Natural gas plants having trouble competing with solar?

[J.P.M.]

So what happens when you put 1000 scientist in a room, give them a data set. and ask then to come to a consensus conclusion? Well they come up with a conclusion based on the data they received.

Now you reveal to them the data is cherry picked, and there is only one source for the data, the goberment.

I suppose that's one way to view the situation.

An example of lemming behavior a bit closer to home might be how most of the folks who swallowed the Sunpower "most efficient" H.S. still tout it to mask the folly of their ignorance, save their ego and deny otherwise even in the face of numbers like those from PVOutput and others that indicate systems using other equipment can perform about as well within some margin for a lot less initial outlay. P.T. Barnum was right.

[Sunking]

P.T. Barnum was right.

Yes he was, but today more than 1 every second. We were better educated and higher morale standards back then.

[Ian S]

We were better educated and higher morale standards back then.

I'm reminded of that infamous Human Resources announcement:

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[DanKegel]

society and most of the people in it, including the most respected, educated and cosmopolitan can be manipulated and swayed until some point of view or opinion takes on a life of its own. At that point, the flanges can come off the wheels of the driving engine of science but the driving force of the manipulated opinion is still turning the wheels.

IMO, that may well be some of what is happening with the idea of climate change today...

The public is being manipulated. The clutter of the junk science is clouding the issue and making progress slower and more difficult. Those who spout the junk science without knowing what they are puking out are part of the problem.

I see. So in your opinion, 97% of climate scientists have been fooled, and you're smarter than all of them?

[Engineer]

So what happens when you put 1000 scientist in a room, give them a data set. and ask then to come to a consensus conclusion? Well they come up with a conclusion based on the data they received.

That is a amazingly simple minded statement not remotely based on reality. What makes you the expert on how scientists think and work? All I see are wrong ideas and bad characterizations.

[SunEagle]

That is a amazingly simple minded statement not remotely based on reality. What makes you the expert on how scientists think and work? All I see are wrong ideas and bad characterizations.

While I do not totally agree with Sunking's analogy I have witnessed a group of very smart people that were fooled by data that was manually modified to lean to a specific answer. Some of them saw through the ruse but most were convinced the data was accurate.

While not a psychiatrist I do understand that it does not take much to sway a large group of people to an idea if their fears are played on. It seems fear clouds people's judgement and allows them to make poor decisions based very little factual data.

[Engineer]

While I do not totally agree with Sunking's analogy I have witnessed a group of very smart people that were fooled by data that was manually modified to lean to a specific answer. Some of them saw through the ruse but most were convinced the data was accurate.

While not a psychiatrist I do understand that it does not take much to sway a large group of people to an idea if their fears are played on. It seems fear clouds people's judgement and allows them to make poor decisions based very little factual data.

No disagreements here. James Randi demonstrated that scientists can be as gullible when you're trying to fool them, but this is different.

When (good) scientists get data they're highly skeptical and do as much analysis on it as they can (statistical and otherwise) to try and find bias and skew, and even if not found they usually are still distrustful, knowing as they do how easy it is to be wrong. But suppose everything checks and they draw a conclusion. So? What's that supposed to prove? Data is somehow manipulated so well <by some evil conspiracy> to be able to fool a large group of scientists, who are betting their professional reputation on what they say - yes of course that can happen. But it's extremely unlikely and requires a lot of things done just right.

[SunEagle]

No disagreements here. James Randi demonstrated that scientists can be as gullible when you're trying to fool them, but this is different.

When (good) scientists get data they're highly skeptical and do as much analysis on it as they can (statistical and otherwise) to try and find bias and skew, and even if not found they usually are still distrustful, knowing as they do how easy it is to be wrong. But suppose everything checks and they draw a conclusion. So? What's that supposed to prove? Data is somehow manipulated so well <by some evil conspiracy> to be able to fool a large group of scientists, who are betting their professional reputation on what they say - yes of course that can happen. But it's extremely unlikely and requires a lot of things done just right.

Well DanKegel and I have had a number of back and forth "discussions" concerning climate change and such. But in short, while I am not a scientist I have read and researched a number of the "data" reports along with a number of reports that conflict with said climate change data. There is also a few instances where people have made claims that they did purposely falsify the data to make it look worse then it was.

So with me being a skeptic and while believing the climate is changing I also feel that a lot of the data is being presented to line peoples pockets with money and create a lot of fear in the public. I tend to not totally believe that humans are a "major contributor" to the reason for the climate changing. But I won't go on, I just felt you should at least see where I stand on the issue.

[Engineer]

No problem, I knew your view from other discussions I glanced at. It's the same as my best friend who I've had many discussions with on this. He too believes the data was manipulated and I think he still believes it's not human derived. He's also a PhD world expert in his field and extremely religious, and has all sorts of ideas not remotely based on reality. Humans, go figure.

