Heat pump latest government offers

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, IanR said:

But there wasn't overwhelming evidence the atom did not exist.

 

 

Your comment only has relevance in another context.

 

I was responding to @SteamyTea's assertion that he feels entitled to attack any opinion and it originator if the opinion has not been proven by the scientific method. If a growing number of humans adopt his principal the world will descend into a very dark place.

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, SteamyTea said:

You see what you are doing here is using something that is now accepted, but ignoring all the other ideas, some may have been better.

 

 

Who decides which emerging nascent ideas should be attacked or censored and which deserve further exploration?

 

Real scientists understand that attempting such control of human inquiry is a hopeless and dangerous pursuit hence real scientists understand that scientific progress occurs when a minority dispute a consensus and propose a new idea.

 

For that core scientific process to flourish, real scientists appreciate that an environment governed by the principal of "freedom of inquiry" is needed.

 

Your daily posts here repeatedly demonstrate you are vehemently opposed to these two founding principals of science.

[IanR]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I was responding to @SteamyTea's assertion that he feels entitled to attack any opinion and it originator if the opinion has not been proven by the scientific method. If a growing number of humans adopt his principal the world will descend into a very dark place.

 

And you offered "philosophers of ancient Greece for theorizing about the existence of the atom" as an equivalent to disputing Climate Change, which of course it is not, since the ancient Greek philosophers were not disputing overwhelming evidence against the atom's existence. 

[saveasteading]

Believers: Do remember on your self-build to put in bigger gutters,  drains and soakaways, as now necessary (and required by the Building Regulations) to deal with increased storm-water.

Non-believers, do as you please: doesn't affect me.

 

It is interesting to note that the rainfall risk applies much more to England and Southern Scotland, than northern lands. I only recently noted that Inverness has the same rainfall as Tunbridge Wells, but spread over more days, and thence without the flash floods that have recently stricken TW.

 

[saveasteading]

This is worth a read. I will start now, but  suspect the deniers will be too busy to do the same.https://opr.ca.gov/facts/common-denier-arguments.html

 

here is the first extract I clicked on 

“Scientists are out for personal gain, publishing alarmist studies to capture research grants.”

There is no evidence to support this argument. Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid, nor are those who participate in panels for the National Academy of Sciences. Career advancement in the sciences is not based on holding popular views, but on publishing original research. By contrast, many deniers have received funding from entities with a financial stake in fossil fuel-based energy system.

 

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, saveasteading said:

This is worth a read. I will start now, but  suspect the deniers will be too busy to do the same.https://opr.ca.gov/facts/common-denier-arguments.html

 

here is the first extract I clicked on 

“Scientists are out for personal gain, publishing alarmist studies to capture research grants.”

There is no evidence to support this argument. Scientists who participate in the IPCC climate assessments are not paid, nor are those who participate in panels for the National Academy of Sciences. Career advancement in the sciences is not based on holding popular views, but on publishing original research. By contrast, many deniers have received funding from entities with a financial stake in fossil fuel-based energy system.

 

 

There are multiple problems with this statement which yields it to be highly dubious and almost as bad as the misinformation it's trying to dispel. It doesn't actually reflect the herding mentality that still exists within science. From a study from 2014 from London School of Economics blog to illustrate:

 

" there are concerns that many  published research findings may be incorrect. The true extent of this problem is difficult to know with certainty, but pressure on academics to publish (the “publish or perish” culture) may incentivise the publication of novel, eye-catching findings. However, the very nature of these findings (in other words, that they are surprising or unexpected) means that they are more likely to be incorrect – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Peer review has been criticised because it sometimes fails by allowing such claims to be published, often when it is clear to many scientists that the claims are extremely unlikely to be true. Is peer review as unsuccessful as is sometimes claimed? And how might it be improved? We explored this question recently in a mathematical model of reviewer and author behaviour...

 

When a paper is published, the manuscript begins to partially influence the conclusions that later scientists reach. As a result, the amount of new information transmitted decreases.

 

In other words, authors begin to “herd” on a specific topic...."

 

If you've ever lived in that world, which is highly political and egostistical in many spheres, your papers can make or break your career and thus herding of mentality is many times a function of not just surviving but getting ahead - you've got to build on existing knowledge whether or not it's correct. Therefore the differentiation suggested by the above statement is pretty questionable as is the one about funding as all areas of research can be funded for a variety of reasons by parties who have a financial, or political interest in the outcome.

