Anti-Government, but don't touch my Medicare

POSTED BY: Niki2
UPDATED: Friday, May 7, 2010 16:50
VIEWED: 8545
PAGE 8 of 16

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
I want REAL data to go along with the high level of confidence expressed in the GW hypothesis. Real temperature data is insignificant (better word than "useless") in the time scale of climate studies, yes....

---

And yet you keep focusing on recent temperature measurements. It doesn't matter if "they" find a better averaging scheme. It does not signify. (yes, good word)

The beauty of science is making enough observations that you can begin to know about the invisible. Some people don't believe in plate tectonics because they can't actually see the plates moving. And those GPS measurements? Bah! Silly computer tricks! Other clues like magnetic patterns of seafloor spreading, the shapes of continents, speciation? Well, deniers don't even take the debate into this level of detail, since they've already dismissed the theory.

Yes, I do mean to say that this is what you sound like. The historical data above is not invented, and is not meaningless: it is a direct observation of the earth and is supported by several independent lines of inquiry. I won't spend more time showing them to you, because it seems plain that you've made up your mind not to accept this information.

You can put that limit on your own knowledge base, and that's a shame. Makes your other theories rather hollow, that you are so selective of evidence.

Luckily, this selectiveness is not an actual limit for science. You know, that whole "independent line of inquiry" thing, that search for patterns. Means we can know about a whole lot of things, even if we can't touch them.

Quote:

---

I said economics explains why the oil industry supports GW, and maybe even encouraged the movement. Sequestration requires increased consumption of energy (be it oil, coal, wind, whatever). Oil is an energy industry, so they are very likely to get increased sales.

---

You say you like data. Do you have numbers on the increased use of oil involved in sequestration? Do you have an example of where this added use of energy would happen? In fact, can you define what processes you are thinking of as "sequestration", because they seem quite different from mine.

Most importantly, can you show that the energy use in sequestration is a significant income relative to the cost of shifting away from oil to cleaner forms of energy?

Quote:

---

I appreciate your example. But your example is of petroleum geologists, who are not selling oil or energy. I still haven't seen where any of the oil companies (like BP or Exxon) is opposing the idea of GW.

---

Um... are you sure you're somewhat close to the industry? AAPG is BP and Exxon and Schlumberger and the rest. Remember when I said that I worked in the industry for 13 years? I know the people who publish in AAPG and Geophysics and JGR. They are the people who work for these companies.

Petroleum geologists make their living off of finding and selling oil. Are you really not aware of that?

And: "I still haven't seen where any of the oil companies (like BP or Exxon) is opposing the idea of GW."

Really? I'm a little lost on how to deal with that. I mean, I know individuals within the industry that are open to the scientific evidence. I've had this discussion with people still in the industry, that a smart oil companies would invest in developing alternative energy, because whoever figures it out first will be able to bury the others. A few companies have begun to talk a bit about this, but no one seems to moving on it. No one is seriously trying to develop something to compete with oil, not the last I heard.

And as for the companies as a whole, the lobbying/political action part? Well...

A complicated web of relationships revolves around a number of right-wing think-tanks around the world that dispute the threats of climate change. ExxonMobil is a key player behind the scenes, having donated hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past few years to climate change sceptics. The Atlas Foundation, created by the late Sir Anthony Fisher (founder of the Institu

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Some people don't believe in plate tectonics because they can't actually see the plates moving. ?

.....because it seems plain that you've made up your mind not to accept this information.

---

I am sorry that once again, I have failed to communicate my position. I don't know how to make it plainer than what I've already said, so after this post, I won't belabor it.

Yes, plate tectonics is speculation. It is a theory supported by available data and data proxies, but it is ultimately educated guesswork.

Does that mean the data is invented? Some of it come from direct measurements; some of it is "invented" or correlated, yes. Does this mean the data is meaningless or useless? No, of course not.

I homeschool. What I teach my kids is, "This is what scientist think happened. They don't know for sure, but for now, this model is working fairly well in explaining and predicting current real world events. There are always anomalies that don't fit within this model, but as more research is done, new models develop to replace the old ones."

I don't accept some evidence and dismiss other evidence. It is not an all-or-nothing deal. I accept all evidence, but my confidence decreases as the quality of the evidence moves away from empirical measurements tested by experimentation.

