG55

      Doug, The amount we are releasing though coal and gas usage, compared to the amount sequestered, is almost infinitesimal. !!

      62

    • #
      Speedy

      G’day Doug

      I don’t think the sequestering of the CO2 is the issue. The main issue is that it was there in high concentrations in the first place! If we have nut-jobs like James Hansen telling us that the earth is going to fry if the CO2 concentration hits 450 ppm or whatever – how does he explain the thriving of life on earth when CO2 was 6000 ppm or higher?

      According to his theory, and the climate computer models, we cannot ever have existed if CO2 was 15 times what it is today.

      A beautiful theory smashed by hard facts.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      60

    • #
      tom0mason

      Just a little note on coal and energy balance…

      When the trees that make up today’s coal grew, they took water, a few minerals from the soil, and CO2 from the atmosphere.
      But that is not all. To perform their magic of actually being a tree sunlight had to be there. Sunlight that supplied the energy which was translated into chemical energy within the tree’s chemistry and structure.
      Yes I’m saying that trees stores the sun’s energy through it’s chemistry and structure.
      When we release that energy by burning the coal we are re-transferring all that energy and molecular elements (chemical and structural) back to the environment. OK?

      So here is the cruncher.
      AGW people theorize that the solar energy arriving at the earth must balance the energy leaving the earth. They even have a nutty cartoon to show this apparent balance by our friend Kevin Trenberth. So where in there view (non-dynamic, static, and unrealistic) does all the solar energy captured and stored by plants, re-used by animals, etc., go in this cartoon. Where is the outgoing, and up till recently stored, energy shown?

      Ultimately yes, energy in equals energy out but at any instant nature can ensure that it may be a long way from real truth. Out by a few millions of kJ!
      We have silo full of stored solar energy like our grain stores. There are forests full of sequestered sunlight. At any instant energy in can not equal energy out on a living planet. Life requires some solar energy to function, to be utilized — transferred between processes, stored, then release with timescales from parts of a second to millions of years.

      20

  • #
    diogenese2

    Doug; There are several carbon cycles of different lengths, the slowest being the tectonic. The largest carbon “sink” (by a country mile) consists of the Keragens and sedimentary carbonates in the global sedimentary strata. How much is that? Maybe 4 orders of magnitude larger than current atmospheric CO2 and all (through the shorter cycles) at one time part of the atmosphere, back to the anoxic era. If it was not there then it means that a large amount has been (continuously) sourced from the magma to “top up” this (as yet) uncycled quantity.
    But, as you point out, since the Carboniferous (at latest) atmospheric CO2 has been continuously depleted and that is the greatest threat to life on the planet.

    100

  • #
    tom0mason

    Socrates:
    “Mr. Smith, let my finest student Plato signal my feeling on the matter with his famous physical dialog — HERE.”

    60

  • #
    Ruairi

    Alarmists have caused a malaise,
    In our world, by their daft climate craze,
    But their angst demagogic,
    Could be cured by the logic,
    And wisdom of old Socrates.

    – Tis a beauty Ruairi. Posted. Thank you. — Jo

    130

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    I can’t figure out who reigns in the climate change debate. Is it Plato (of philosophy fame) or Pluto (of Disney fame). There’s only one small tiny letter’s difference in their names and the whole debate or fight if you prefer, tends to tell me the third letter should be a ‘u’ not an ‘a’. Clearly one of the two is the reigning monarch but which is it?

    And what do I know anyway? I have no big name in science. I have no degrees in anything but computer science, something that tends to not make me credible as a critic of the climate change sect. And yet, after just reading and watching what has gone on for the years since about 2008, I can tell you it all looks like a giant joke, something to laugh at like the antics of Mickey Mouse and his dog. Or maybe it should be Goofy who’s in charge?

    Sadly, logic apparently escapes most of the world.

    71

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      My apology to Walt Disney, who created some of the finest entertainment of our times, with characters who brought laughter to us through thick and thin, through both war and peace. But I can think of no better analogy than the contrast between Plato and Pluto.

      I think if Walt was alive today he would laugh at the same joke I’m laughing a above. He was too sharp a man to have been fooled, a creative genius and visionary of a kind seldom seen these days.

