|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 10:42
1
https://static.agcanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CGW170314.pdf
Consider for a moment what Cana-
dian agriculture would look like
today if farmers had never made
the switch from horse power to
tractor power. It isn’t such an absurd idea
if you understand why farmers here actu-
ally resisted mechanization when it first
appeared roughly a century ago.
An interesting read is the text of the
speech called “An Economic Comparison of
the Horse Vs. Motor” that H.L. Hare of the
University of British Columbia, gave to the
North Western Veterinary Association in
the early 1920s. His paper was subsequently
published in the
Canadian Veterinary Record
(Volume 4, No. 4, 1923).
Hare presented case after case from right
across Canada showing that horses were
more economically efficient than tractors
and trucks. For example, he told of the expe-
rience of C.S. Noble of Alberta who in 1918
and 1919 used both trucks and horses to
haul grain 20 to 30 miles from the 30,000-
acre ranch he was managing to the nearest
grain elevators.
Hare wrote: “... even on this long haul,
Mr. Noble states that freighting can be done
more economically with horses.”
Hare backed up the individual cases with
statements from revered agricultural educa-
tional institutions such as the Ontario Agri-
cultural College, which concluded: “Farm
tractors have been used with some degree of
success, but speaking generally they have not
been a success with the average farmer... ”
Then Hare presented studies from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Pur-
due Agricultural Experimental Station, and
the Dominion Experimental Farm at Prince
Edward Island. All showed the cost per acre
of operating a tractor was higher than doing
comparable work with horses.
Finally, Hare presented evidence that
after their initial tractor purchases, many
farmers soon went back to horses.
Hare concluded, “Greater production
was achieved but at the expense of econ-
omy. Now that the war is over, efficiency and
economy are the slogans and we find that
horses are fast coming back to their field.”
So why did farmers make the switch to
the tractor?
While some farmers chose to become
early adopters of mechanization, most
North American and European farmers
were, instead, pushed into the switch.
The First World War had drained farms
of both horses and manpower, and farmers
were forced to find alternative crop produc-
tion methods.
This also explains why the number of
tractors and trucks sold to farmers actually
declined following the war, when govern-
ment demand for horses dropped off and
soldiers returned to farms and rural com-
munities.
Why history repeats
Today farmers are facing a similar scenario.
Society is demanding a cleaner, greener
world, and modern agriculture is again
caught in the middle.
It is irrelevant whether you as an indi-
vidual believe in climate change or the need
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Soci-
ety as a whole does, and it is taking action
to reduce man’s carbon footprint globally.
Modern agriculture will have to get on
board whether we like it or not.
Most Canadian farmers simply cannot
understand society’s obsession with reduc-
ing fossil fuel use. We live in a relatively pris-
tine environment, and if we travel at all, it
is likely to be to an even cleaner, greener
place like the mountains, northern lakes, or
first-class resorts in Mexico, Hawaii or the
Caribbean.
However, those postcard-perfect places
are not at all like the world that most of the
global population resides in.
If you travel to India or China or any
major city in the world, you’ll experience
the pollution they live with. In coastal cities
worldwide, as well, you will see first-hand
the impact of rising ocean levels. Travel to
many equatorial regions and you will see the
effect of prolonged drought in the form of
dry lake beds and parched soils.
Want to experience the Arctic? No prob-
lem; you can even take a cruise ship through
the Northwest Passage where just a genera-
tion ago no ships could sail.
Now, too, there is an overwhelming con-
sensus among scientists that man is contrib-
uting to these environmental and climate
change issues.
This is the evidence that is leading societ-
ies worldwide to adopt measures designed
to reduce man’s footprint; from putting a
price on carbon to restricting the use of
some energy sources like coal and moving
to renewable energy sources like wind, water
and solar generation.
t
h
e s
W
i
tch to solar
Without question, the energy source with
the greatest potential at this time is solar. We
now have the technology to efficiently col-
lect solar power, and in most areas the grid is
already in place to distribute power.
But, like our forefathers balking at the
use of tractors, the resistance to solar is huge,
Go into any coffee shop and you’ll hear
complaints about the carbon tax and how
solar power could never work in the frozen
north where we live. You will hear how solar
is way too expensive and will never be com-
petitive with fossil fuels, even if it could be
generated here.
