Green Subsidies - A Gift to the Well-Off?

[markjay]

Try getting a grant to do research against the consensus.

I wouldn't be surprised if the money allocated follows that pattern.

The universities are as mercenary as any other sector.

OK, but again... 99.9%? I find it hard to believe that they are all affected in this way.

 

[markjay]

Putting it differently:

An open-minded person would have two options: accept that 99.9% of scientists are in fact 'bent' in one way or another... or start questioning their own beliefs.

Who do some people find the former more logical than the latter?

 

[Nicebutdim]

Putting it differently:

An open-minded person would have two options: accept that 99.9% of scientists are in fact 'bent' in one way or another... or start questioning their own beliefs.

Who do some people find the former more logical than the latter?

You cannot say that your 99% is representative. It may be that 99% of scientists who support climate change believe it to be true. However, you have not sought the opinion of those scientists who do not support the new religion and those who fear speaking up.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (Simon & Garfunkal)

 

[markjay]

You cannot say that your 99% is representative. It may be that 99% of scientists who support climate change believe it to be true. However, you have not sought the opinion of those scientists who do not support the new religion and those who fear speaking up.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (Simon & Garfunkal)

But thats not what the research said....

 

[ChipChop]

 

[zipdip]

Well when the solar panels were launched,a average installation was about 12 grand but the feed in tarriff was around 47p I thought it a great idea but I was moving in 18 months so did not but got my son to install them and he has made back the cost after 11 years of having them,now the feed in tariff is so small that even with a full installation of panels around 6 grand people are not doing it,was it a gift well as it was the first major attempt to get people to save energy it was too generous,.
The new boilers and heat pumps have gone completely the other way it is no gift to the rich and a millstone round the neck of anybody taking a loan out to fit them,they will be useless in saving home owners anything and do little or nothing for the green cause.
We have entered a era of people seeing a bandwagon and jumping on it,a strange pastime,when using common sense tells you if you are the only EV car amongst say 1000 driving on the M1 you are not saving this earth from anything,and thats the case with pollution until China and others curb their pollution we are wasting our time and saddling ourselves with extra costs for nothing

 

[Nicebutdim]

But thats not what the research said....

Mmmmm. Breaking news……Guardian journalist unearths report that supports his political agenda.

 

[st13phil]

So this affected 99.9% of scientist...?

The interesting thing about science is that consensus categorically does not indicate correctness of a theory.

Copernicus was a non-believer of the earth-centric model of the universe, and went against all "scientific" thinking when he proposed the sun-centric model that we now recognise as correct. Interestingly, an ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos had formulated such a sun-centric model some eighteen centuries earlier but was also ignored because it went against the consensus.

There are many similar examples in history, yet the "99.x% of scientists agree that human activity is the primary driver of climate change" is routinely trotted out as justification of a contested theory.

 

[markjay]

So scientific evidence can be rejected because we know that scientists can be wrong.

Where does this leave us then...? It's back to the thinking of the Middle Ages. Nothing can be scientifically disproven, simply because when it does, we say that the scientists must have gotten it wrong.

And in this case, the 99.9% figure is explained-away, in favour of a theory that has no evidence to support it, because the scientists who do are 'silenced'. Odd.

It's an argument that can't be disproven, and therefore does not merit scientific debate.

I will ask again, why does it seem more reasonable to some that the 99.9% figure must be flawed, than to reconsider whether their own views are simply wrong, and the 99.9% are right?

 

[markjay]

Copernicus was a non-believer of the earth-centric model of the universe, and went against all "scientific" thinking when he proposed the sun-centric model that we now recognise as correct. Interestingly, an ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos had formulated such a sun-centric model some eighteen centuries earlier but was also ignored because it went against the consensus.

Copernicus and Galileo are great examples of when dogmatic ideological thinking refuses to acknowledge and accept evidence-based science.

These astronomers did not have a preconceived idea of the universe, instead their scientific observations led them to a conclusion that was opposite to the non-scientific religious beliefs at the time, and put on them on collision course with the Church who branded any evidence that disproved what they thought must be true, as blasphemy.

