Heat pump latest government offers

[SteamyTea]

19 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

So it's OK to present fallacious argument ? 

If you have an arguement in science, you have to be able to falsify it.

It is not science otherwise.

Look up the work if Karl Popper.

[ToughButterCup]

Ok, briefly as I can.

Examining any reasoning for Logical Fallacy is  important because any  Fallacy contained in that reasoning undermines the validity of any arguement, scientific or otherwise. 

 

[SimonD]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

That is because the liberal arts who run publishing and media insist 'on a narrative'.

It has made the whole presentation messy and complicated.  As I said earlier, most science uses pre-GCSE levels.

 

Ah okay, so it's a left liberal conspiracy to make science more messy and complicated than it is and we obviously don't need education above GCSE level for scientific enquiry. Got it.

 

[SteamyTea]

21 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

Ah okay, so it's a left liberal conspiracy to make science more messy and complicated than it is and we obviously don't need education above GCSE level for scientific enquiry. Got it.

 

To a certain extent yes.

Enquiry starts very young.

But no conspiracy, there is enough ignorance to not need to look for anything else.

[ToughButterCup]

24 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

... there is enough ignorance to not need to look for anything else.

 

How I agree!  Ignorance is the most compelling reason to avoid Fallacy in  presentating  a point of view.

And when Fallacy becomes endemic,  invent Alternative Facts. Easy! 

[SimonD]

5 hours ago, SimonD said:

Yup, a vast number of people really don't want to look at an equation as it usually means they also need to know what the components parts are of that equation - pandora's box.

 

4 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Also, mathematics is not science.  It is just the language used.  So claiming that equations puts people off,

 

3 hours ago, Marvin said:

Its a mathematics thing!  You don't learn it you can't use it!

 

The two most important subjects to be learnt to a good level: Communication and mathematics. And the other one I recommend is Yard Sticks - the ability to stand back and view the probable outcome. 

 

So just to build on this comment of mine a little further. I've just started reading a new book by Tom Murphy,  Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet Assessing and Adapting to Planetary Limits and what do I find, but a better illustration of what I said re knowing about the component parts:

 

"Problems in this book are formulated to emphasize understanding the underlying concepts, rather than execution of a mathematical recipe. When students say they have math difficulties, it is usually not a problem carrying out the operations (+,−,×,÷), but in formulating an approach. Therefore, the main difficulty is a conceptual one, but blamed on math because casting a problem in a mathematical framework forces a mastery of the conceptual underpinning: nowhere to hide. Given two numbers,should one divide or multiply them to get the answer sought? Resolving such questions requires a deeper understanding of the meaning behind the numbers in the problem (and associated units, often). By focusing on what the numbers represent and how they relate to each other, problems aim to build a more meaningful and permanent understanding of the content."

[SimonD]

2 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

there is enough ignorance to not need to look for anything else.

 

You've lost me here. Who's ignorant of what exactly?

[SteamyTea]

20 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

You've lost me here. Who's ignorant of what exactly?

Just a rewrite of Hanlon's Razor.

 

Also worth remembering Hitchen's Razor.

Edited November 22, 2021 by SteamyTea

[saveasteading]

11 hours ago, Dave Jones said:

it was beyond my understanding.

Restoring the context:  arguing that climate change is a conspiracy and/or does not exist, is beyond my understanding.

Ok other than anarchy. So I am interested to hear any reasons.

 

I remember an ex friend about 15 years ago, arguing very loudly that he defied  anyone who could see the snow falling currently outside, to still say there is such a thing as global warming.

And a lot of stuff about "those expletive Scientists" making money out of it.
Of course I did say it, but the difference between today's weather and climate change was beyond him. It was an eyeopener about the hopelessness of arguing with some people.

Mostly because  'The Sun' was his source of information. Now he shouts about the dangers of climate change so presumably The Sun now accepts it. I don't recall any interim stage.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

And a lot of stuff about "those expletive Scientists" making money out of it.

I wish.

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

Just a rewrite of Hanlon's Razor.

 

Also worth remembering Hitchen's Razor.

 

Okay, so what you said about there being enough ignorance so you don't need to look for anything else was stupid and not based on any evidence?

Edited November 22, 2021 by SimonD

[SteamyTea]

17 minutes ago, SimonD said:

 

Okay, so what you said about there being enough ignorance so you don't need to look for anything else was stupid and not based on any evidence?

If you want. Or do the usual strawman method and go looking for evidence to support a wrong hypothesis.

 

One of the usual methods to catch a scientist out is to take their arguement and use it out if context. 

Another is to ask an irrelevant question and scoff at the answer.