      R.I.P Walt Disney

      50

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      You can only keep talking science tobtjose who will listen. I have no time for dimwits…

      30

  • #
    OriginalSteve

    I figure if they are dumb enough to run an ad like this, they must be scared…odd howbit didn’t include the court ruling on wind farm infasound recently….

    40

  • #
    Robber

    Perhaps another approach using Q&A (but not the ABC’s version):
    – Can you give me an example of what you mean by catastrophic global warming? Are we collectively worse off than we were 50 or 100 years ago?
    – Can you explain to me why 16 degrees is the ideal average global temperature when temperatures around the globe vary from minus 50 to plus 50 degrees?
    – How can CO2 be described as a pollutant when we all exhale it with every breath, and it is essential for the growth of all plants?
    – So you have a model that describes the earth’s temperature, rainfall, sea level, crop production, and population in 100 years but you can’t tell me what the weather will be like next month or next year?
    – If the science is settled, why do so many researchers need to be given continued funding using my taxes?
    – If “clean” energy is free, why are regulations necessary to force its use, and why do my electricity bills continue to escalate?
    – Why do so many proponents of reduced CO2 emissions continue to fly around the world, drive cars, use heating and cooling systems, consume manufactured goods, all fueled by carbon-based fuels?
    – How does reducing CO2 emissions in developed countries by shifting manufacturing plants and jobs to less developed countries help the planet?
    Socrates Quotes:
    “The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.”
    “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
    “Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.”
    “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
    “Intelligent individuals learn from every thing and every one; average people, from their experiences. The stupid already have all the answers.”

    101

  • #
    Oliver K. Manuel

    Weizsacker’s logical error in defining “nuclear binding energy” in 1935 was detected by a 19-year old student at the Imperial University of Tokyo following F. W. Aston’s repeat of his Nobel Prize winning lecture on 13 June 1936, but continued being used to -

    1. Keep Weizsacker from successfully building atomic bombs for Hitler during WWII;

    2. Insert into nuclear physics textbooks of former “Allied Nations” after WWII ended; &

    3. Hide the source of energy in atomic bombs, ordinary stars and the expanding universe:

    NEUTRON REPULSION [Compare left & right sides of Figure 1 in this tribute to P.K. Kuroda]

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/TRIBUTE_TO_KURODA.pdf

    30

  • #
    Steve borodin

    Love it.

    10

  • #
    Frank

    A great example of abused logic and science for a lay audience

    Socates
    ” you have observed there was no dangerous global warming prior to CO2 being absorbed to form fossil fuels, so how can the same CO2 now being released be causing dangerous global warming ?”

    That leading scientific organisation, The Climate Group, knows full well that its the unprecedented RATE of CO2 release that is of concern ,but why muddle poor Socrates’ thinking with such trivial facts ?. He concludes arrogantly :

    “…..reveal the truth with compelling logic and facts to refute long held beliefs. …..”

    Not being a scientist Socrates can only mouth “facts” given to him by the Climate Group with which he appears to win a discussion, Socrates has been severely abused here.
    [So Frank, "The Climate Group", a "leading scientific organisation", enters the picture. I have never heard of them. Is it you, your mate, and his dog, by any chance? Also, how can you claim that the current rate of CO2 is "unprecedented"? Was somebody there to empirically measure it? If you really want to discuss science, then you ought to think and write as a scientist.] Fly

    411

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Not being a scientist Socrates can only mouth “facts” given to him by the Climate Group “

      Not being a scientist, Fronk can only mouth “non-facts” given to him by the Climate Bletheren.

      Still no facts, hey Fronk.

      Seems to be your stock in rant.

      83

    • #
      tom0mason

      Frank,

      Socrates says:
      More hypothetical pontificating without real world observations, old boy. Show me where I can see or feel this CO2 heating. You know just because a few sages say something is does not make it so. Here I have 10 examples for you.

      31

    • #
      Frank

      Because I just love reading your poor excuses for why YOU can’t provide viable evidence, it’s very educational.
      Obviously no amount of evidence will sway you, it’s nothing to do with the facts.
      The World’s scientists have pronounced their findings, if you don’t like it the onus is with you to show otherwise – and so far, zero.

      Good luck in thumbsy land

      [Announcing their findings and providing evidence to support those findings are two quite different things. And the onus is with them to show convincing evidence. And you know both of those things very well. So enjoy being in moderation.