Farmers complain about the potential
loss of farmland for all the solar panels that
would be needed. And you will hear over
and over again that the politicians who
want to shut down the oil sands are basically
destroying the economy of Canada simply to
appease environmentalists and to clean up
the problems of the third world.
But are these doomsday claims accurate?
Just 40 years ago, the United Arab Emir-
ates was a sparsely populated, nomadic des-
ert. Now, it is a globally recognized urban
paradise, primarily funded by the sale of oil
and natural gas.
But rather than defending the use of the
fossil fuels that are the backbone of their
economy and that power the mega cities of
Abu Dhabi and Dubai, and that even desali-
nates the sea water needed for the greening
of the desert, the UAE is at the forefront of
solar power generation.
Dubai Clean Energy Strategy’s goal is
that seven per cent of Dubai’s energy will
come from solar power by 2020, 25 per cent
by 2030 and 75 per cent by 2050. Rather
than continuing to base their economies on
a finite resource, they see the future in solar
power generation.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 10:43
2
Continued
Nor is solar nearly as unaffordable as we
are being led to believe. The Earth Policy
Institute chart shows the price of a solar
panel per watt of power generated has
declined from US$101.05 in 1975 to US$0.61
in 2015. As a result we have seen solar panel
generation go from just two megawatts to
64,892 megawatts over the same 40-year
period. And there is no indication either
trend will slow or stop.
In September 2016, Bloomberg.com
reported that government-owned Abu
Dhabi Water and Electricity Authority
received a record-low bid of US$2.42 cents
a kilowatt-hour for power from a planned
facility in the Persian Gulf sheikhdom. This
bid was for construction and operation of a
350-megawatt solar plant.
Bloomberg noted this is cheaper than the
$2.91/kWh bid made last August in Chile for
a solar power plant, or the $2.99/kWh bid
for a Dubai solar plant made in May 2016. It
went on to point out that these bids reflect a
drop of 70 per cent in just the last five years.
Some farmers may argue that solar works
in the UAE because it is much farther south
and it is in a hot, dry desert location. But
such a location is not a requirement for solar
generation.
Wikipedia lists the installed PV solar
generation by country as of 2015 and the
country with the highest solar electrical
generation is actually China (43,530 MW),
followed by Germany (39,700 MW), Japan
(34,410 MW), United States (25,620MW),
Italy (18,920 MW), United Kingdom (8,780
MW), France (6,580 MW), and Spain (5,400
MW).
The claims about solar panels displacing
farmland are also misleading. Solar panels
can be incorporated into existing structures
or be built on non-farmland.
Dr. Mark Jacobson, professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Stanford was
lead author of a 2015 paper entitled “100%
clean and renewable wind, water, and sun-
light (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for
the 50 United States.” This paper presents a
plan for converting the electricity, transpor-
tation, heating/cooling, and industry energy
requirements for every U.S. state to 80 per
cent renewables by 2030 and 100 per cent
by 2050. The plan calls for almost half of the
energy to be solar, and it says solar collec-
tors would cover less than 0.42 per cent of
the U.S.
Compare that land requirement to the
massive acreage currently dedicated to bio-
fuel production. Over 40 per cent of the
corn crop is used to produce ethanol. And
even then, says Dr. Roland Geyer of the Bren
School of Environmental Science and Man-
agement in Santa Barbara, if the entire corn
crop would have been converted to ethanol
in 2009, it would have met a mere 17 per
cent of the U.S. gasoline needs.
To be fair, the dry distillers grain that
remains after ethanol is produced can be
used in feed rations. But even after deduct-
ing an area amount equivalent to the feed
value of DDGs, still 25 per cent of corn acres
would be taken for fuel production. And
don’t forget, there are significant energy
inputs required for corn ethanol production
including crop inputs, equipment, fuel, dis-
tilling, storage, and transportation.
According to Geyer: “Solar power gen-
eration is ‘hands down’ more efficient than
photosynthesis.” He has compared photovol-
taic electrical generation with biofuel pro-
duction and found “even the most land-use
efficient biomass-based pathway (i.e. switch-
grass bioelectricity in U.S. counties with
hypothetical crop yields of over 24 tonnes/
ha) requires 29 times more land than the
PV-based alternative in the same locations.”
