tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post1806013047252742077..comments2023-11-28T09:02:03.742+01:00Comments on The Seneca Effect: The Collapse of Trust in Science: Climate Science is one of the VictimsUgo Bardihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18231859786466899924noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-6415299589411762452022-06-27T20:03:20.236+02:002022-06-27T20:03:20.236+02:00Yes, formulated like this you break the fallacy on...Yes, formulated like this you break the fallacy on which my (bad) joke was sitting. Martíhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401388438577261791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-12294538217259001522022-06-23T15:15:06.919+02:002022-06-23T15:15:06.919+02:00When left alone, the power of Nature is immense: e...When left alone, the power of Nature is immense: each year an irreversible gain.<br /><br />The father of a cousin of mine was an investor in a mountain holiday resort in N. Spain which, thankfully, didn't work out. <br /><br /> When we visited, it was wonderful to see trees pushing up through the tarmac and in the abandoned buildings - although some places were still occupied on cheap rents. Very much post-Rome.... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-67146537537345826252022-06-23T15:10:31.018+02:002022-06-23T15:10:31.018+02:00That's when the so-called 'Deplorables...That's when the so-called 'Deplorables' become the 'Estimables'.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-37715104516009408802022-06-23T15:06:33.715+02:002022-06-23T15:06:33.715+02:00I suggest that what should all miss, in any field ...I suggest that what should all miss, in any field one cares to name - science, medicine, politics, religion, the arts, etc, - is......INTEGRITY. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-66310940343762358952022-06-19T18:51:39.517+02:002022-06-19T18:51:39.517+02:00I understood form older posts in this blog that sc...I understood form older posts in this blog that science almost doesn't exist any more, phagocytized by corruption, metrics, career-bulding, self-branding, business, fame, politics...<br />And now we are missing it already?<br />:)<br />(I'm joking, I'm aware there is no contradiction)Martíhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17401388438577261791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-30829632960306943162022-06-19T10:57:02.158+02:002022-06-19T10:57:02.158+02:00There is so much to say on the subject. The loss o...There is so much to say on the subject. The loss of confidence in science is obvious, and it is not due to the public that has been deceived too many times. Scientists as a whole are responsible for this situation by not having been able to protect their discipline from corruption, by not denouncing more fraudulent studies and the abuses of the bureaucracy that you described well in the previous post. Of course they are humans who need to work to live, but they have let themselves be locked in a dead-end, and so science will have to die to be reborn.<br />Concerning the climate, I have stopped caring about it because the same people who created the problem are the ones who claim to be getting us out of it. The alliance of scientists, bureaucrats and politicians is going to use this crisis to consolidate a little more power in the hands of a few people? The climate has become a pretext but who really cares? Hypocrisy reigns at the highest level and it has become impossible to distinguish the wheat from the chaff. This sad fact will make it impossible to get humanity to adhere to the necessary restrictions and the price will have to be paid, one way or another. <br /><br />Thierrynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-25588243868522081232022-06-19T02:32:14.045+02:002022-06-19T02:32:14.045+02:001) Climate science is an immensely complex topic, ...1) Climate science is an immensely complex topic, with hundreds of feedback loops, many of which are not understood, and some of which are not even identified. Moreover, some of the loops involve human and social behavior, which are inherently difficult to model (one of the reasons that 'Limits to Growth' is still relevant after 50 years). So it is not surprising if most people ignore science - it's hard work, and most of us have a life to live.<br /><br />2) As economic and social conditions drift downhill, people may blame scientists for being good at talking about problems, but less good at fixing them.<br /><br />3) There is a confusion between science and engineering/project management. People may hear that some new technology such as hydrogen cartridges show great promise. They therefore assume that we have a solution to climate change. They do not appreciate the immense effort needed to transform our technology base in just a couple of decades.<br /><br />4) It is my understanding that monasticism often becomes more common as societies decline. I wonder if scientists may form isolated communes where they do not have to interact with the world at large, and where they are free to work out a new "theology".ChemEnghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168251215012150114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-86746275784724223782022-06-19T02:11:40.366+02:002022-06-19T02:11:40.366+02:00This comment is to do with your last post regardin...This comment is to do with your last post regarding bureaucracy ('Bye-bye university!'). I suggest that the problems you allude to go back for generations. It may be worse now, but it's not new. To illustrate this point I published 'A Magnificent Navy on Land' at https://netzero2050.substack.com/p/sec-climate-bureaucracy. It's based on Parkinson's "Law" and so is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but not necessarily incorrect.<br /><br />I am analyzing the new proposed rule from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The rule, if implemented, will require publicly traded companies to (a) disclose the extent of their greenhouse gas emissions, and (b) assess the risk that climate change poses to their business. The intent of the rule is good, but it will lead to a massive increase in the number of "support" agencies, consultants and paper work in general. If Parkinson's Law applies, then we come up with a modern version of his insight:<br /><br />"The number of specialists, learned papers, web sites, blogs, meetings and government edicts to do with climate change will increase at a rate of between 5 and 6.5% per annum regardless of actual greenhouse gas emissions. This Law is true even if emissions do not decline at all."ChemEnghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168251215012150114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-21220124514884537982022-06-19T01:11:58.219+02:002022-06-19T01:11:58.219+02:00Long time lurker, first time commenter.