      By the way, I haven't seen either Jo or any moderator offer any excuse as to why we don't offer any proof. We all know the burden of proof is not ours.] AZ

      (Frank,still prefers Consensus posturing over reproducible science.The burden of reproducible research is on those who FIRST propose a Hypothesis.Since 100 plus climate modeling scenarios to 2100 year,is NOT Reproducible,you can’t support the AGW hypothesis) CTS

      33

      • #

        Franks been having a conversation(well, circular waffle) with the mods . I thought I’d publish this comment just for this phrase:

        “The World’s scientists have pronounced their findings,”

        There is no reasoning with that. It’s a religion.

        62

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          Jo, you mustn’t be too hard on Frank. He answered the door one day and it was some guy called Igor who said he was from Dr. Frankenstein and he wanted something. When Frank woke up he had a sore head and has believed in AGW since then.

          32

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Obviously no amount of evidence will sway you,”

        You have NEVER produced one single scrap of evidence, NOT EVER.

        Only ever baseless, unsupported, unsupportable, propaganda rhetoric.

        We are still waiting for some of this “evidence” you rant so waxingly about, but it is NEVER forthcoming.

        32

      • #
        tom0mason

        Hey Frank a little note from them there climate modelers and their current difficulties just looking at clouds…

        Limited understanding of clouds is the major source of uncertainty in Climate Sensitivity, but also contributes substantially to persistent biases in modelled circulation systems: how do clouds couple to circulations in the present climate, how will clouds respond to global warming or other forcings, and how will they feed back on it through their influence on Earth’s radiation budget? As one of the main modulators of heating in the atmosphere, clouds control many other aspects of the climate system. As recognized at the dawn of the climate modelling enterprise (Arakawa 1975), clouds play a central role in the large-scale circulation of the atmosphere and thus in the regional distribution, frequency and intensity of precipitation.
        Climate models simulate very different patterns of precipitation, which is a major barrier for decadal prediction. Model based projections of precipitation changes on the regional scale also differ substantially, and here understanding remains insufficient to allow an assessment of the plausibility of different projections.
        A better physical understanding of the coupling between diabatic and adiabatic processes in the atmosphere and of the role of clouds in this coupling would provide a foundation for improving future assessments of temperature, precipitation and the atmospheric circulation and is necessary to improve the predictive capabilities of climate and weather models over all time and space scales.

        Basically when it comes to clouds they can not model them to any degree of certainty.

        From https://www.wcrp-climate.org whose tasks are

        …developing and improving numerical models that are capable of simulating and assessing the climate system for a wide range of space and time scales…

        31

      • #
        Matty

        These “World’s scientists” who have pronounced their need for continual public funding. Who gets to scrutinise their pronouncements ?

        42

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        And the Popes were out there blessing everyone when suddenly Georgie THREW away his crutches!

        It was a miracle!

        10

  • #
    Michael Rollinson

    Is Socrates confusing warmth, i.e. being warm, with warming, i.e. becoming warmer? Before the Carboniferous Period, CO2 was absorbed by plants but soon released again into the atmosphere by natural processes beginning with photosynthesis. So there was no natural process tending to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But, assuming for the sake of argument that increasing the amount of atmospheric CO2 does tend to warm the atmosphere, as Socrates does, it does not follow from the fact that that amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was not increasimg, that it was not ‘warm’ before the Carboniferous Period, or was no warmer than it is now.

    Now, says Mr Smith, the carbon stored in fossil fuels is being released as CO2 by the non-natural process of its being burnt by humans. This is not “the same CO2 now being released [as had, before the Carboniferous Period, been] absorbed to form fossil fuels”, if by these words Socrates means “the same PROCESS of release of CO2 as had occurred before the Carboniferous Period”. It is a new process of release of CO2, and there is no reason to assume that it cannot produce a new effect, one that the natural process of (absorption and) release did not produce before the Carboniferous Period, namely, an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Which will, Socrates assumes, increase the warmth of the atmosphere. Not necessarily to make it as warm as it was before the Carboniferous Period. That might not be much comfort. There were not 7 billion people on the earth before the Carboniferous Period.

    Spoken by a non-scientist who pretends no more knowledge of the subject than Socrates.

    31

    • #
      el gordo

      Socrates would say our star is not a constant, its behaviour is influenced by Saturn and Jupiter.