Geyer also notes that PV solar produces
usable energy throughout the year, whereas
you only get one harvest a year of corn for
ethanol.
The one hurdle that must be overcome
for solar power to be successful in a north-
ern country like Canada is storage of energy
for use when the sun is not shining. Our
long winter nights magnify this problem.
But our long summer days make solar gen-
eration even more viable if power can be
stored.And science is working on this. Just last
fall it was announced ethanol could be cre-
ated from CO2. Such a process could solve
energy storage problems and also reduce
the greenhouse gas worries. What was not
detailed was how much energy is required
to convert CO2 to ethanol. Yet, if we have
excess power generation from solar during
the day, would it be economically feasible to
convert CO2 to ethanol to provide fuel for
power generation at night?
Or what about simply pumping water up
behind a dam using solar-powered pumps
when the sun is shining, and relying on
hydroelectric generation from that stored
water at nights.
Regardless, society’s demands for clean
energy will disrupt farming as we know it.
Not only will we have to consider new
energy sources, but even crop choices will
change. Millions of acres of oats, grass, and
other feeds that were consumed by draft
animals had to change to other crops when
tractors and trucks replaced horses. The
same thing will happen to the millions of
acres of corn wheat and soybeans that are
now utilized as biofuels.
The one thing we cannot do is simply
sit back and watch as the rest of the world
switches away from fossil fuels, or we will
end up a third-world producer just like the
countries that continue to rely on human
and bullock power today.
Simply blaming our current govern-
ments will not change this.
CG
BUSINESS
56
MARCH 14, 2017 / COUNTRY-GUIDE.CA
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 12:37
3
Chucky you are still trying to convince everyone but it is just talk. Like I said before action says so much more so get your solar panels up and running and get some draft horses then invite us all over and show us how good it all works!
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 12:41
4
One question Chuck2, if you include the cost of the natural gas power plant that is required to produce power when the sun doesn't shine, what is the real cost of solar?
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 13:11
5
Nice try chuck but I won't argue with a fool.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 14:48
6
I would think hydro would be a much more reliable source and you could control the output somewhat. If they can use tidal power why couldn't they do that all down a river to the ocean. If only the tree huggers could see that....
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 15:12
7
Last paragraph. The rest of the world is switching away from fossil fuel? Now that's laughable.
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 16:07
8
Chucky the climate change shake down is just about run its course. Most countries are going broke who followed the hocus locus focus bullshit.
Canada is at least 10 years behind hopefully someone with a brain will figure it out before we fall for the bullshit.
Diesel gas water electricity dams natural gas coal uranium. Burn baby burn.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 16:43
9
Gotta wonder......I realize solar and wind energy sources would be cleanest.....but has anyone been keeping track of the radioactivity, and the spread there of, of the Pacific ocean after the Fukushima disaster? All that being said, maybe they should have continued along with carbon capture and sequestration and refining the technology used in the coal fired plants.
Weigh the pros and cons of each and go from there. Forcing unproven unreliable at the expense of other more dependable sources....
I'm not against alternative energy sources and when they become reliable and affordable sources they will displace a portion of the old standbys. Looks like there may always be a need for some petro based fuels.
How long before they have dependable electric tractors/highway tractors/passenger vehicles?....onboard diesel generators driving electric wheel motors....wasn't Agco doing some research with this on a sprayer or tractor?
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 16:44
10
Chuck,Cluck2,If your "Clucky" and are trying to : dazzle us with your brilliance,and baffle us with your bullshit. I think you have the old quote mixed up. Personally I think your "ship",forgot to return for you.
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 16:59
11
"but has anyone been keeping track of the radioactivity, and the spread there of, of the Pacific ocean after the Fukushima disaster?"
I would BET that is all covered up so as NOT to alarm the masses. We could ALL be "****ashemad" by now and don't know it.
"How long before they have dependable electric tractors/highway tractors/passenger vehicles?...."
Where the hell would all that electricity come from? Many times today's consumption... big f*cking joke.