 

One if the first things I used tell my students to do was 'answer the question'. Not answer the question you wish you were asked. I can thank Robert McNamara for that.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by SteamyTea

[Dave Jones]

The problem with the whole climate change debate is credibility. With woke/cancel culture being so prevalent especially in academia there is little trust in the institutions as reliable or balanced. 

 

Maybe there is such a thing as climate change and maybe the cause of it is mankind. Then again maybe it isnt.

 

Seen no irrefutable proof one way or the other and certainly no reason to hit the panic button.

 

 

[SteamyTea]

Just now, Dave Jones said:

Seen no irrefutable proof one way or the other and certainly no reason to hit the panic button

So tell us all which accedemic papers you have read, then we can send you some you haven't.

Failing that, which Climate Scientists do you follow?

[joe90]

4 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

certainly no reason to hit the panic button.

But if we don’t, and the majority of scientists are correct, we’re buggered.

[Dave Jones]

Just now, joe90 said:

But if we don’t, and the majority of scientists are correct, we’re buggered.

 

yes and if my auntie had balls she'd by my uncle.

 

define buggered.

[SimonD]

6 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

One if the first things I used tell my students to do was 'answer the question'. Not answer the question you wish you were asked.

 

So why don't you answer the question? It's actually a genuine question because your statement was so general and vague, I really don't know who or what you're talking about. I have to say I'm also genuinely bemused by someone calling themselves a scientist saying that there's no need to look for anything else - the whole point about science is to continually revisit your findings and/or assumptions, it is not?

 

 

[joe90]

19 minutes ago, Dave Jones said:

yes and if my auntie had balls she'd by my uncle

No, she would be a trans!

 

• More frequent and severe weather. Higher temperatures are worsening many types of disasters, including storms, heat waves, floods, and droughts. ... 
• Higher death rates. ... 
• Dirtier air. ... 
• Higher wildlife extinction rates. ... 
• More acidic oceans. ... 
• Higher sea levels.

[SteamyTea]

35 minutes ago, SimonD said:

So why don't you answer the question

Because it was a flippant statement to highlight the problems scientists have.

35 minutes ago, SimonD said:

I'm also genuinely bemused by someone calling themselves a scientist saying that there's no need to look for anything else - the whole point about science is to continually revisit your findings and/or assumptions, it is not?

All depends. There is a lot if repetition, and revisiting old ideas.

One of the main things with science is to have a mechanism as to why one thing leads to another. 

So to keep in topic (a bit), there are reasons why CO2, amongst other gasses, causes temperatures to rise (it is to do with the non-polar nature of the molecule), the amount emitted each year, the earth's inability to absorb all this excess, and feedback mechanisms i.e. less polar ice, so more radiation absorbed by oceans.

So hopefully you can see it is not a simple correlation, but a real, in-depth, look into what us happening.

 

The main thing about climate change isn't the science, that had been known for decades, it is trying to convince people that just want to disbelieve in the causes and effects, for what ever reason, and just saying, without supplying any evidence, except imaginary evidence, that science is wrong. 

Now if you want get into topics that like that sort if thing, join a sociologist website, they are brilliant about not agreeing on anything.

 

Or just watch the Feynman interview.

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by SteamyTea

[Marvin]

A nice little storey on cause and effect (or is it the other way round?) is Joseph Conrad's short story Typhoon....

 

 

 

 

[SteamyTea]

7 hours ago, Marvin said:

Joseph Conrad's short story Typhoon

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1142/1142-h/1142-h.htm

[Marvin]

12 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

The main thing about climate change isn't the science, that had been known for decades

Remember reading 40 years ago in Mad (the one with Alfred E Neuman) about changes to come: People in the future having to wear head covers on the beach and put gallons of sun cream on to protect them from the sun. Who's laughing now? 

 

Back on topic... I think that the calculations for heat pumps will be superseded by calculations for cooling pumps as we go forward. Even with limited glazing in our house (no south facing) the peak solar gain almost equals the peak demand for heating!

 

Never did like being cold...

   

 

 

 

 

[joe90]

41 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Even with limited glazing in our house (no south facing) the peak solar gain almost equals the peak demand for heating!

I have a large south facing conservatory and nearly everyone here said it would overheat, well yes, it did get a bit hot mid summer but loads of doors and windows to open, however, in these shoulder months it heats the whole house enough that the heating has not come on for the last 10 months?‍♂️, with Covid I have been unable to go on holiday to Italy but now get the same temperature here!!. Regarding heat pumps, those of us that have them can also use them fir cooling, using PV (IF and when I get  round to fitting it).

[Marvin]

2 hours ago, joe90 said:

with Covid I have been unable to go on holiday to Italy but now get the same temperature here!!.

Don't know whether to laugh or cry!

[joe90]

13 minutes ago, Marvin said:

Don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Well, saved me a lot of money ?‍♂️