At this ...Long time lurker, first time commenter. <br /><br />At this point, it's pretty clear that nothing will be done about climate change. Nothing that matters in any case. The best we can hope for are reasonably effective local mitigation strategies to deal with the consequences of climate change. The worst that can happen is a COVID-style response that does little-to-nothing to address the problem, while causing an enormous amount of harm (and making some people very rich and/or very famous in the process). <br /><br />Trust in science may be indeed be dead. If so, it was largely deserved. I mean, astrophysics may be fine. But anything that might influence policy - forget it! The public just gets told whatever the big shots think will maximize the probability of the public doing what the big shots want it to do. And quite a few deplorables have figured that out by now and are acting accordingly (by ignoring everything the big shots say, that is). <br /><br />Irena Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-11838835524103399562022-06-18T23:12:27.259+02:002022-06-18T23:12:27.259+02:00I hear you on this! It is hard to have a good gras...I hear you on this! It is hard to have a good grasp of each scientific field, and we shouldn't expect anyone to be an expert at everything. It is good when people are aware of their own limits though :-) Physicists are often lauded as society's best geniuses, but even they get things wrong too! it's not uncommon to hear them say absolutely absurd things about biology. <br /><br />When it comes to "green tech" and EVs, I think the problem is more to do with marketing claims not being congruent with the actual science. EVs can be worse for the environment depending on the situation. For example, if you drove an EV powered by electricity produced from a coal power plant, and then dumped the massive car battery every 10 years or so, the EV would or could pollute more than an ICE (especially one that ran for 30 years)? Analyzing renewable energy capturing technology and EVs is very fraught by how wide your analysis goes. The narrow focus on tailpipe emissions has allowed green pundits to get away with spouting a lot of half truths. Even calculating a true EROEI for so-called renewables is tricky; what to include, what to exclude. What happens to the pollution calculations when renewables don't met their design life? In a free market, price often sorts out these calculations for us (currency being a proxy for energy cost), but when renewables are subsidized by the govt, it's harder to be certain. We have to rely on scientists to calculate the EROEI. When one reads these papers and sees what's included and what is excluded it is pretty easy to spot obvious exclusions. It can be infuriating when people cite the bad study and just ignore the published papers that refute the bad study. <br /><br />I totally agree that the focus on CO2 emissions has taken attention away form other critical breaking points in the natural system :-( <br />I'm one of those people who does understand the basics of climate change, but doesn't know what to believe from all the models and worst case scenarios. I'm super thankful that crude oil only has a few decades left and then our ability to destroy our life support systems will be dramatically reduced. Much of our concrete will be crumbling after 100 years, creating a lot of space for new plants and trees to grow and suck up some carbon. Look how quickly the plants took over the concrete at Chernobyl as an example. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1585995614037680457.post-10946409624625858882022-06-18T22:04:48.446+02:002022-06-18T22:04:48.446+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.alwattarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15186944283523827251noreply@blogger.com