Last edited by fjlip; Mar 19, 2017 at 17:02.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 17:21
12
Fj...onboard diesel generator driving electric motors at each wheel. Not electric car style stuff with batteries that needs to be plugged in. I have no idea about the engineering hurdles with torque, etc. How much diesel would it require compared to tradional tractors? I don't know.... Safety?.....
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 17:44
13
Chuck, you buffoon, I was going to say, "I hope your paste finger gets stuck in your nose", but I'll control myself.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 17:51
14
Good analogy, but what is not mentioned. Once tractor technology improved, and the concept proved itself, farmers ALL switched over on their own accord. No government intervention or punitive taxes on horses. Just like will happen this time around. When the technology is better than what it is replacing, with or without government meddling.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 17:51
15
Christ if anyone had to go back to horses for farming everyone would ****ing starve. Consider in those days 25% of your acres needed to be allocated to feeding the bloody things. Not to mention how many out of shape farmers would have a coronary from harnessing and hooking a five up on the sulky plow. My experience driving horses I might make out okay. Renewables will have their place as well as non renewables in the future. However, if and when we exhaust the last of our coal and petroleum reserves which I don't think I'll see it, mankind will cull itself out. Like Einstein said the fourth war won't be fought with guns and bombs but sticks and fists.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 18:41
16
AGCO RECENTLY built a prototype RoGator with a 650v generator to power motors that drive the wheels. Called the ElectRoGator, the vehicle is based on a RoGator 1386 high-clearance applicator and is equipped with a 311-hp engine. The electric-drive system saves 20% in fuel and results in 30% more power to the ground. Machinery manufacturers like AGCO are exploring electric systems to take the place of hydraulics and run auxiliary systems like fans and air conditioning. See video of the machine atfarmindustrynews.com/tv.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2017 | 19:44
17
Going back to tractor-horse analogy, Canada and United States had similar tax policy on mechanized eguipment. There was no special tax to discourage use of horses.
Considering potential environmental and economic damage from warmer climate and rising sea levels, we might expect other countries to go first in limiting greenhouse gas emissions..
Carbon tax would have been more acceptable in Canada if United States had gone along.
Continued success of Trump economic policy will put pressure on Trudeau government to adopt a more integrated approach on emission limits.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 08:04
18
Gerald Pilger's article in Country Guide told one story about the resistance to moving to tractors from horses. Many people don't like change.
I don't think any of us are able to see what the future will hold for new technology. There are still many farmers and farm families that don't use computers at all or very much.
The reality is renewable energy sources are getting much cheaper and will likely replace a lot of old technology. How much and how fast is still an open question.
As Pilger pointed out it doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not the world is moving on.
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 09:01
19
That is true, the world is always moving on. I just dont believe we can quite yet predict the future. And I'm not sure I follow the future that has been preordained for me by the experts.
The Country Guide is free because it is worth that. An editorial in the Scientific American tells me that "climate deniers" rank with the 911 conspiracy theorists etc. I will admit I dont know. But that really tells me that academia has closed the book and is moving on. To graduate school, sell a magazine, or get elected you have to SAY you believe.
I say again, I dont know. I admit I cannot know the future. I am not convinced current common knowledge "knows" the answer either. An interesting, never before attempted social experiment, is about to unfold over the next century. I dont think anyone can see where it will take us. Except of course those of us who know everything already.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 12:05
20
So if we don't use peer reviewed science from experts in their field who focus their careers on knowing what is going on, what is the alternative? Do you think farmers at the coffee shop or on Agriville can understand the science of climate change better than climate change scientist? Do you think you know more than your Doctor about disease and medicine?
Do you really think non experts without this detailed education and experience can make good decisions without relying on the experts?
Science evolves as knowledge and technology evolves. Without advanced mathematics, physics, and chemistry and biology most of the modern world as you and I know it would not exist. You and I would not likely be here as our ancestors would have died from infection or malnutrition.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 12:38
21
Well I believe Tim Ball who has a Ph.D. in climatology and I don't believe the people that try to change history like the "Medieval Warm Period" in a attempt to force a United Nations political agenda on the world.
I would wonder who understands weather better a University Professor that lives in the middle of a huge city and spends his days in a building never knowing what the weather is doing or a Farmer who's whole life is controlled by weather!
