You might take your own advice with your future delusions John.

https://jfsdigital.org/2020/07/18/future_fallacies/

And let's hope Australia doesn't become more bushfire prone as wind turbines are great at starting fires.

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/09/06/green-pyromania-wind-turbine-fireballs-keep-setting-the-world-on-fire/

At least Twiggy is moving away from Hydrogen to high CO2 natural gas. I think he will be a born again nuker before long, especially if the laws change and he sees a buck in it. I hope so as it will be nice to see some koalas escape a clubbing. Not so hot for platypus either I believe.

https://stopthesethings.com/2024/09/05/idiotic-no-nukes-policy-leaves-germans-scrambling-for-reliable-power/

Fester,

Was that last reply meant to be ironic? I mean, you falsely accuse me of a future fallacy, and then go right on ahead and commit one yourself! Specifically, the ‘linear projection fallacy’.

It doesn’t get any funnier than that.

I don't commit a future fallacy when I mention the improvements to renewables because I consider the broader picture of renewable energy development, which includes ongoing advancements, policy shifts, and technological innovations. You, on the other hand, cherry-pick isolated negative incidents to make them look as though they are representative of the future we face - hence your fallacy.

Whoops!

Still banging on about the koalas, I see; even though I’ve addressed that furphy of yours several times now. Now the poor platypuses are being dragged into it.

John,

You address nothing. You never do. The destruction is very much in the present, but I hope that growing public awareness of the current idiocy and environmental destruction curtails more of the same in the future, so I'd guess that to be my future fallacy as you perceive it.

No future fallacy in thinking a nuclear grid possible, but I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.

Fester,

I address everything you say; I did so in my previous reply by pointing to your ironic fallacy. So, I don’t know where you get off claiming that I never address anything.

In any large-scale energy transition, there are bound to be occasional setbacks or challenges, but they don’t define the future of renewables; nor even the present, given how rare they are.

What they represent are learning opportunities for improving infrastructure, technology, and policy. Cherry-picking these examples ignores the substantial advancements in wind, solar, and other renewable technologies that have been made in terms of efficiency, cost reduction, and scalability.

//No future fallacy in thinking a nuclear grid possible …//

So, now you’re going to commit a shifting-of-the-goalposts fallacy?

You didn’t say a nuclear grid was possible in your last comment. You pointed to isolated incidents as though that was a taste of what a world powered by renewables could expect. Again, hence the future fallacy.

//… but I think a wind and solar powered grid to be so improbable as to be more a fantasy than a fallacy.//

No one’s suggesting a grid consisting only of wind and solar.

Dear John,

«we can’t reject knowledge or technology based purely on their origins if those things can be used for good.»

Well many people reject nuclear energy despite the fact that it can be used for good.
It is also quite possible for people to reject the knowledge itself (though fictional, I recommended the example in the book "A Canticle for Leibowitz").

«The idea of global cooling in the 1970s was never more than a speculative hypothesis from a small handful of scientists based on very limited data.»

And global warming wasn't?

«Indeed. But you’re concerned about the ethics surrounding this issue and have even formed an opinion, so it’s not ridiculous to expect that you learn a thing or two about it.»
+
«You're creating an artificial divide between climate science and 'climate change' as a political matter.»

This issue is political, while you were speaking of studying science.

This discussion has a context: we were not speaking of some hypothetical person with a pure intellectual thirst to learn about climate and its behaviour: of course nothing stops such a person from researching and studying whatever they like.

«Climate change is a scientific question rooted in decades of research»

The study of climate and its behaviour may be, but not "climate change", which is a political phenomenon.

«Yes, the implications of it lead to political decisions, but that doesn’t make the science behind it political.»

It was not that scientists happened to discover something then told the politicians "look what we found", but a top-down instruction by politicians to scientists: "find me this".

The implications of politicians obtaining the ammunition they want, the pretexts to hit us with more laws, restrictions and compulsory technology and to sew panic and guilt among the younger generations (then portraying themselves as "saviours"), are much worse than the planet warming by that many degrees or the oceans rising by that many meters.

«Ignoring the science because of its social or political implications is not a neutral stance - it’s an active choice to disregard facts.»

It's an active choice to disregard propaganda.

Yuyutsu,

In your efforts to double-down now, it appears you’ve finally decided to ditch ‘enlightened’, ‘philosophical,’ and ‘moralistic’ Yuyutsu and show us the real you. It’s refreshing. I was waiting for that.

//Well many people reject nuclear energy despite the fact that it can be used for good.//

Yes, they do. But they’re not rejecting it because its origins are morally repugnant. Nor would it make it okay for the rest of us to do the same even if they were. This is just a tu quoque fallacy.

//And global warming wasn't?//

No, global warming was still the consensus and was still backed by a wealth of data.

//This discussion has a context: we were not speaking of some hypothetical person with a pure intellectual thirst to learn about climate and its behaviour …///

I know. We were talking about you. Which is why I said:

“Indeed. But you’re concerned about the ethics surrounding this issue and have even formed an opinion, so it’s not ridiculous to expect that you learn a thing or two about it.”

//The study of climate and its behaviour may be, but not "climate change", which is a political phenomenon.//

No, it’s a natural phenomenon with political implications.

//It was not that scientists happened to discover something then told the politicians "look what we found", but a top-down instruction by politicians to scientists: "find me this".//

Even in the 1800s? Where’s your evidence for this doubling-down of yours? All you have does is appeal to more baseless conspiracy theories.

//It's an active choice to disregard propaganda.//

You haven’t shown that it’s propaganda. Appealing to baseless conspiracy theories isn’t evidence of anything.