      CO2 causes warming in laboratory experiments, but it cannot be replicated in the real world because the biggest greenhouse gas is poorly modelled.

      31

      • #
        Speedy

        Morning El Gordo

        I respectfully beg to differ. We have a hypothesis – that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere cause global warming. We have a fact. That in the period 1979 to 2016, CO2 levels have risen from about 370 ppm to 415 ppm. (>10%). We have another fact. The temperature today is within the noise band for temperatures in 1979. Which is contrary to the hypothesis.

        The hypothesis has failed and needs to be either modified or rejected.

        Cheers,

        Speedy

        41

        • #
          el gordo

          That’s alright I’ve already rejected the hypothesis, its been well and truly falsified.

          It may appear as a post hoc fallacy, but according to Whitehouse the sun was very active at the end of last century. Which might explain the natural cause behind the Modern Climate Optimum.

          41

    • #
      Speedy

      G’day Mr. Rollinson

      I think Mr. Socrates is testing the hypothesis that higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere lead to increased surface temperatures due to an insulating effect that the CO2 has. My understanding is that CO2 is not perfectly transparent to all wavelengths, but in some areas of the spectrum in the infra-red region, (about 14.5 microns, from memory), it absorbs the energy and prevents this fraction from being radiated back into space. The earth’s energy balance means that heat in (from the sun) has to balance heat out (via radiation to space). If the radiation to space is restricted, then the earth’s surface temperature has to increase to make up for the inefficiency in energy transfer via the atmosphere. (Stefan Boltzmann Law etc if you’re interested.)

      But I stray from the subject, apologies. Mr. Socrates is saying that if CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were 6000 ppm (i.e. 15 times that of today), would the global warming theory not predict serious implications for life on earth? (Cue runaway greenhouse etc.) It didn’t happen then, why should it happen now?

      Myth busted.

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      41

    • #
      tom0mason

      Michael Rollinson
      If that were true how does that square with Kevin Trenberth’s idea that net solar energy on to the planet equal the energy leaving the planet?

      Surely the original trees that took sunlight and used it to provide chemical energy to bind the chemical of its living structure. Effectively the coal is a store of historic solar energy.

      12

  • #
    Crakar24

    Story in a local SA paper stating the government in their quest to reach carbon neutrality are looking at building hydrogen fuel cell buses because they are emission free as they only produce water vapor.

    Based on Lionel’s comments is it worth my while pointing out the errors in their plan?

    51

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      If it is a State Government plan then it won’t work but be ridiculously expensive.
      Not having seen the paper (was it The Advertiser?) I assume that it mentioned the idea that the hydrogen would be generated by electricity from the wind turbines. The use of “excess” electricity as a form of energy storage is beloved of greenies who know nothing about hydrolysis, hydrogen storage difficulties, how to extract that energywithout generating polution, and economics, but who are very good at wishful thinking and throwing other people’s money away without their permission.

      60

      • #
        Crakar24

        It was the leader a local barossa rag. The H would be made through electrolysis using renewable energy thus “renewable hydrogen” is born. The H will be stored at 700 bar in the car and mixed with O as per standard google Hyundai and Toyota for details but we will have buses as well apparently.

        And its all emission free except for all that luvly water vapor

        40

        • #
          Speedy

          Morning again Crakar

          Perhaps a more logical thing again – hypothetically speaking – would be to have a gas turbine generator at the windmill site so that it could pump electrons into the line when the wind doesn’t follow the green agenda. This cuts down the risk and cost of hydrogen reticulation, and also the load and reliance on the Victorian power supply via the Connector. While you’re at, make the gas turbine so it can run on methane as well as hydrogen. And make it really big. Then scrap the windmills and the hydrogen generator.

          Cheers,

          Speedy

          70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I have seen a hydrogen container explode. I would not want to be sitting in a bus, or even standing in the street, if one goes into the pure water business.

      80

      • #
        Yonniestone

        This hydrogen fuel cell idea got me thinking about possible storage problems due to hydrogen embrittlement that can occur in welds and hydrogen metal fatigue in certain steel alloys.

        Where the use of low carbon steels allow more flexibility it raises the problem of internal corrosion (oxidisation) due to condensation inside from external temperature variations.