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 15:50
22
Tim Ball does not have a Phd in Climatology and has not published peer reviewed research on climate change. Also see wikipedia's section showing that Ball is controversial. He is essentially is paid by big oil to be a climate change denier. A shit disturber in other words.
Timothy F. Ball (Tim Ball)
Credentials
Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), University of London, England, 1982.
M.A., University of Manitoba, 1971.
B.A., University of Winnipeg, 1970.
Source: [1], [2]
Background
Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community. [2]
He has been Chairman to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “Consultant” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), and has connections to numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations. [3], [4], [1]
Tim Ball is member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a climate change denial group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU. According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.” [5], [6]
NRSP Denier Connections
The NRSP's past list of “scientific advisors” has also included prominent deniers Tim Patterson, Tad Murty and Sallie Baliunas, all of which are also listed as advisors to the FOS. [3], [7]
DeSmog previously noted that two of the three directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project were at one time senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics.” [8]
First PhD in Climatology?
Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the “first Canadian PhD in climatology.” Ball himself claimed he was “one of the first climatology PhD's in the world.” [9], [10]
Many have pointed out that there have been numerous PhD's in the field prior to Ball. [11]
Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology. [12]
From Wikipedia
Controversies and lawsuits
Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years,[44] claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[45] Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor.[46] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[39]
In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[47] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[45] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[39] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.[45][48]
In February 2011, it was reported that climate scientist Andrew J. Weaver had sued Ball over an article Ball wrote for the Canada Free Press, an article which was later retracted. In the article, Ball described Weaver as lacking a basic understanding of climate science and stated, incorrectly, that Weaver would not be involved in the production of the IPCC's next report because he had concerns about its credibility.[49][50] Ball contended that the lawsuit was nothing more than an attempt to silence him because of his skeptical position on global warming, despite Ball's own 2006 defamation lawsuit against Dan Johnson.[51]
Ball found himself at the center of controversy again later that year, when he told an anonymous interviewer that Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," due to Mann's role in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[52] Mann then sued Ball for libel, and stated that he was seeking punitive damages and for the article to be removed from the Frontier Centre for Public Policy's website, on which it was originally published.[53] James Taylor, senior fellow of the Heartland Institute, defended Ball, arguing that what he had said about Mann was merely a "humorous insult."[54] Fred Singer made a similar argument in a 2012 article, saying that what Ball had written was written as a joke and that Mann was "improvidently" suing him.[55]
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 15:58
23
Lol, chuckChuck, you calling anyone a shit disturber is classic pot calling the kettle black.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 16:00
24
 Originally Posted by seldomseen
Well I believe Tim Ball who has a Ph.D. in climatology and I don't believe the people that try to change history like the "Medieval Warm Period" in a attempt to force a United Nations political agenda on the world.
I would wonder who understands weather better a University Professor that lives in the middle of a huge city and spends his days in a building never knowing what the weather is doing or a Farmer who's whole life is controlled by weather!
Seldom. Your last statement about farmers knowing more than climate change scientists about weather proves exactly what I have been saying. You don't understand the science, or the difference between the weather and climate change.
How would a farmer know anything about 1000s of years of weather data and climate change on a global level just because he worked outside on his little farm in a very small part of the world watching the weather in his short lifetime?
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 18:12
25
Originally Posted by chuckChuck
Seldom. Your last statement about farmers knowing more than climate change scientists about weather proves exactly what I have been saying. You don't understand the science, or the difference between the weather and climate change.
How would a farmer know anything about 1000s of years of weather data and climate change on a global level just because he worked outside on his little farm in a very small part of the world watching the weather in his short lifetime?
Manufactured data and hypothesis from guys who are on the take - yep I believe, why shouldn't I? when I know CO2 is Mother Nature's way of producing food and oxygen and there is legitimate proof that CO2 increases growth and yield. Oh yeh, you can believe them and give them all your money. I'll put my money on common sense.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 19:57
26
Well chucky I would believe a bunch of farmers before I would believe a bunch of political bureaucrats with an agenda at the IPCC.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2017 | 23:25
27
Well, E=mc2 was a hypothetical theory proven only by mathematics, hypothesis and known measurements. When the first atom bomb was detonated scientists at the time did not have concensus on the result. Because they didnt know.