[SimonD]

7 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I was responding to @SteamyTea's assertion that he feels entitled to attack any opinion and it originator if the opinion has not been proven by the scientific method.

 

I think it is even worse as the scientific method and science as described by @SteamyTea is a simplistic and categorical one that doesn't include the complexities and uncertainty of exploring and developing new knowledge and understanding about our world, let alone communicating it. Unfortunately, despite his assertions otherwise, science is a best guess based on current knowledge and understanding, not a truth and certainly not cast in stone (if it were it would amount to religion). To quote an article from the Guardian about the science involved in the Hadron Collider a few years ago:

 

"Welcome to science in the real world: it is messy, inconclusive and subject to revision. As Lord May, former chief scientific adviser to the government once said, science is best represented as "organised scepticism" - and science's results and conclusions have to be included in that scepticism. Science is not the arbiter of truth. All it can do is offer opinions about the answers to certain questions that we ask of nature. And it reserves the right to revise those opinions in the light of future discoveries."

 

So for me this is a reminder to remain sceptical, even in light of the current consensus around anthropogenic climate change, and particularly in light of the suggested means to deal with it. I seem to be one of the few that seriously question current mainstream suggested approaches, thinking that the simplistic focus on carbon emissions is misguided. In my view we need to massively reduce energy and resource use, and regenerate the natural environment. Current focus doesn't actually do this, and in many cases might cause more harm to the environment.

 

Unfortunately what seems to be happening in this thread in particular, but also more generally in the climate debate, is that healthy and necessary scepticism is being misinterpreted and mislabelled as "denial." A term entirely of political and social origin.

 

You're dead right it doesn't embrace, or even permit for that matter, any validity of alternative forms of knowledge, which may actually be more valuable to us in enhancing science.

 

For example, in parallel to your comment about ancient Greek philosophers, I listened to a fascinating programme on Radio 4 this afternoon. I missed the beginning but basically some real, yes real, scientists had read some ancient medical remedy recipes from the Dark Ages and found one that is extremely effective at killing MRSA and other bacteria. It's now being tested for approval and use. They explained that during the Enlightenment, this knowledge had been dismissed as irrelevant, partly down to politics and economics. They said that we now really need to revisit this knowledge and seriously reassess our current view of it. The same thing is happening in various areas of scientific study into the environment, biology and ecology where they're finding ancient knowledge to be far more developed and effective in guiding real world action than knowledge derived from modern science. Obviously there needs to be an amalgamation of all these forms of knowledge, but it does mean that your prototypical western scientist does need to open his/her mind to this.

[ProDave]

3 hours ago, saveasteading said:

I only recently noted that Inverness has the same rainfall as Tunbridge Wells, but spread over more days, and thence without the flash floods that have recently stricken

I used to live in Oxfordshire, and one thing that has always stayed with me was the memory of it raining for days on end non stop and the relief after a few days when it stopped.  That never happens here.  24 hours of rain in one go is a lot.  It is much more likely that we just get showers.  So it might rain on more days here, but we don't get the depressing days on end of rain that we did down south.

 

(of course West coast Scotland is altogether different)

[SimonD]

3 minutes ago, ProDave said:

(of course West coast Scotland is altogether different)

 

My sister used to live in Dumfries & Galloway not far from Castle Douglas, my brother in law eventually got to counting the days with no rain. One year he said he could count it on his two hands (possibly a slight exageration there but I got his point) ?

[SteamyTea]

22 minutes ago, SimonD said:

think it is even worse as the scientific method and science as described by @SteamyTea is a simplistic and categorical one that doesn't include the complexities and uncertainty of exploring and developing new knowledge and understanding about our world

Ok  from now on I will assume this audience is scientifically illiterate.

Should be fun.

 

That Radio 4 program about copper pots and leeches is about 20 years too late. It is all old research. Was even taught to some undergraduate nursing students in the late 90s (where I heard about popping maggots in ears.

[saveasteading]

2 hours ago, SimonD said:

this is a reminder to remain sceptical

That is scientific method. Keep ruling out things that are not proven.

I thought your arguments were intended to be anti-science but it appears not.