[SunEagle]

Yes, humans are a funny bunch of people to figure out

[J.P.M.]

I see. So in your opinion, 97% of climate scientists have been fooled, and you're smarter than all of them?

I take you at your word as to what you see. However, my guess is you don't see much except what you want to see and usually or often only in ways that fit your world view. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop with the trap/rhetorical questions. Ask open ended question. The information exchange goes better.

But, since you ask: 1.) IMO, Hard to quantify, easier to qualify: I'd not have a hard time believing that those recognized by their peers in their field as serious and respected can get fooled like anyone else a good portion of the time. Crowd mentality has something to do with it as well. 2.) I'm no more or less intelligent than most anyone, and more ignorant about a lot of stuff than some others, just like those who you refer to as climate scientists.

[DanKegel]

OK, maybe that overstated it... but you do consider your judgement more accurate / correct than that of 97% of climate scientists, which is rather a stunning rejection of science and/or embrace of conspiracy theories.

Have you considered that perhaps it's not the scientists who are being fooled by inaccurate input?

In any case, now that you've stated your position more clearly, your frequent objections to my posts are more understandable; you don't like any post that implies that the current scientific consensus about climate change might be right, or that we should do anything about it.

[J.P.M.]

OK, maybe that overstated it... but you do consider your judgement more accurate / correct than that of 97% of climate scientists, which is rather a stunning rejection of science and/or embrace of conspiracy theories.

Have you considered that perhaps it's not the scientists who are being fooled by inaccurate input?

In any case, now that you've stated your position more clearly, your frequent objections to my posts are more understandable; you don't like any post that implies that the current scientific consensus about climate change might be right, or that we should do anything about it.

Yes. We can all be fooled by inaccurate input. You too.

I just believe there may also be truth in things that don't fit my current world view. And, I certainly don't believe something simply because it's popular at the moment. Being skeptical seems safer to me.

Wrong again on what I like Dan. Please stop trying to explain my opinions to me and everyone else. Consider that things and opinions are often not as simple as you seem to want to make them. Unlike how you seem to see it a good part of the time - as I see your thinking anyway - I see the world and what happens in it is as more than a dichotomous right/wrong set of choices. Sometimes I agree with what you write. More often, I see your stuff as ignorant and simplistic repetition of stuff that supports your opinions while at the same time showing your lack the experience and training to understand what you wrote with respect to whether or not it makes sense in the context you use it. Maybe it's a case of wishful thinking on your part. Maybe it's ego. Maybe it's some other things, or a mix. I neither know nor care what the causes may be.

In any case, I've no beef with you expressing opinions, at least in principle. I just honestly, and without rancor, believe a lot of yours are faulty and expressing them does more harm than good. My main focus on calling B.S. on your stuff when I believe I see it is not to make you feel bad - that's not productive - but rather to flag others equally as ignorant as you that there is an alternate opinion, and point out what may be errors in your logic, or where I disagree with your opinions, probably because of how you arrived at them.

I expect to be called/challenged when others disagree with me and/or when I screw up. That doesn't say anything who's right/wrong or something else.

Your stuff, to me anyway, seems to be part of a rather transparent agenda that's a result of not listening enough and perhaps not thinking enough about all sides of an issue combined with not a lot of, or at least not enough technical background to understanding what you write about.

I have no intention of changing your mind. That's the errand of a fool. Just calling B.S. when I think I see it with the hope of improving the level of discourse.

[DanKegel]

Your stuff, to me anyway, seems to be part of a rather transparent agenda

What do you see as my agenda?

[Sunking]

What do you see as my agenda?

Now that is some funny stuff, I don't care who you are.

I bet you got beat up a lot in school, and rightfully so.

[J.P.M.]

What do you see as my agenda?

What do you care what I see ? Of more interest to me is what you see as your agenda. One difference I see between you/me is that I do not presume to know or define what people's opinions, including yours, might be, as you often and IMO only rudely do to me and others. In some cases, I play the probabilities when something appears a blinding flash of the obvious as now and with where you're coming from. Otherwise, if I want to know, I ask. That seems respectful and also more informative - to me anyway. I've also found I learn more by asking than by drawing conclusions based on my observations. I also learn more that way. In any case, your way of seeing the world is yours alone and not mine to interpret. Explaining your manifesto may help me understand where you may be coming from and help me understand your thinking.

[DanKegel]

Of more interest to me is what you see as your agenda.... Explaining your manifesto may help me understand where you may be coming from and help me understand your thinking.

I think it's something like
"if you want accurate predictions about the natural world, the scientific method works better than anything else we've got"
"government is useful for solving very large problems that otherwise would remain unsolved"
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."