The Liberal/Progressive War on Science

[brenthutch 383]

"Democrats and liberals are fond of calling their conservative and Republican adversaries “anti-science.” To the extent that the right espouses “creation science,” or disputes established facts about environmental degradation, it’s an appropriate label.

But progressives’ fascination with electric cars and other alternative-energy schemes reflects their own refusal to face the practical limitations of alternative energy — limitations that themselves reflect stubborn scientific facts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electric-cars-and-the-liberal-war-with-science/2012/03/05/gIQA7SpYtR_story.html

[peregrinerose 0]

Uh, that was an article about economics, not science. And was on the opinion page for a reason.

Try some critical thinking and reasoning skills, then post actual data not opinions supposedly about science while actually about economics.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Uh, that was an article about economics, not science. And was on the opinion page for a reason.

Try some critical thinking and reasoning skills, then post actual data not opinions supposedly about science while actually about economics.

Your mean like this?

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

"Democrats and liberals are fond of calling their conservative and Republican adversaries “anti-science.” To the extent that the right espouses “creation science,” or disputes established facts about environmental degradation, it’s an appropriate label.

Hehehe.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

And when we run out of oil, god will provide us with new oil and/or the rapture will happen.

[lawrocket 3]

My main problem with liberal science in the climate realm is that the "science" is not "science." Climate models are part of science.

What is "science?" It is the testing of the predictions of a hypothesis against observed data. This is the basic rule of science. Make a prediction. Run the test. Observe the data. Compare.


Climate science - and climate policy – are dominated by predictions. Listen to anything reported in the climate realm. “we predict that by 2100, sea level may be…” Fact – we predict. Step one of science. Prediction. We’re at the “prediction” step. Step two – observe the data. Well, we’re about 87 years from obtaining the “raw data.” Sure, we can look at sea level rises right now and plot a trend. That’s processed data. But what data do we use? Raw data from tide gauges or processed data that accounts for interglacial rebound? Sometimes “raw data” is useless and needs to be “processed data” to be understandable. An example is data from GRACE. Indeed, several different methods of processing the raw data from GRACE are being used.

There’s paleo data. There are paleo reconstructions (like the “hockey stick”). Then there is data from a large scale GCM output. The GCM data is neither raw nor processed data. It’s a prediction. And we have to wait until the raw data is available to test the prediction. It’s that simple. The Higgs Boson was predicted 50 years ago. Two months ago the case was practically closed. Hadda wait. Einstein predicted time-space bends with gravity. Strong gravity can make it detectable and measurable. Hadda wait until an eclipse a few years later to get the raw data to prove the prediction. We don’t have the raw data on sea level in 2100. So we’re soothsaying. (Don’t hand that “based on science” shit. Star Trek is based on science, too.)

Looking to the past allows us to look to the future most times. But often those past studies disagree so we have to go with the best we’ve got. Oops. “Best” is a subjective opinion and individual judgment, which is not “science.” Best depends on what you’re looking for. That’s why statisticians are important – they help serve as a check to selection bias. Oops. Statisticians are mounting attacks against climate modeling and investigators of the Anglia/CRU hack have stated that professional statisticians need to be employed to avoid just this issue.

We’ll go on. Ever see an unqualified prediction in the press? “Sea level may be…” “Temperatures may increase by…” What does “may” mean? There’s a fly buzzing around the Astrodome. You reach your hand out and close it. “If you close your hand you may catch a fly.” Nothing forecloses the possibility. But “may” is not inconsistent with “highly unlikely.” Put simply, PR and rhetoric dominate.

I know how climate models work. They are supposed to get more accurate as time goes on because signal becomes more through the noise. But here’s the problem: Thousands of relationships must be accounted for. What will a local increase in temperature over a lake at 2,000 feet do the vapor pressure? What will that change in vapor pressure do to humidity? What will either do to convection? What will convection do to local surface temperature? Etc. thousands of these relationships have not been tested for empirical value. A sixth significant figure misjudgment will be a large signal over billions of iterations.

Predictions are just that – predictions. Climate models are not data. They are hypotheses. They are predictions. Each model is its own prediction. One step in the scientific process. A scientific wild assed guess. I have no problems with predictions. I am interested in seeing them tested. I am interested in the results.

Let’s quit calling “predictions” “conclusions.” That’s not science until there is raw data to analyze. There isn’t. Let’s start seeing “Global sea levels may not rise 3 feet by 2100.” It is no more or less valid that “Global sea levels may rise 3 feet by 2100.” But wow, what a different message is sent!

Let's see more science and less rhetoric.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume.

Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 2 - There is a finite amount of oil, and we WILL reach a point where it's no longer possible to recover it any more as a source of energy. If we keep using it, that is.

[brenthutch 383]

Proves I am even handed.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

And when we run out of oil, god will provide us with new oil and/or the rapture will happen.

I don't rely on God. I think that by then forces of nature will necessitate something else.