 

Is anything ever proven? Do you really exist or is it all computer generated.

 

At some stage something is clearly proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

I don't understand gravity but I believe in it.

 

Likewise all reasonable evidence leads to man-made climate change.

The sociologist's can then take over and predict what the poor people in new deserts or flooded lands will do. I would predict famines, wars and mass migration.

 

Oh and an end to heat pump grants as first mentioned 12 pages ago,

Edited November 24, 2021 by saveasteading

[IanR]

Quote

Unfortunately what seems to be happening in this thread in particular, but also more generally in the climate debate, is that healthy and necessary scepticism is being misinterpreted and mislabelled as "denial." A term entirely of political and social origin.

 

You're dead right it doesn't embrace, or even permit for that matter, any validity of alternative forms of knowledge, which may actually be more valuable to us in enhancing science.

 

I must be reading a different thread. I'm only reading regurgitated, +10 year old disproved conspiracies about corrupt scientists working in cahoots with political leaders to deceive the world's population.

That's not new thinking, healthy scepticism or alternative forms of knowledge, that is denial.

 

Thankfully the debate between the grown ups has moved on to what can be done to limit the damage that climate change will do.

[SimonD]

10 hours ago, saveasteading said:

I thought your arguments were intended to be anti-science but it appears not.

 

No, my arguments were and are not intended to be anti-science at all. Never have been. They've been about how science is more messy, complex and revisionary than has been put forward, but also that mainstream science represents a limited perspective on knowledge about the world that needs modern revision and enhancement. In latter parts its also that the body of knowledge of science, just like society, has a tendency toward herd mentality with both current and historical problems of accuracy and correctness (you can look this up to confirm that it isn't a conspiracy theory).

 

9 hours ago, IanR said:

 

I must be reading a different thread. I'm only reading regurgitated, +10 year old disproved conspiracies about corrupt scientists working in cahoots with political leaders to deceive the world's population.

That's not new thinking, healthy scepticism or alternative forms of knowledge, that is denial.

 

Thankfully the debate between the grown ups has moved on to what can be done to limit the damage that climate change will do.

 

This really is an unfortunate example of how it is now almost impossible to have a balance and nuanced rational debate about such an important topic. It has been reduced down to a couple of dualistic boxes. If someone comes along that doesn't completely agree with the box you associate with, then that person must be alien and belong in the other box.

 

Just to reiterate, the point of my argument and others on this thread who've also been flamed and accused of denial (which is entirely untrue) is much more to with knowledge, or epistemology, which sadly seems to have gone over yours and others heads. The important part of this debate on knowledge is that there are other forms of knowledge that provide alternative guidance to action in the real world. Let me spell that out - it can tell us what to do about climate change in the real world, in possibly more effective ways than those approaches currently being proposed at a grand scale. Because, lets not forget, that while there is almost conclusive evidence that climate change has been brought about by human activity, there is almost no evidence whatsoever that the solutions proposed are going to have anywhere near the effect it is hoped. Nor is there any robust evidence that the proposals aren't going to cause more damage. There is actually growing modelling, evidence and opinion to the contrary. If you take the time to read some sensible scientific texts and studies about this very topic rather than interpretions in more popular media - one of them I may have linked to already by Tom Murphy, Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet -  you might find that there is significant amount of scientific thought put into the problem  but in ways that question the sanity and scientific basis of current proposed fixes. One of these goes straight back to the very start of the thread and heat pumps. Heat pumps are part of the solution but they are also a dangereous distraction as they take our eyes of much more important balls.

 

I'll sign off with a quote from the beginning of Tom Murphy's book (he's actually a 'proper' scientist too and professor of physics in case anyone wondered so there,'s no confusion) and then if you want to explore more and reflect on it, that's great; if not and you want to call me an inferior infant in the shadow of you, a proper grown up, then so be it :

"

Quote

 

We live in a physical world governed by physical law. Unlike the case for civil or criminal law, we are not even afforded the opportunity to break the laws of physics, except in fiction or entertainment. We do not need to create a physics police force or build physics jails or plead cases in front of some physics court. Nature provides perfect, automatic enforcement for free.