And I would suggest that anyone claiming that the evidence-based science must be flawed and skwed because they don't belive it can be true (and excuse the lack of evidence in support of their own beliefs by saying that these voices are being silenced), is doing exactly what the Church did to the astronomers who presented their scientific observations as evidence.

 

[190]

I think that scientists being wrong about the fact of man made global warming is the wrong argument to be having. It's the accuracy of the apocalypse predications that we should taking issue with. It's not the fact of global warming that is inducing a degree of hysteria in some quarters but the predicted consequences. I would accept that a consensus of scientists are correct about the fact but would be much less supportive of the accuracy of the predictions where the worse case scenario gets reported as if it were inevitable. This is where the scrutiny needs to focus so that we don't shift heaven and earth only to find the predictions were exaggerated.

 

[st13phil]

And in this case, the 99.9% figure is explained-away, in favour of a theory that has no evidence to support it, because the scientists who do are 'silenced'.

Really? "no evidence to support it"? There is plenty of evidence of prior natural global warming and cooling cycles long before the scale of human kind and its activities could be construed as a "significant contributor".

Yet a theory that relies upon (limited) correlation between increased human activity and global warming is accepted (by 99.9%, apparently) as evidence of human causation.

That's what's odd.

But we are getting far away from the question I posed at the beginning of this thread, when I was attempting to tease out how we make the - apparently essential for our future - changes to how we live in an equitable manner.

 

[st13phil]

It's the accuracy of the apocalypse predications that we should taking issue with. It's not the fact of global warming that is inducing a degree of hysteria in some quarters but the predicted consequences.

I agree regarding the apocalyptic predictions and the resulting hysteria. However, I would apply the caveat that by overstating the impact that human activity is apparently having, the flip side is that the predicted impact of changes in human activity will also be overstated.

When the trumpeted benefits of implementing the "essential" changes fail to materialise I predict that the cry will be, "We're not doing enough! We need to do more!", instead of "Maybe we should be considering that the medicine prescribed is ineffective...".

 

[Gollom]

Well when the solar panels were launched,a average installation was about 12 grand but the feed in tarriff was around 47p I thought it a great idea but I was moving in 18 months so did not but got my son to install them and he has made back the cost after 11 years of having them,now the feed in tariff is so small that even with a full installation of panels around 6 grand people are not doing it,was it a gift well as it was the first major attempt to get people to save energy it was too generous,.
The new boilers and heat pumps have gone completely the other way it is no gift to the rich and a millstone round the neck of anybody taking a loan out to fit them,they will be useless in saving home owners anything and do little or nothing for the green cause.
We have entered a era of people seeing a bandwagon and jumping on it,a strange pastime,when using common sense tells you if you are the only EV car amongst say 1000 driving on the M1 you are not saving this earth from anything,and thats the case with pollution until China and others curb their pollution we are wasting our time and saddling ourselves with extra costs for nothing

See what you are saying, but SOMEONE has to blink first? IMHO, it's not just man who is causing this, but nature too but we can't just ignore it, whatever the cause

 

[Bellow]

Copernicus and the 99.9% of modern day scientists are on exactly the same page - both proposing new, and challenging the old order. Copernicus challenged the earth centric model, modern day scientists are challenging the old view that only cyclical changes affect the climate.

 

[Bellow]

Try getting a grant to do research against the consensus.

Why would you when you can open a YouTube channel and watch the advertising revenues roll in?

 

[markjay]

Really? "no evidence to support it"? There is plenty of evidence of prior natural global warming and cooling cycles long before the scale of human kind and its activities could be construed as a "significant contributor".

Yet a theory that relies upon (limited) correlation between increased human activity and global warming is accepted (by 99.9%, apparently) as evidence of human causation.

That's what's odd.

But we are getting far away from the question I posed at the beginning of this thread, when I was attempting to tease out how we make the - apparently essential for our future - changes to how we live in an equitable manner.

Incidentally, I don't have strong views on the matter.