        As with initial problems associated with the safe storage of LPG research and development could overcome any problems in delivering the hydrogen fuel, not forgetting the problem of Hydrogen Permeation through Metals and it has the widest explosive/ignition mix range with air of all gases except acetylene.

        20

      • #
        Matty

        Would do well never to forget Hindenburg and what’s the word that Hindenburg immediately brings to mind ? ( Hindenburg ____________ ). Hint:- It isn’t hydrogen but something more recognisable in association with many Green initiatives of late.

        20

    • #
      Speedy

      Morning Crakar

      Probably not worth pointing out the flaws in logic directly, it only gets the luvvies upset. Better approach is to ask questions about the nitty-gritty of hydrogen generation, storage and distribution, safety issues with hydrogen, utilisation of capital for a swing-producer such as a windmill, ongoing operating and maintenance costs etc.

      Who knows, it might even work? Though I doubt the people who have locked the Crow-Eating public into “renewables” (aka “unreliables”) will have done their risk assesments and cost-benefit analyses, let alone the detailed engineering. But you never know. Just show us the proof and we’ll show you the money. But not before…

      Cheers,

      Speedy

      50

    • #
      Robber

      But isn’t water vapor the primary greenhouse gas?

      90

  • #
    ROM

    My word, most of you lot do above have a very well hidden bent for philosophy don’t you!

    Revealed in all its wisdom only when you are firmly prodded in all the non-politically correct places!

    Now how the hell did somebody with a handle like “Vlad, the Impaler” sneak into a deep philosophical discussion?

    40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Very philosophical business; all this impaling. It requires a lot of thought and meditation. I am not sure that I could do it half as well as Vlad.

      Vlad used to be “the most despicable impaler”.

      Now he is, “the Deplorable Impaler”, so his prospects seem to be improving.

      Just as long as he can continue to get the wood, used to make the pale, for the impaling, that is.

      60

  • #
    RoHa

    Socrates would have started the conversation by trying to pin down definitions for “global warming”, “dangerous” and “catastrophe”.

    50

  • #

    UPDATED – Thanks to AndyG. The Climate Group should have been The Climate Study Group. Fixed.

    53

    • #
      AndyG55

      Makes a HUGE difference.. the two groups are polar opposites

      “The Climate Group” is a “non-profit™” zero-science climate scam group with several branches.. I wonder who funds them?

      “The Climate Study Group” is a loose-knit group that contains a nuclear physicist, PhD is agriculture, chemical engineers, legal and business leaders etc etc

      The Climate Study Group:

      John Chambers BCom, MBA, CA, FAICD, FFin;
      Andrew Miller BBus;
      Richard Morgan AM BSc (Ag), BCom, FAIAST (Convenor);
      Bob Officer AM BSc (Ag), MAgEc (UNE), MBA, PhD (Chicago), FASSA, SFFin;
      Mark Rayner BSc (Hons), ChemEng (UNSW), FTSE, FAusIMM, FIEA, FAICD;
      Graham Sellars-Jones BCom.
      Tom Quirk MSc, MA, DPhil (Oxon), SMP (Harv).

      42

  • #
    Garry

    The sun has become dimmer?

    The Faint Young Sun Paradox posits that in the deep past, the sun was dimmer, and has gradually become brighter. The story goes that in the first 1 billion years or so of the earth’s long history, the sun was 30% less bright than now. Yet the temperature record demonstrates exrremely consistent global average temperatures, based on the presence of liquid water throughout the eons. One answer to the paradox is that CO2 and other gases were much higher, thus maintaining steady temperatures via the greenhouse effect.

    The theory for the FYSP is less than convincing (hence the term “paradox”), but today’s claim that the sun is dimming goes counter to what the sun should be doing that forms the basis for paradox. It seems only to show that the climate change narrative can invoke whatever spurious or contradictory claim is needed. Forget the science or the physics, or even the observations.

    51

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Garry:
    ” It seems only to show that the climate change narrative can invoke whatever spurious or contradictory claim is needed. ” Agreed.

    Astronomers believe that the sun, like similar mainline stars, started out at a lower temperature and this increases with age. This does not stop variations in the output indeed they assign a figure of 4% to possible changes in brightness. This contradicts the AGW claim that the sun has a constant output and is highly inconvenient for them because it would change the temperature of the earth, regardless of what rare gas is there.

