Visit our Popular Forums

Lake-Effect · 04-01-2016, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryewe

I left it off because it, necessarily, uses the term "informal"...which means, of course, that you can use appeals to authority in campfire discussions, or sailing forums, or anytime if you're L-E, believing that you have a persuasive "argument"...

Thank you very little

fryewe · 04-01-2016, 13:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

'informal" refers to the fallacy, not the appeal to authority.

I think I will stick to my doctor as an authority on my health and my mechanic as an authority on my car.

Sorry, Jack, but you're wrong on this one.

For example, let's say that doctor you love gives you a diagnosis using his expert knowledge and experience, and you decide to get a second opinion, from another expert with similar experience, and you get a decidedly different opinion, which also happens to be right. Sticking to your doctor's opinion in that case could be dangerous.

Appeal to authority avoids discussion, and is an attempt to belittle the other's view...make them seem...you know...aliterate. Some who use appeal to authority might even use that term in discussions.

Points in a discussion live or die dependent on their own strength, rather than who uttered them.

jackdale · 04-01-2016, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryewe

Sorry, Jack, but you're wrong on this one.

For example, let's say that doctor you love gives you a diagnosis using his expert knowledge and experience, and you decide to get a second opinion, from another expert with similar experience, and you get a decidedly different opinion, which also happens to be right. Sticking to your doctor's opinion in that case could be dangerous.

Appeal to authority avoids discussion, and is an attempt to belittle the other's view...make them seem...you know...aliterate. Some who use appeal to authority might even use that term in discussions.

Points in a discussion live or die dependent on their own strength, rather than who uttered them.

Saying I am wrong, does not make me wrong. It is just another unsubstantiated assertion.

I will see another doctor if I need a second opinion. And I will seek the opinion of a second mechanic re: my car

Appeals to authority are legit, if the meet the criteria mentioned above.

If my appeals to legitimate authorities make other folks seem aliterate, that is their problem, not mine. They need to find their own legitimate authorities.

Exile · 04-01-2016, 14:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

As you've seen in the thread, the 'anti-AGW' sentiment often extends to (or in some cases originates with) a rejection or dismissal of anything 'green' . I am very seriously concerned that, for better or worse, the issue of AGW has become the proxy for just about all proactive initiatives, because any action - emissions standards, coal phaseout, public transit, etc - that's important for other reasons but can be portrayed as being "for AGW", will be voted down by the strong 'anti-' numbers.

How can this be resolved? Ideas for a compromise, or for decoupling other green initiatives from AGW?

On the one hand, I think regardless of motivation there's more consensus on reducing consumption of fossil fuels than you may think, and that seems to be at the heart of what the CC movement (if you will) is trying to achieve. On the other hand, many of the more "alarmist" predictions have proved uncredible, and that has hurt the CC proponents. At the same time, Americans of all political persuasions have become increasingly more distrustful & cynical about their govt.'s basic competence, and this goes back several administrations. As US politics have become more & more fragmented & polarized, people get frustrated and more support for the fringes of both parties gain support, often because they offer more simplistic sounding solutions. Imho, most human beings are basically herd animals, and they seem to have a strong need to "identify" with like-minded people who form a group. So as more & more people are seduced into following the "party line," there develops less tolerance for the group on the "other side." The politicians exploit this, and use it to further the group identification and thus to solidify their support, in large part by demonizing those who disagree. Soon the differences become personal, and the chances for consensus diminish.

This is why I think with an issue as complicated & science-based as CC, it's essential to avoid the stereotyping & labeling that only serve to harden each side's position. I think the "greeny" movement has lost credibility because it is viewed as detached and oblivious to the day-to-day struggles & concerns of a lot of ordinary working people. As we've seen on this thread, there are some who are dismissive & condenscending towards the many skeptics (and vice-versa

), and ignorant about what motivates such people to hold the positions they do. This may feel good, but I can't see what it actually accomplishes.

