Author Topic: Wreck of Saskatchewan  (Read 569 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8479
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #15 on: May 08, 2018, 05:04:12 pm »
Remedial lesson in logic: comparing climate scientists to baristas does NOT mean I see baristas as an authority. It means exactly the opposite. I am saying that if you want expert advice you have to find the experts in the fields relevant to questions being asked. I would not ask my doctor for advice on fixing my car. Likewise I would not ask a climate scientist for advice on reducing CO2 emissions. You, OTOH, seem to think that an "expert" that you agree with immediately becomes the omniscient authority of everything. That kind of thinking is a textbook example of dumb.

So if you took your car to 100 auto mechanics and 97 of them said you needed new brakes you would ignore them because you didn't want to believe you needed new brakes. That's dumb.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #16 on: May 08, 2018, 05:09:35 pm »
So if you took your car to 100 auto mechanics and 97 of them said you needed new brakes you would ignore them because you didn't want to believe you needed new brakes. That's dumb.

Breaks cost money, I am going to shop around for the opinion I like.

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3328
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2018, 05:49:53 pm »
Minor lifestyle shifts that add up to nothing when one looks at global carbon emissions. You can see how ineffective the policies are here:

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/norway/

Yes, they are tiny countries.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #18 on: May 08, 2018, 09:19:59 pm »
So if you took your car to 100 auto mechanics and 97 of them said you needed new brakes you would ignore them because you didn't want to believe you needed new brakes. That's dumb.
You are really having a problem the concept of relevant expertise. When it comes to determining whether spending money on car repairs is cost effective then mechanics have relevant expertise. This is why a mechanic will tell you to fix your your breaks but not to rebuild in the engine block because of a small oil leak. Climate scientists have none of that kind of knowledge, training or data. They have a bunch of unverifiable computer models that indicate that CO2 might be a problem in the future. They have no knowledge of how the energy system works or negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuels. The people who do that have expertise are the engineers and project managers working in energy development and distribution. They are only people that could credibly claim that CO2 reductions are economically viable.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8479
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #19 on: May 08, 2018, 09:59:44 pm »
You are really having a problem the concept of relevant expertise. When it comes to determining whether spending money on car repairs is cost effective then mechanics have relevant expertise. This is why a mechanic will tell you to fix your your breaks but not to rebuild in the engine block because of a small oil leak. Climate scientists have none of that kind of knowledge, training or data. They have a bunch of unverifiable computer models that indicate that CO2 might be a problem in the future. They have no knowledge of how the energy system works or negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuels. The people who do that have expertise are the engineers and project managers working in energy development and distribution. They are only people that could credibly claim that CO2 reductions are economically viable.

Yes mechanics are trained and so are climate scientists. Also satellite pictures of melting arctic ice in huge amounts are not "unverifiable computer models". They show that CO2 is a problem now and will get worse if we don't do anything about it. If you don't understand the positive effects of eliminating fossil fuels you have never walked around the streets in the winter time in cities that burn coal for heat. 

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #20 on: May 09, 2018, 05:30:37 am »
They show that CO2 is a problem now and will get worse if we don't do anything about it.
All climate scientists know is CO2 will cause warming. The question of whether warming is a "problem" is not known. It is merely a probability spectrum where bad outcomes are a possibility. Without real world data (i.e. a long history of problems from failed brakes), then no one can quantify the likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2.

If you don't understand the positive effects of eliminating fossil fuels you have never walked around the streets in the winter time in cities that burn coal for heat.
More logic fails from you. It makes no difference how much you think it would be a good idea to get rid of fossil fuels. What matters is the costs associated with using alternatives and whether those costs are low enough to make a complete switch a plausible option and whether any individual action provides benefits that are in line with the costs of the action. Climate scientists have no qualifications that would allow them to answer such questions. People who insist that they do have qualifications are like people insisting that a doctor can provide advice on fixing cars. 
Dumb Dumb x 2 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2018, 06:54:38 am »
Can we have a super dumb flag? Only those with a monetary stake in the ground can tell you what is better for you. This argument about cost is the absolute most insane argument possible. The cost as you say is only in terms of artificial money, and of course those who stand to gain will game the system.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4248
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2018, 07:53:59 am »
{Climate scientists} have none of that kind of knowledge, training or data. They have a bunch of unverifiable computer models that indicate that CO2 might be a problem in the future. They have no knowledge of how the energy system works or negative consequences of eliminating fossil fuels. The people who do that have expertise are the engineers and project managers working in energy development and distribution. They are only people that could credibly claim that CO2 reductions are economically viable.