But also recognize that our very own sun is middle aged. We are in the unenviable position of entrusting our lives to an energy source that is non-renewable. Peak Hydrogen was reached 4.5 billion years ago. The sun is at half a tank right now and unless we can recycle that hydrogen to be refused, we’re in for some trouble in the future.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Quote

Uh, that was an article about economics, not science. And was on the opinion page for a reason.

Try some critical thinking and reasoning skills, then post actual data not opinions supposedly about science while actually about economics.

Your mean like this?

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

Stubborn fact number 2, you are comparing non like units, which makes it an invalid comparison. How many litres are in a battery? No such beast. Battery is reused, gasoline is not, again different comparison. This boiled down to economics.

I'll go back to reading my primary research and facts, not distilled politcally charged rants. It's better to soak in education than to spew forth opinions.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[kallend 1,621]

Quote

Quote

Uh, that was an article about economics, not science. And was on the opinion page for a reason.

Try some critical thinking and reasoning skills, then post actual data not opinions supposedly about science while actually about economics.

Your mean like this?

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

You should stick to a subject you know something about, and avoid topics like science.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Uh, that was an article about economics, not science. And was on the opinion page for a reason.

Try some critical thinking and reasoning skills, then post actual data not opinions supposedly about science while actually about economics.

Your mean like this?

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

Stubborn fact number 2, you are comparing non like units, which makes it an invalid comparison. How many litres are in a battery? No such beast. Battery is reused, gasoline is not, again different comparison. This boiled down to economics.

I'll go back to reading my primary research and facts, not distilled politcally charged rants. It's better to soak in education than to spew forth opinions.

Those are good and valid points. However to dismiss economic is folly. Economics is where the science of the conceivable gets introduced to the realities of the doable.

[brenthutch 383]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Uh, that was an article about economics, not science. And was on the opinion page for a reason.

Try some critical thinking and reasoning skills, then post actual data not opinions supposedly about science while actually about economics.

Your mean like this?

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

You should stick to a subject you know something about, and avoid topics like science.

Like math?

Re: [kallend] Are you "middle income" [In reply to] Quote | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Apparently you can't tell the difference between

x < 250

and

200 < x < 250

Math skills ARE important.

Also "class" <> "income".

Reading skills ARE important.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"'Middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less,' Romney responded."

Sounds like x < 250 to me. But I'll just keep fiddlin' and you just keep dancin'.

[jclalor 12]

Quote

This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt.

It probably does not help your cause much using the Chevy Cruze as an example, that car and it's manufacturer had to be save by a socialist bailout.

It could not compete in the free market by it self.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

So you have 8lbs of gasoline that you can burn once and go 42 miles. Then you have the 435 lb battery you can charge over 1000 times (*) and go 35,000 miles. 435lbs of gas only gets you 2300 miles, and is a finite resource.

* 1000 charges is the usual figure for batteries in consumer electronics. i do not know the rating for batteries in cars, other than knowing that the Toyota hybrids have proven their longevity.

[peregrinerose 0]

Quote

Those are good and valid points. However to dismiss economic is folly. Economics is where the science of the conceivable gets introduced to the realities of the doable.

If you want to have a conversation on the economics of technology, by all means start one. However, YOU started a conversation called 'The Liberal/Progressive War on Science'.

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[Marinus 0]

Quote

But also recognize that our very own sun is middle aged. We are in the unenviable position of entrusting our lives to an energy source that is non-renewable. Peak Hydrogen was reached 4.5 billion years ago. The sun is at half a tank right now and unless we can recycle that hydrogen to be refused, we’re in for some trouble in the future.

You might want to take a closer look at the dying process of our sun. While the thing is running out of fuel as we speak, the energy output will increase over the next 5 billion year or so, (at least from our POV), so if anything solar energy will become an even better option in the future. Until the sun makes life on earth impossible that is, IIRC that will happen around 700.000.000 years from now. Oil on the other hand will run out somewhere in the next couple of hundred years.

From a human POV the argument "but the sun is also running out" is just silly, 700 million years is how long it took for us to evolve from single cellular life forms. It's such a huge amount of time it's almost comprehensible.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

So you have 8lbs of gasoline that you can burn once and go 42 miles. Then you have the 435 lb battery you can charge over 1000 times (*) and go 35,000 miles. 435lbs of gas only gets you 2300 miles, and is a finite resource.

A couple of issues. The battery holds nothing more than a supply of potential energy. The gas tank holds nothing more than a supply of potential energy.

The potential energy in the gas tank can only be used once (the laws of thermodynamics apply here). Then it can be refilled with more potential energy. The potential energy in the battery can only be used once (the laws of thermodynamics apply here). Then it can be recharged with more potential energy.

You can refill a battery 1000 times. You can refill a gas tank 1000 times. More than that, even - assuming you've got a car that can go 400k miles.

Both a gas tank and a battery do the same thing: store potential energy. For many people, the amount stored in an electrical battery does not meet the needs of the driver.

Electricity is also a finite resource. Like petroleum. All power is finite - even our very own Sun is at half a tank right now.