 

The domains of energy, the environment, economics, etc. are no exceptions, and can be put on a physical footing. It is worth exploring the emergent framework: reflecting on scale, efficiency, and thermodynamic limits of the human enterprise. By understanding the boundaries, we can begin to think about viable long-term plans in a way that too few are doing today. Thus far, heeding physical boundaries has not been necessary for the most part, as the scale of human endeavors has only recently become significant in a planetary context.We are now entering into a new reality: one in which our ambitions are on a collision course with natural limits on a finite planet. It is a slow-motion trajectory that has been apparent to some for an embarrassingly long time [1], but not yet acute enough to have grabbed the lasting attention of the majority.

 

"

Laters ?

[epsilonGreedy]

13 hours ago, ProDave said:

I used to live in Oxfordshire, and one thing that has always stayed with me was the memory of it raining for days on end non stop and the relief after a few days when it stopped.  That never happens here.  24 hours of rain in one go is a lot.  It is much more likely that we just get showers.  So it might rain on more days here, but we don't get the depressing days on end of rain that we did down south.

 

 

Lincolnshire has its own peculiar weather pattern, the national forecast is often described as "the depression will pass swiftly over Scotland with associated fronts bringing rain briefly to all areas except for the coast of England facing the North Sea because we expect the low to stall over Norway and introduce a northerly airflow. This airflow will pick up moisture from the North Sea and deliver 3 days of showers and grey skies over the coast fringe of Lincolnshire while the rest of the UK experiences bright fresh weather once the cold front has past over".

[epsilonGreedy]

2 minutes ago, SimonD said:

This really is an unfortunate example of how it is now almost impossible to have a balance and nuanced rational debate about such an important topic. It has been reduced down to a couple of dualistic boxes. If someone comes along that doesn't completely agree with the box you associate with, then that person must be alien and belong in the other box.

 

 

Very well put like your other recent posts.

 

I can cope with being described as an alien but they do not stop there, I am also a low intelligence alien with an undisclosed agenda to commit mass murder.

 

I suspect these new 21st century fashionable causes attract people who need an outlet to express hate and to formulate mechanisms of subjugation against those humans they do not like. The cause is really immaterial because it just provides a convenient pathway into a corridor of anger which at the end of the day is the opiate of the hateful.

[epsilonGreedy]

11 hours ago, IanR said:

That's not new thinking, healthy scepticism or alternative forms of knowledge, that is denial.

 

 

It is highly likely you are also a climate change denier.

 

The recent forum thread on Insulate Britain was most revealing, I recall that all posters apart from myself piled in to express contempt of insulate britain whereas I was the only poster in that thread who commented that they might have a point and if so their actions are rational.

 

Here is the main point I wish to make, most people are deniers relative to another more strident and urgent assessment of the climate situation. I image within the Insulate Britain group some dispute the actions of characters in the militant wing of Extinction Rebellion.

 

These childlike binary categorizations of believers and evil climate change deniers fail to recognise there is a broad spectrum of interpretation of what rising co2 ppm will do to the climate and how soon and how humankind should respond.

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

These childlike binary categorizations of believers and evil climate change deniers fail to recognise there is a broad spectrum of interpretation of what rising co2 ppm will do to the climate and how soon and how humankind should respond.

So you saying that climate sensitivity models have never existed?

Or that if they do, they are just work of imagination?

Or maybe they are tackling the problem from the wrong angle, maybe these corrupt climate scientists should only look at the social impact that that their reports have, even if they have been asked to report on something else 

As I have said before, in science, it is best to answer the question asked, not one you wish to answer.

Not answering the question is what politicians, pub bores and wankers do.

And if the person asking the question does not understand the answer, that is not the problem of the person answering it. It is wrong to put all the onus on the person that has done what was asked if then.

This is not a communication failure on behalf if the science community, it is a failure of education at a lot if different levels.

Only hearing what you want to hear, and dismissing, in general or unrelated, terms, any answer you personally dislike, just makes one look uneducated.

Edited November 25, 2021 by SteamyTea

[SimonD]

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I can cope with being described as an alien but they do not stop there, I am also a low intelligence alien with an undisclosed agenda to commit mass murder.

 

You're right, it gets taken too far which is highly unpleasant and can be upsetting (well, I know I can find it upsetting sometimes when I get flamed).