Now, all the benefits of the scientific process of proof that chuck mentions had clear proof through the scientific process. Hypothesis' could be proven or disproven. Mostly on the scale of lab work. Penicillin worked before our eyes. Theorys on prehistory, be it Neandertal life or the dinosaur extinction or the birth of the solar system have changed constantly with new evidence. Evidence that can only add or detract from a theory. Not show immediate, controllable, measurable results.
If the science of climate were so we could predict the weather better. How and why the weather over 4 billion years was the way it was is theory. What it will be 500 years from now is theory. Saying atmospheric carbon is the Holy Grail is theory.
Halting temperature rise forever by extinguishing the human race is lunacy. Lets embrace change because it will one way or the other. Stopping it at 2° by stopping all fossil fuel usage is, I believe, naive.
Is being called a Denier another way of saying contrarian? That would be fine. But it has become a way of saying ignorant.
And I will fight that.
We should all fight the real and immediate economic peril we are being given by these theorys.
A Doctorate is not insurance against being wrong. It is sometimes only proof that you answered all the questions on the test correctly as per the current wisdom.
Telling us we are completely wrong and know nothing because we didnt go to the right schools places chuck and kind, to me, in the same league as any other group of politicaly aligned bullies in history. I will not follow your blind faith.
I cannot Prove you completely wrong. But I cannot allow you to say you are completely right.
This is an assault on our economic status. Not by a foreign power. Not by worldwide depression. Not by a new technology that the world is buying with real dollars. But by political will from within based on theory being paid for by our own money taken by law. For a "war" that will be measured in centurys.
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2017 | 10:00
28
Originally Posted by blackpowder
Well, E=mc2 was a hypothetical theory proven only by mathematics, hypothesis and known measurements. When the first atom bomb was detonated scientists at the time did not have concensus on the result. Because they didnt know.
Now, all the benefits of the scientific process of proof that chuck mentions had clear proof through the scientific process. Hypothesis' could be proven or disproven. Mostly on the scale of lab work. Penicillin worked before our eyes. Theorys on prehistory, be it Neandertal life or the dinosaur extinction or the birth of the solar system have changed constantly with new evidence. Evidence that can only add or detract from a theory. Not show immediate, controllable, measurable results.
If the science of climate were so we could predict the weather better. How and why the weather over 4 billion years was the way it was is theory. What it will be 500 years from now is theory. Saying atmospheric carbon is the Holy Grail is theory.
Halting temperature rise forever by extinguishing the human race is lunacy. Lets embrace change because it will one way or the other. Stopping it at 2° by stopping all fossil fuel usage is, I believe, naive.
Is being called a Denier another way of saying contrarian? That would be fine. But it has become a way of saying ignorant.
And I will fight that.
We should all fight the real and immediate economic peril we are being given by these theorys.
A Doctorate is not insurance against being wrong. It is sometimes only proof that you answered all the questions on the test correctly as per the current wisdom.
Telling us we are completely wrong and know nothing because we didnt go to the right schools places chuck and kind, to me, in the same league as any other group of politicaly aligned bullies in history. I will not follow your blind faith.
I cannot Prove you completely wrong. But I cannot allow you to say you are completely right.
This is an assault on our economic status. Not by a foreign power. Not by worldwide depression. Not by a new technology that the world is buying with real dollars. But by political will from within based on theory being paid for by our own money taken by law. For a "war" that will be measured in centurys.
Some very good points. And further to that, I think the biggest benefit to come from the AGW debate, is that humans from all disciplines and all aspects of society have now taken an interest in climate and the weather, historical, future and present. From this information, I expect that we can develop some much more accurate long term weather trend forecasting tools. Most things in the world are cyclical, and with enough information, enough minds and enough computing power, maybe we can tease out the cycles within the cycles that give us the weather. Then we can prepare for it, we can know if we need to develop crops needing more or less heat units, drought or flood tolerant.
Meanwhile we will waste billions, and untold resources and time fighting AGW, but at least some god will come from all the research into climate.
|
|