I am an avid fan of EVs, not because I particularly like them (my W204 is more enjoyable to drive), but for two reasons which I repeatedly mentioned: (a) EVs remove harmful exhaust emissions from city centres and improve the air quality in urban areas, thus preventing illnesses and premature deaths, and (b) the fact that the electricity is generated centrally means that EVs are a sustainable solution for the long term - i.e. we can seamlessly change the way that the electricity is produced, which is in strong contrast to the current situation where it took years to get people to change their cars to Diesel, then back to petrol, and now to EV - and, there's no more of the ever-changing EUxx standard to keep chasing, because the energy production is no longer done at the car level. So EVs could be with us for a very long time to come, with the electricity generation method changing in the background as technologies evolve.

As for fossil fuels, CO2, and carbon-based fuels in general.... personally, I think we should burn less carbon fuel, this can't be good for anything. But do we need to drop everything we're doing and focus just on that? I don't know.

As for cars, the roads are getting more and more congested. I really think we should reverse the trend on this - we just can't be driving everywhere all the time, there's just not enough room for all these cars on our roads and in our cities. Good, clean, efficient, and affordable public transport, coupled with pedestrian-friendly cities and neighbourhoods, is the way forward, to my mind.

In terms of energy usage, the average person weighing 12 st are mobilising with them a 1.5t piece of metal everywhere they go - that's 250 st(!) - this just does not make sense to me, and does sound very wasteful and not energy-efficient at all.

The above are all sensible measures (to my mind, anyway), and while they will also benefit the planet, they have much merit in their own accord and will make for healthier and more enjoyable living space for people.

The environment and climate change are a bit more complicated. When working in West Africa in the nineties, where they have a massive issue with illegal logging, one government minister told me that Western Europe was once covered with forests, then the Europeans cut them all down, and now they are telling the people in Africa that the survival of the planet depends on their forests, and so they were given logging quotas by the UN. But, his people are starving, and they are selling their wood so that they can eat. This is of course factually incorrect, but it does highlight the point that it can be very difficult to 'sacrifice' the here-and-now for some in favour of a better future for all. The same argument will apply when we try telling the Chinese or Indians that they can't have a car each like we do in the West because we've already used-up all the available 'allowance'.

 

[st13phil]

As for cars, the roads are getting more and more congested. I really think we should reverse the trend on this - we just can't be driving everywhere all the time, there's just not enough room for all these cars on our roads and in our cities. Good, clean, efficient, and affordable public transport, coupled with pedestrian-friendly cities and neighbourhoods, is the way forward, to my mind.

In terms of energy usage, the average person weighing 12 st are mobilising with them a 1.5t piece of metal everywhere they go - that's 250 st(!) - this just does not make sense to me, and does sound very wasteful and not energy-efficient at all.

I'm not disagreeing (totally, anyway ), but much of the thinking that is driving the shift to EV's, low(er) pollution domestic heating, etc. is based on "city folk thinking". That doesn't mean that thinking is invalid, just that it may well be valid for city-dwellers, but is significantly less valid for those who do not live in major urban conurbations where affordable public transport and pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods are a combination of a pipe-dream and a glorious irrelevance.

Frankly, my personal carbon footprint has diminished massively since I retired. For a start I now drive circa 4k miles a year instead of the 15k+ that I used to - mainly for commuting - as a result of becoming less economically active than I was.

The elephant in the room is that economic activity is dependent upon energy consumption for transport, personal mobility and the conversion of raw materials. Improving energy efficiency is a good way of reducing overall energy consumption, but after that you are looking at reductions in economic activity in order to reduce energy consumption further. Are we really prepared to accept becoming impoverished on the basis of a theory that to not do so will destroy the planet?

 

[markjay]

The issue should be seen from a more global perspective.

According to Wikipedia, the US has 816 cars per 1000 people.

In comparison, China has 210, and India has 19.

The argument for us in the West keeping our cars, is pretty much based on the assumption that the developing world will never reach the same level of prosperity as we have in the West.

A world were every country can afford the same level of car ownership as we have, is simply not sustainable.

So when considering the poor and the wealthy within our society... we should also understand that our ability to maintain our energy-hungry lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with making sure the the 80% of the world population who do not benefit from Western levels of affluence, don't.

How fair is that?

 

[ChrisEdu]

My highly considered opinion, having not read the thread and havdrunk too much, it's all ba!!ocks!