Climate Change in Australia (Part 1)

Affirming a disjunct

Affirming a disjunct is a fallacy when in the following form:

A is true or B is true.
B is true.
Therefore, A is not true.*

The conclusion does not follow from the premise as it could be the case that A and B are both true. This fallacy stems from the stated definition of or in propositional logic to be inclusive.

An example of affirming a disjunct would be:

I am at home or I am in the city.
I am at home.
Therefore, I am not in the city.

While the conclusion may be true, it does not follow from the premise. For all the reader knows, the declarant of the statement very well could be in both the city and their home, in which case the premises would be true but the conclusion false. This argument is still a fallacy even if the conclusion is true.

*Note that this is only a logical fallacy when the word “or” is in its inclusive form. If the two possibilities in question are mutually exclusive, this is not a logical fallacy. For example,

I am either at home or I am in the city.
I am at home.
Therefore, I am not in the city.

When you’re diagnosed with cancer, you don’t demand the doctors waste their time calculating a completely 100% reliable prediction of exactly how fast it’s going to spread and where it’s going to metatatise to before you start getting treatment.

When you’re in a war, you don’t demand your intelligence services give you a completely accurate accounting of exactly where every enemy soldier is and how many bullets they’re carrying before you start fighting back.

The basica shape of the problem is clear. Time to get serious about addressing it.

And I suspect that for a lot of the people opposing action on AGW, no amount of ‘understanding the problem’ would be enough.

7 Likes

I know, I know, I shouldn’t but…
You’ve shown us that nothing is irrefutable.
People take the time to treat you like more than an idiot by giving you pages and pages of studies with friendly graphs and you just go, ‘nuh.’
We’ve seen that gravity is not irrefutable.
We’ve seen that ‘the earth is a globe’ is not irrefutable.
But okay, say you’ve seen this mythical irrefutable evidence that even you can’t go ‘nuh’ to anymore… That’s when you’ll provide your argument? When there’s no more argument to be had?

That’s ■■■■■■■ mental.

3 Likes

It’s actually quite logical. What so you think these people are employed to just do what they want? Can you imagine a scientist being employed by the clean energy council working towards trying to show the humans are NOT causing climate change? Let’s see how long they would last in that job.

“This unprecedented level of peer and government review makes this compendium of climate change science one of the most scrutinised documents in the history of science.”

http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/understanding-climate-change/finding-reliable-information

Australia must put a price on carbon, say institutional investors

Move needed to drive orderly transition to low-emissions power sources, Investor Group on Climate Change says

The Turnbull government needs to put a price on carbon to unlock new investment in the electricity sector and drive an orderly transition to low-emissions power sources, according to the Investor Group on Climate Change.

The group, which represents major institutional investors in Australia and New Zealand, has used its submission to the Finkel review to argue that the government’s oft-repeated concerns about network reliability, energy affordability and emissions reductions will be addressed if concrete steps are taken to unlock new investment.

The investor group has joined a host of other organisations in arguing that the government needs to put a price on carbon and adopt a technology-neutral approach in planning new energy infrastructure to ensure the grid is up to the task of supplying reliable base load power and producing emissions reductions consistent with Australia’s Paris commitments.

It warns that policy and regulatory uncertainty is now the key barrier to investment in Australia’s electricity sector “across all energy sources and technology types”.

The advocacy comes as the Climate Council will on Wednesday release a new report arguing that the heat Australia experienced this past summer demonstrated the energy grid was unable to cope with escalating extreme weather.

“Climate change is worsening the impacts from heatwaves and hot weather and is putting a strain on critical infrastructure,” the new report says.

“This summer alone has shown the vulnerability of the electricity grid to heatwaves, with power outages during peak times in South Australia during a severe February heatwave, while New South Wales narrowly avoided widespread outages several days later.”

The report notes that in just 90 days, more than 205 records were broken around Australia this summer, with the state-wide mean temperature the hottest for NSW since records began, with temperatures 2.57C above average, and Brisbane and Canberra recording their hottest summers on record.

The report argues that the only viable approach to slowing and eventually halting the increasing trend of heat-related extreme weather is to “rapidly increase the uptake of renewable energy and to phase out all forms of coal-fired power plants, as well as phasing out other fossil fuels”.

On Tuesday the National Farmers’ Federation reversed its once vociferous opposition to carbon pricing, using its submission to the Finkel review to call for a market-based mechanism to secure clean and affordable energy.

The NFF’s stance mirrors calls for consideration of a market mechanism from Energy Networks Australia, the retailer EnergyAustralia, the electricity provider AGL, the Climate Change Authority, the Business Council of Australia and the CSIRO.

The renewed activism around carbon pricing or a market mechanism to reduce pollution and drive efficient investment decisions in the national electricity market stands at odds with the Turnbull government’s decision to rule out such measures last December.

The energy and environment minister, Josh Frydenberg, initially signalled the government would look at the desirability of an emissions intensity trading scheme for the electricity sector as part of its scheduled review of its Direct Action climate policy – but he reversed his position after key government conservatives voiced their objections.