    41

    • #
      Vlad the Deplorable Impaler

      Hi Garry, and Graeme,

      Being attuned to the geological sciences, I can only add these thoughts:

      Astronomically, our Sun is a middle-aged “Main Sequence” G2 – V dwarf star. As stars go, it is a fairly mundane star.

      When it first formed about four (give-or-take) billion years ago, it was about 30% less ‘luminous’ than at present. Since the Ediacaran Period, its luminosity has increased by about 4% (all estimates are the best models we have available to us); this increase in luminosity is a consequence of the buildup of helium ash in the core. As the waste increases, the core has to work “harder” to keep fusion happening.

      So far, so good. We do not need to worry about our star becoming a red giant for at least a few billion years.

      So, the big question for CAGW fans is, if the sun is (on average) hotter than it has ever been, how did we get into Pleistocene Ice Ages? And, no it is NOT because of a lack of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, causing the Earth to be cool.

      We know this, because of the other side of this coin, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth atmosphere was on the order of percents during the Cryogenian; estimates vary between 4% and 13%, depending upon whose data you happen to like (reference: Geological Time Scale 2016, Gradstein, Ogg, and Ogg). Even if the sun was less luminous during these times, this much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should have caused seriously warm effects, if CAGW dogma has any credence at all.

      As to the ‘faint sun-warm Earth’ “paradox”, there is no paradox at all.

      In my undergrad days, I had to take a course titled ‘Potential Theory’.

      Don’t ask! You do NOT want to know what went on in this class. Suffice it to say that the prerequisites alone included 16 hours of post-PDE’s Math to take the class.

      Back to the class: in one lecture, our Professor had us do a calculation; it was to be an estimate of the temperature of the early Earth. This has been a controversial topic for quite some time, and is still not settled. Most geoscientists accept that once this form we call “Earth” had taken shape, it was a very hot place (hence the name of the Era, “Hadean”).

      The short version of this story is that based on various assumptions, you could estimate that the temperature of the early Earth could have varied from over 10,000 Kelvins, to just under 500 Kelvins; obviously, the high figure is well over the surface temperature of the sun, so we easily threw that one out. Our most likely guess for the “formation” temperature of the Earth was between 2,000 and 3,000 Kelvins, which means that every mineral currently in existence on our planet was in a molten state.

      Geological evidence strongly suggests that there were no glacial episodes until sometime in the early Proterozoic. This means that the Earth maintained a relatively warm temperature during the time that the Earth was young, and the sun was relatively less luminous. CAGW-dogma states that the warm Earth was maintained by the presence of ‘greenhouse gasses’ (principally methane and carbon dioxide), but as we have seen (ref: Cryogenian), these so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’ are impotent at preventing global glacial events.

      So why was the Earth warm during the Archean, with a faint sun? Simple: how thick was the crust (and an ancillary question, how mobile was the crust?), and what kind of heat flow did the surface experience during those first two billion years?

      My answer: the thin(er) crust allowed the primordial heat of formation (and the more abundant radionuclides, especially U-235) to keep the atmosphere at a temperature conducive to the creation of life (as we know it). I do not see a ‘faint-sun’ paradox at all. I think the Archean heat flow kept the surface at a temperature where there was liquid, and vaporous, water, and the anoxic environment permitted those first nucleotides to form and “prosper”.

      My two cents; or as I like to say, more likely just a half-pfennig’s worth of thought.

      Regards to you both, and a Happy and Prosperous New Year,

      Vlad the MOST Deplorable and MOST Despicable Impaler

      30

  • #
    Matty

    Good little introduction here starting Monday (16 Jan), if your tempted by Socrates & his chums bamboozling the self styled intelligentsia with their own contradictions.

    Coursera: The Ancient Philosophers. Part 1

    You can go straight to week two for the more Socratic stuff.

    There’s a great little App. here too for converting some of the lingers passages to audio so can get some work done while taking them in.

    http://www.fromtexttospeech.com

    10

    • #
      Matty

      That’s to the 2nd part of Week 2 I should have said, from: Plato’s Apology
      & Plato’s Euthyphro. (Plato being the recorder of Socrates’s exchanges).
      Then Plato’s Mano in Week 3.

      10

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Straw men are boring. The Climate Study Group should be ashamed of themselves.

    24