Lower quality evidence = less confidence. A LOT of lower quality evidence = still less confidence.

Less confidence does not mean the hypothesis is dismissed. It just means I am much more open to the possibility that it may be wrong. The lower quality the evidence is, the more I am unwilling to commit to any conclusions until I see better, harder evidence.

If I dismissed evidence, I would be a GW denier. As it is, I am a GW skeptic. A religiously fervert GW proponent would group them together. But I am hoping that as a scientist, you can understand the difference between denial and skepticism.

Quote:

---

You say you like data. Do you have numbers on the increased use of oil involved in sequestration?

---

My husband is the expert on this. I am just going by what he said. He estimated an extra 20% increase in energy to sequester carbon output. I initially said oil, but the extra energy can come from coal or natural gas or other sources. If you want the technical info on how he came up with the 20% estimate, I'll ask him.

Quote:

---

Do you have an example of where this added use of energy would happen? In fact, can you define what processes you are thinking of as "sequestration", because they seem quite different from mine.

---

Carbon sequestration is the removal and storage of CO2. My husband deals mostly with physical sequestration processes, though he is currently working on a proposal to use biological ones as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration

I don't know the technical details, but basically, if you have an added process to remove and store carbon, you have use energy to fuel that process.

Quote:

---

Most importantly, can you show that the energy use in sequestration is a significant income relative to the cost of shifting away from oil to cleaner forms of energy?

... No one is seriously trying to develop something to compete with oil, not the last I heard.

---

Ahhh. You're thinking the whole GW problem would force oil to move to another source of energy.

With carbon sequestration, they don't have to shift to a cleaner form of energy.

Here is the thing. When the culprit is pinpointed as "carbon dioxide," then the culprit is no longer "oil." You see? All oil has to do is say, "We have removed the carbon dioxide" and the problem is solved. Why would they oppose GW now? All they have to do is come up with a solution for CO2. If it requires more oil, so much the better!

Quote:

---

They are the people who work for these companies.

---

Of course petroleum geologists work for these companies. But do they represent these companies? My husband works for the Dept of Energy, but his views on GW cer

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You realize that virtually every single thing you've said about "good" capitalism is based entirely on IMAGINARY data, imaginary happenings in some fantastical imaginary world, where apparently humans don't exist and all the shops are owned and run by the Do-Gooder Fairy.

---

I never cited any data, imaginary or otherwise, to support my discussions of "good" capitalism.

But you do make a good point. I imagine a world where things can work with minimum government. Just like you imagine a world where things can work with minimum capitalism.

It boils down to our values and our fears. I fear force more than greed. You fear greed more than force. I envision a moral and beneficent capitalistic system. You envision a moral and beneficent government. We both use our imaginations, and we give the benefit of the doubt to that part which we fear less.

-----
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. -- HDT

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by canttakesky:
If I dismissed evidence, I would be a GW denier. As it is, I am a GW skeptic. A religiously fervert GW proponent would group them together. But I am hoping that as a scientist, you can understand the difference between denial and skepticism.

---

I do, very well. What I see from you is denial of a theory based on evidence which really isn't central to it, and an avoidance of the data that is. Perhaps you are just waiting to collate data, as some would say, but I find it telling that you won't even talk about the data I posted. You didn't even try to learn more about it, but said: "You can post all the graphs you want about what researchers THINK happened 10,000 or 100,000 years ago. But at the end of the day, they don't have any PROOF--they just have SUPPORT."

You just dismissed this without looking into the supporting evidence that makes this a strong theory. (Of course it's not 100%. I never said it was) And you really are wrong here. Sorry, I can't soften the statement. You're just flat out wrong to dismiss this data so out of hand, and I think you'd see that if you looked into the science.

Anyhow, back to the scientific method: you are offering your own theory in this thread, that climate change is "a spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for." The evidence you presented to back your theory is:

1. The scientific evidence is a sham.

2. Oil companies are pushing this hoax so they can pull in cash with sequestration.

I am highly skeptical of your theory, and I've been telling you why. I'll continue to do so, and to show my own supporting data, because that's how science works. We both know the process, so let's stick with supplying evidence and maybe we'll get somewhere.

I would love to see your supporting data, and something more specific than what you've said so far.