The man conducting the energy review, the chief scientist, Alan Finkel, gave implicit support for an emissions intensity scheme in his preliminary report, saying it would integrate best “with the electricity market’s pricing and risk management framework” and “had the lowest economic costs and the lowest impact on electricity prices”.

The Clean Energy Finance Corporation has also used its submission to the Finkel review to argue Australia needs “a stable bankable policy framework … to promote investor confidence and capital availability and reduce risk”.

The CEFC has floated a range of potential policy options to drive the decarbonisation of the electricity sector, “including pricing mechanisms such as carbon pricing or an emissions intensity target; ‘technology-pull’ policies such as a renewable energy target, a low-emissions target, or reverse auctions with contracts for difference; or regulatory interventions such as regulated closures or absolute baselines”.

It has also repeated previous arguments that new investment in coal-fired capacity would be unlikely to be financed by Australian or international capital markets because of the risk of stranded assets.

“Further, there is arguably no longer a social licence for new coal-fired power stations in Australia,” the submission says.

The CEFC notes there are now several proposals in the market for new gas-fired generators in Australia but it says proponents are finding it “challenging” to find long-term domestic gas supply agreements to support new investment.

Senior executives from AGL Energy told a Senate committee on Tuesday the main issue causing problems with reliable energy supply in South Australia was “dysfunction” in the gas market – not too many windfarms making the grid unreliable.

Richard Wrightson, AGL’s general manager of wholesale markets, told Tuesday’s hearing the problem was so dire the company was contemplating building its own LNG hub in Queensland to help secure reliable supply downstream.

I wish I’d studied harder so I could have spent my whole life lying and corrupting evidence to further a myth.
What a rewarding existence that would be. I can see why it’s so attractive.
Particularly when my skills would be completely non-transferable to a field that I was less passionate about ■■■■■■■ with…oh, wait…they totally wouldn’t be.

Cool theory, bro.

Dude, i think you missed the last 40 years of scientific research on the issue.

PILES of scientists had legit doubts about agw - back in 1980. So they did what scientists do and investigated the issue further, they made measurements and calculations, performed experiments, and wrote computer models & measured them against reality. And the result of all that is that agw is one of the most thoroughly tested scientific theories of the past century and the reason reputable scientists don’t bother trying to refute it is because they know that work was done decades ago and that doing it again would be like trying to disprove electricity.

1 Like

Fine then - lets abolish all the government sponsored climate change quangoes. That should save us a few billion dollars a year at the stroke of a pen.

I am curious though - with all these supposedly tested scientific theories. Has anyone ever tested it from a devils advocate perspective?
It seems to me that they start with a premise that climate change is super scary and then try and find evidence to support this premise. Its generally called confirmation bias.

This is completely irrelevant, Melbourne had a cool summer with no days over 40

That there, shows a person with a total lack of understanding of the scientific method. Literally zero climatologists, meteorologists and so on would ignore temperature fluctuations.

Another dismal article. Basically an organisation trying to push it’s own barrow so that it can make some money.

The IGCC aims to encourage government policies and investment practices that address the risks and opportunities of climate change, for the ultimate benefit of superannuants and unit holders.

Very impartial. Not.

Except these days they spend their time researching the impacts of climate change, which areas/ecosystems/crops/populations are most vulnerable and what can be done about it, what tropical diseases will spread south as the climate warms, modelling vulnerabilities to drought/storm/heatwave in various areas under various warming scenarios, etc, etc. They’re about how best to deal with an established reality, not about frantically trying to prove the moon is made of green cheese decades after Apollo 11.

Um, yes. Duh. Extensively, for many, many years. As I said, you’re decades behind here, all this devils advocate stuff was done in the 70s and 80s. Even the fossil fuel companies hired scientists to do it - and those companies were VERY motivated to disprove the whole shebang, but they didn’t manage it. There’s plenty of Enron’s leaked docs talking about this stuff. They hired scientists to try to disprove AGW, the scientists said ‘um, well, sorry, but it’s real after all’.

2 Likes

You clearly have understood everything I have said. Not.

Devil’s advocate in science is the best thing I’ve heard yet.

“What if we test it to not work…?”

Isn’t that what P values are for?

1 Like

Of course you do testing to try and disprove or break an existing/new theory or application.
Its basic testing 101.

Its science 101

1 Like

Then please enlighten me.

You said ‘if we know AGW is real why not abolish research on it’ and I said ‘cos these days we’re researching its impact, not its reality’

Then you said ‘has this been tested from a devils advocate perspective’ and I said ‘yes’.

What more do you want?

Here I was thinking that science method was simple and rational, but Mr Wolf has shown me that I am wrong.

So instead of coming up with a theory to explain some phenomena, and then testing the theory with practical experimentation and reporting on the results with a conclusion, it seems that scientists only use “evidence” that proves the theory, and disregard anything that may get the way.

The earth is flat then.

1 Like