 

As I also seem to be assumed to have such a wicked undiclosed agenda, be science illiterate, and willing to cast away the future of the planet, I do wonder why I spent years designing, and then several years building, with my own two hands, a low energy house that uses a huge amount of waste, recycled, and renewable materials so that now, even after fitting 3g windows and a metal roof, my house is still calculated as having a negative carbon footprint. I've also gone to great lengths to minimise waste of building materials in the whole process. Perhaps I could get a badge or lollipop for that at least, since I am also a child apparently ??

 

1 hour ago, epsilonGreedy said:

These childlike binary categorizations of believers and evil climate change deniers fail to recognise there is a broad spectrum of interpretation of what rising co2 ppm will do to the climate and how soon and how humankind should respond.

 

I think that is the key point, there's a broad spectrum, and probably always will be. We need to get beyond the binary somehow.

 

[Andehh]

In all due seriousness guys, some of us were using this thread as an information source for ''Heat Pump latest government offers'' - something more useful than arguing about Global Warming. If you want to argue against the overwhelming consensus of planetary warming - please find another thread?

 

 

 

[IanR]

4 hours ago, SimonD said:

Let me spell that out - it can tell us what to do about climate change in the real world,

 

You are conflating 2 separate debates.

 

Claiming climate change is not happening and the evidence that it is is produced by corrupt Scientists, is denial.

 

With Climate Change an accepted phenomena, debating what we do about it is entirely valid, and disagreeing with the current direction of travel is not denial. However to have a discussion of value you'd need to propose an alternative, not just reason why it is wrong.

 

The opinions shot down within this thread are the former.

 

3 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

It is highly likely you are also a climate change denier.

 

The recent forum thread on Insulate Britain was most revealing, I recall that all posters apart from myself piled in to express contempt of insulate britain 

 

I made no comment regarding the IB post.

Edited November 25, 2021 by IanR

[IanR]

57 minutes ago, Andehh said:

In all due seriousness guys, some of us were using this thread as an information source for ''Heat Pump latest government offers'' - 

 

 

Unfortunately Ofgem are a bit slow in providing any new info about the new BUS scheme, so there's nothing on topic to discuss for the time being. 

 

We'll just have to make do with off-topic discussion until Ofgem jump into action.

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, Andehh said:

In all due seriousness guys, some of us were using this thread as an information source for ''Heat Pump latest government offers''

 

 

So am I. I need details to work out if it will be possible to complete my new build with a secondhand gas boiler plumbed in and then get the Government dosh to install an ASHP.

 

As @IanRindicates the current info about the scheme in the public domain is superficial.

[AliMcLeod]

18 hours ago, SimonD said:

 

My sister used to live in Dumfries & Galloway not far from Castle Douglas, my brother in law eventually got to counting the days with no rain. One year he said he could count it on his two hands (possibly a slight exageration there but I got his point) ?

 

So, Dumfries... that'll be 12 days of rain then

[SimonD]

19 hours ago, IanR said:

 

You are conflating 2 separate debates.

 

Claiming climate change is not happening and the evidence that it is is produced by corrupt Scientists, is denial.

 

With Climate Change an accepted phenomena, debating what we do about it is entirely valid, and disagreeing with the current direction of travel is not denial. However to have a discussion of value you'd need to propose an alternative, not just reason why it is wrong.

 

The opinions shot down within this thread are the former.

 

Hmm, interesting. No, I've not conflated anything in what I've said. As far as I'm aware there's only one post denying climate change as mere weather. You've clearly claimed my posts are to do with denial yet they're all within the second. I also note that I'm pretty much the only one who has supported their statements with reference to papers and books, all from respectabe sources. It's pretty naive to think that for a discussion to be of value it has to contain a proposed alternative direction of travel. This always starts with a development of awareness, which is patently missing within the thread. The direction of travel needs to be studied and investigated by a large community of people with interdisciplinary knowledge, experience and resources.

 

As I suggested before, take a look at some of the sensible scientific publications, like the book by Tom Murphy, and that will demonstrate that with the knowledge and herd mentality currently in play, what we do about it is an immensely complicated and difficult challenge which will undoudtedly require several tangental but interrelated directions to emerge. First has to come a wider development of awareness. That would be my suggested alternative direction right now.

Edited November 26, 2021 by SimonD

[SimonD]

18 hours ago, AliMcLeod said:

 

So, Dumfries... that'll be 12 days of rain then

 

Haha, yes indeed! ?