"engineers and project managers" --- please provide citation showing recognized organizations/associations of your stated, "engineers and project managers", that have declared broad & complete positions against the need for CO2 emission reduction... that have declared specific positions against particular CO2 mitigating emission reduction policies.

equally, in line with your forever/oft stated acceptance of adaptation as the sole alternate strategy & approach to mitigating emissions reduction (rather, to your stated, in isolation, adaptation only alternative to a combined approach that includes mitigation, adaptation and prevention), please provide citation showing recognized organizations/associations of your stated, "engineers and project managers", that have declared specific positions to support the need for, in isolation to mitigation/prevention, adaptation only measures & policies to attempt to manage climate change impacts... that have declared specific positions, in isolation to mitigation/prevention, in favour of adaptation only measures & policies to attempt to manage the impacts of climate change.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2018, 07:56:21 am by waldo »

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4248
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #23 on: May 09, 2018, 07:54:49 am »
All climate scientists know is CO2 will cause warming. The question of whether warming is a "problem" is not known. It is merely a probability spectrum where bad outcomes are a possibility. Without real world data (i.e. a long history of problems from failed brakes), then no one can quantify the likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2.

if you posit, "no/little likelihood of bad outcomes from rising CO2", what has your forever/oft stated fall-back position to accepting the need for adaptive measures to climate change been all about? Adaptation... to what then?

More logic fails from you. It makes no difference how much you think it would be a good idea to get rid of fossil fuels. What matters is the costs associated with using alternatives and whether those costs are low enough to make a complete switch a plausible option and whether any individual action provides benefits that are in line with the costs of the action. Climate scientists have no qualifications that would allow them to answer such questions. People who insist that they do have qualifications are like people insisting that a doctor can provide advice on fixing cars.

standard strawman (of yours): where is the call for, as you say, "a complete switch"?

Offline wilber

  • Moderator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6586
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #24 on: May 09, 2018, 09:10:25 am »
Can we have a super dumb flag? Only those with a monetary stake in the ground can tell you what is better for you. This argument about cost is the absolute most insane argument possible. The cost as you say is only in terms of artificial money, and of course those who stand to gain will game the system.

I'd like to see you survive without "artificial" money.
"Never trust a man without a single redeeming vice" WSC

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #25 on: May 09, 2018, 09:34:41 am »
Can we have a super dumb flag? Only those with a monetary stake in the ground can tell you what is better for you. This argument about cost is the absolute most insane argument possible. The cost as you say is only in terms of artificial money, and of course those who stand to gain will game the system.
I am not the one trying to argue that no one can have a valid opinion other than climate scientists. I realize that you object to the notion of turning to people who might disagree with you for advice but by objecting to using people with with appropriate expertise you prove how intellectually dishonest your really arguments are.

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #26 on: May 09, 2018, 09:41:43 am »
"engineers and project managers" --- please provide citation showing recognized organizations/associations of your stated, "engineers and project managers", that have declared broad & complete positions against the need for CO2 emission reduction... that have declared specific positions against particular CO2 mitigating emission reduction policies.
Who cares what politically motivated professional societies may have to say? What matters are the result of cost analysis done by qualified people (i.e. people who will be held responsible if a project fails) on different possible CO2 reduction strategies. Some strategies may be useful but expensive (nuclear). Some may be expensive and useless (solar/wind because of the need for backup power).

Whether you want to believe it or not the numbers don't add up and the proof is in the lack of any real progress. If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.


Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4248
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #27 on: May 09, 2018, 09:54:47 am »
If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.

is this you stating that all 'political opposition' reflects upon (your perceived) economic viability?  ;D

Offline cybercoma

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2733
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #28 on: May 09, 2018, 10:20:58 am »
If reducing CO2 emissions was an economically viable option there would be no political opposition. It would be just be done.
You  might want to add tautology to your list of logical fallacies that you like to throw around.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Wreck of Saskatchewan
« Reply #29 on: May 09, 2018, 10:38:26 am »
I'd like to see you survive without "artificial" money.

Sure thing, make me banker and I will create the rules. You don't seem to understand how artificial the system is, aand it has warped costs to further a certain agenda.