Electricity is also finite at any one time based on the limits of generation and distribution. Even increasing generation doesn't solve the distribution issues. And like it or not, a very large portion of electricity is produced by fossil fuels - the very finite resource you discuss.

I personally like the fact that our economy has developed without any focus on one or the other. At this time, petroleum is not very good for powering homes and the like, but is still most efficient for transportation. Likewise, electricity has proven itself for providing power for fixed locations but is still in its infancy with moveable items.

The benefit of electricity, though, is that in the future is should become less expensive to generate your own using wind or solar. We'll see what the future holds.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,384]

>Electricity is also a finite resource.

Electricity isn't a resource - it's a method of transferring energy. The source of power for your dishwasher isn't a reservoir of electricity, it's a generator 100 miles away in a power plant in a dam (or a nuclear power plant etc.) Electricity is just a convenient way to deliver it. When you 'run out' you can generate more.

Oil, on the other hand, is a resource. It represents stored power, power that was stored millions of years ago. We can't realistically make more when we run out.

>I personally like the fact that our economy has developed without any focus on one or the other.

Our economy has developed to be almost entirely dependent on oil. Without oil our transportation system stops. We can't ship food, or fertilize crops, or till soil, or make plastics, or fly airplanes, or run oceangoing ships. We can't deliver coal to power plants. We can't run our military. Right now the US would cease to exist as an economy (and as a world power) if our oil was cut off.

> At this time, petroleum is not very good for powering homes and the like, but is
>still most efficient for transportation.

In many places (primarily the Northeast) most of a home's energy comes from oil.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

All power is finite - even our very own Sun is at half a tank right now.

And somewhere in the very, very distant future we'll be cooked off of this planet because of that. It's not very realistic to take the fact that the sun will run out of fuel eventually and use it as an argument in discussions about oil.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

But also recognize that our very own sun is middle aged. We are in the unenviable position of entrusting our lives to an energy source that is non-renewable. Peak Hydrogen was reached 4.5 billion years ago.

Who gives a fuck?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Electricity is also a finite resource.

Electricity isn't a resource - it's a method of transferring energy. The source of power for your dishwasher isn't a reservoir of electricity, it's a generator 100 miles away in a power plant in a dam (or a nuclear power plant etc.) Electricity is just a convenient way to deliver it. When you 'run out' you can generate more

Thanks for the primer.

Quote

>I personally like the fact that our economy has developed without any focus on one or the other.

Our economy has developed to be almost entirely dependent on oil. Without oil our transportation system stops. We can't ship food, or fertilize crops, or till soil, or make plastics, or fly airplanes, or run oceangoing ships. We can't deliver coal to power plants.

I get that. Moving products is the thing. But I was referring more generally to the amalgam of electric and petroleum uses.

Quote

> At this time, petroleum is not very good for powering homes and the like, but is
>still most efficient for transportation.

In many places (primarily the Northeast) most of a home's energy comes from oil.

Yes. I understand the heating oil part. But even in my wife's house, she's still connected to the grid.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

"Democrats and liberals are fond of calling their conservative and Republican adversaries “anti-science.” To the extent that the right espouses “creation science,” or disputes established facts about environmental degradation, it’s an appropriate label.

But progressives’ fascination with electric cars and other alternative-energy schemes reflects their own refusal to face the practical limitations of alternative energy — limitations that themselves reflect stubborn scientific facts."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/electric-cars-and-the-liberal-war-with-science/2012/03/05/gIQA7SpYtR_story.html

Mr. BHO Jangled has missed a lot of science along the way. But, what the heck he was president of the Harvard Law Review.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

"Stubborn Scientific Fact No. 1: Petroleum packs a lot of energy per unit of volume. (Each liter contains 34 megajoules.) Consequently, gasoline makes a cheap, portable and convenient motor fuel.

By contrast, even state-of-the-art batteries deliver far less energy than gas, in a far bigger package. A Volt can go 35 miles on a single charge of its 435-pound battery. This sounds like a big deal until you realize that a gas-engine Chevy Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon — and costs half as much as a Volt."

So you have 8lbs of gasoline that you can burn once and go 42 miles. Then you have the 435 lb battery you can charge over 1000 times (*) and go 35,000 miles. 435lbs of gas only gets you 2300 miles, and is a finite resource.

* 1000 charges is the usual figure for batteries in consumer electronics. i do not know the rating for batteries in cars, other than knowing that the Toyota hybrids have proven their longevity.

But, don't we, in most instances, have to burn fossil fuel to charge that battery?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Who gives a fuck?

I do. It's why I studied it. Because it's pretty awesome how it works. And if we're thinking of the future, we should think about what to do. Some stop at tomorrow. Others stop at 100 years. Me? I think big. What are we going to do in the Degenerate Era (no, not the 1960's)? Trying to find ways of getting power from white dwarfs. Knowing that the laws of the universe suggest a dismal fate and hoping to find some quantum fluctuation that would allow us to enter a stelliferous era in a multiverse?

We have to think now. In 50 trillion years we won't be able to see much out there so we have to know where stuff is an where it's going.

I care. Because I am an altruist.

My wife is hotter than your wife.