So I would say you might start by backing up one step and examine first why "a rejection or dismissal of anything 'green'" is occurring. The decoupling of AGW as you suggest could be a positive, but not sure how it could be accomplished at this point. There seem to be too many invested way beyond the science. It's become a highly politicized "movement" of like-minded people who may or may not actually understand the science, and actually learning it is no small task.

Reefmagnet · 04-01-2016, 14:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by fryewe

Hell, what hasn't? Even earthquakes...

I guess they're caused by the subsidence from the melting of those billions of tons of ice...

It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere, someone has probably written a paper that "suggests" this may be the case.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

**newhaul** · 04-01-2016, 14:16

Decoupling CC from any green items is IMO actually not that difficult once you convince people they will save money with solar/wind/hydro or whatever it is you want the "average person" to do ( appeal to their wallet)

SV THIRD DAY · 04-01-2016, 14:21

But...WILL they save money.....
Or is that another talking point?

Exile · 04-01-2016, 14:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

But...WILL they save money.....
Or is that another talking point?

Generally they won't save money at the current level of renewable technology, especially when you account for the added taxpayer costs from the subsidies.

An exception might be a friend of mine who had a new house built in Phoenix, AZ. Costs to run a/c in their scorching summers can run as high as $3-400/mo. He had solar panels installed as part of the initial build that are tied into the city power grid. He claims the city utility co. sends him a check during the cool winter months which at least partially offsets the high a/c bills during the summer. He also says he will re-capitalize the cost of the panels & installation, but he also rec'd state & federal tax credits to offset those installation costs.

I think to fairly analyze the added cost to the citizens of Alberta for the $1.7B wind turbines, you have to compare that to the cost of the same amount of electricity generated from a fossil fuel plant, and then maybe add whatever additional "cost" is figured to account for the emissions. I suspect the taxpayer energy costs are still cheaper using fossil fuels, which is probably why the turbines were pitched as providing the power to run the popular commuter train. This is also why China is adding another coal-fired plant every week as opposed to one that uses renewables. Of course the Chinese don't have to "sell" it to their people.

jackdale · 04-01-2016, 15:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

It wouldn't surprise me if somewhere, someone has probably written a paper that "suggests" this may be the case.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Rather than speculate, why not find out? Evidence trumps innuendo.

https://scholar.google.ca/schhp?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

jackdale · 04-01-2016, 15:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

This is also why China is adding another coal-fired plant every week as opposed to one that uses renewables. Of course the Chinese don't have to "sell" it to their people.

Quote:

China has raised its solar power installation target for 2015 by 30 percent from its previous goal, state media reported, potentially adding to overcapacity as insufficient grid capacity remains a hurdle for the new plants to deliver power.

Solar plants can in theory delivery returns of 10-15 percent under long-term power purchase contracts with state utilities but in practice face problems of subsidy collection and panel quality, making investors wary of the sector.

China will add another 5.3 GW installed capacity of solar power stations this year, on top of an earlier national target of 17.8 GW, Xinhua reported, citing a notice from the National Energy Administration last week.

The new stations will be added mostly in Inner Mongolia and Hebei in the north and Xinjiang in the west, the report said.

The NEA required the project hosts to complete construction by end of this year and get connected to the grid by end of June next year, the report said.

China raises solar installation target for 2015 | Reuters

fryewe · 04-01-2016, 15:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

If my appeals to legitimate authorities make other folks seem aliterate, that is their problem, not mine. They need to find their own legitimate authorities.

So if they appeal to their legitimate authorities, and you appeal to your legitimate authorities, whose argument is strongest?

Neither's.

The argument with the facts is the strongest, independent of the "legitimacy" of any authority.

You're still wrong.

Exile · 04-01-2016, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackdale

China raises solar installation target for 2015 | Reuters

From the cited Reuters article:

The country aims to raise the share of non-fossil fuels to 15 percent of its total energy mix by 2020 from around 11 percent at end-2014 as part of efforts to ease its dependence on coal and meet its climate pledges to the United Nations.

Given how quickly they are building coal plants, meeting their "climate pledges to the United Nations" is going to take an awful lot more solar panels.

Sounds like unchallengable state propaganda to me.