Quote:

---

Carbon sequestration is the removal and storage of CO2. My husband deals mostly with physical sequestration processes, though he is currently working on a proposal to use biological ones as well.

---

I do know what sequestration is. A guy I worked with on my thesis did a bunch of research about sequestration in underground reservoirs in Michigan. I had many a talk with him about it. Surely pulling carbon out of the air and burying it would be nice; the fact that we're not doing that now tells me that there are pretty serious difficulties with the process. It may not ever happen.

The more pressing issue facing those who make public policy, and those balancing the sheets at oil companies (and in any industry with smoke stacks) is the reduction of emissions. Emission limits are very a real, very *soon* possibility, as opposed to sequestration. Emission limits are what could seriously mess with earnings, and this is what lead to the very well documented false information that came out of big oil and the GWB admin.

What I hear you saying is that the possibilities for sequestration are a bigger motivation for Big Oil, and that they are actively trying to sell climate change so that they can pocket billions off of some kind of sequestration machine. Have I heard wrong? Were you just being hypothetical?

Because if that's really what you're saying, that's not what I've experienced. Working in exploration, I was in on lots of chats about the general direction of the companies. Big Oil has learned to be afraid of the bad PR of backing Climate Change skeptics. I don't think Big Oil is "advocating" the theory nowadays as much as they're afraid of being seen as against it.

It's also like my crotchedy old grandda, who, in a drought, dug a well in his basement just so he could a put a sign in his yard saying: "WATER FROM PRIVATE WELL." Then he'd water his lawn all day (from the city water) and the local authorities couldn't do shit. If sequestration gets working at all, Big Oil and all the other industries can tell the activists to fuck off, and the Hummers can roam the earth. I think they're after seq. for the politics more than because they think they'll make cash off

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
You just dismissed this without looking ... You're just flat out wrong to dismiss this data so out of hand, and I think you'd see that if you looked into the science.

---

Sigh. How many ways can I tell you that I didn't dismiss it?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
Anyway, I would like to know how you husband came up with that 20% number. Is he saying that total oil usage in the US, for example, would go up 20% if we got some method of sequestration to work?

---

This is what my husband said:

"A typical coal power plant will take a 8 point efficiency penalty for capturing CO2, assuming all the infrastructure for sequestration is already there. A typical power plant is at most most 33% efficient. Eight divided by 33 is about 24%. Current amine scrubbing systems can't even achieve the 8% target; they operate closer to a 12% hit to the plant's efficiency."

Quote:

---

I am highly skeptical of your theory, and I've been telling you why.

---

Good! It's not even a theory. It is pure speculation that explains some of my husband's experiences.

Quote:

---

Surely pulling carbon out of the air and burying it would be nice; the fact that we're not doing that now tells me that there are pretty serious difficulties with the process.

---

The technology is there; there's no problem with that end. The serious difficulty is cost. Huge costs. Increased consumption of energy. Costs that will be passed to the consumer, without doubt.

Quote:

---

Anyhow, back to the scientific method: you are offering your own theory in this thread, that climate change is "a spectre that I don't see empirical evidence for." The evidence you presented to back your theory is:...

---

Let me stop you right there. I didn't present any evidence. I was just ranting, loosely. I wasn't presenting a formal defense of my position.

Quote:

---

1. The scientific evidence is a sham.

---

I would prefer to say, the evidence used to support global warming is not sufficiently empirical to instill me with confidence.

Quote:

---

I would love to see your supporting data, and something more specific than what you've said so far.

---

If you really want to debate the nuts and bolts, we'll probably have to start a new thread, where I can start fresh with a proper statement of my position and the data supporting my skepticism.

However, I would like to postpone such a debate until I've read Ruddiman's book, since his ideas (and apparently yours) are a little different from the usual GW claims. I have no idea if I will disagree with Ruddiman or how I would disagree if I do.

The book is on my Amazon wishlist. Next time I buy something, I'll throw it in. I hope that further supports my contention I am not dismissing anything; if I were, I wouldn't spend good money on something I've already dismissed, right?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Well said, CantTake, and well reasoned. Although I am on the opposing side of the debate about climate change, I think you expressed yourself clearly and fairly.


"I'm just right. Kinda like the sun rising in the east and the world being round...its not a need its just the way it is." The Delusional "Hero", 3/1/10

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME