Global Warming
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
eastisbest
Well-known member
Then perhaps his politics are getting in the way because that was a softball, which he after getting called outhe referred to as "a joke." But that joke is very consistent with his approach in this topic. So was he joking? His approch to the topic is based upon dogma, not science.
To dismiss as he does even the possibility that what we do can affect in an unpredictable way a narrow margin chaotic system such as the environment displays absolutely no understanding of the system or how to study it. To categorically dismiss global warming as other than the expected path as if we didn't exist is not science. To state, as he and others on here have that the Earth was "warm" before so this is nothing new, ignores cause. It's not a scientific stance. To ignore in their arguments that the Earth wasn't habitable in that previous time is... troll worthy.
Science isn't about dogma. It's about questions.
Crusaders
Moderator
Science isn’t about dogma but like all human endeavors, it is prone to falling victim to it, greed, and deeds of self-preservation. We also have to distinguish between people who are academics for status and accolades and those who are honest about the pursuit of knowledge and following evidence.
My approach to this topic is simple East - the theory of human caused global warming is a long way from being proven. To claim that we're causing destructive climate change is NOT supported by the scientific evidence gathered to date.
And show me where I have ever dismissed the possibility that human processes are in fact changing the global climate? I have frequently acknowledged that the THEORY is scientifically sound and POTENTIALLY plausible. My main position is that:
* the theory has not been supported with much evidence
* there is a high degree of difficulty in collecting sound scientific evidence to support the theory. This difficulty stems from the time scales involved and the poor state of the data collection. Unless you think tree ring data is robust?
And for the record I have never "categorically dismissed global warming as other then the expected path". I presume you're referring to my pointing out that in order to prove that humans are causing global warming you have to demonstrate that the current warming is outside the normal variation in natural climate change. If you don't understand why this is critical to the topic then you really don't understand science.
Finally you bring up the notion of causation. In science to establish causation is a high bar requiring robust evidence. In this case the FACT that recently (last million years) the earth has been as warm or even warmer then it is today indicates that the current warming is within the natural variation. It is the responsibility of those arguing for the THEORY of human caused Climate Change to explain, WITH EVIDENCE, why the current warming is different.
The fact that we are putting a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere may be doing everything the alarmists claim it's doing. Or it may not. Or it may only be doing some of what they claim like enhancing a natural warming process rather then causing it. It is the responsibility of the scientists who have proposed the THEORY of human climate change to demonstrate that correlation is in fact causation.
Only an ideologue would demand major changes in human economic & industrial activity based on an unproven theory. This doesn't mean the theory is wrong it means that you need proof before asking for the drastic changes the alarmists are demanding.
Last edited:
Serious question Crusaders: regardless of who turns out to be right on the science, which side - alarmist or skeptic - better represents the honest pursuit of knowledge and evidence here?
Having actually studied chaos theory, the math and science behind climate and weather, and doing baseline research on lowering actual industrial combustion emissions for 18 years...
What you just typed about the climate proves you are the one that doesn’t understand the science behind it.
Fair enough.
eastisbest
Well-known member
"proven"
"much"
/debate
You do not take a scientific approach to this. There will NEVER be proof to you, not developed by man. Such a thing cannot be "proven" by any means. A Scientist understands this. A Beakman level Scientist, understands this.
There is no way to isolate variables without removing... you know... us. This is not a repeatable exercise, only the collecting of data can be expected to be repeatable.
The decision to side with man-influenced GQ or not can be based only upon a preponderence and a decision point and any decision to react is supported or not by a preponderence, a decision point. But to say after over 5 decades of study and a growing number of our respected Scientific community on-board that there has not been to use your non-scientific phrase, "much?"
Instead you prefer to say not "much" and distrust the near whole of the Scientific community based upon?
dogma
No, you do not understand Science. You cannot even argue your own position while staying within frame-work, regardless what degree you claim.
eastisbest
Well-known member
Considering I never typed anything about "climate" and YOUR use of the word "prove," should give anyone pause about your abilities.
I sure hope this is a joke post, unless the subject suddenly changed to statistics or astrophysics and I missed it?
Could you direct me to a peer reviewed paper in which a noted climate scientist has summarized the "preponderance" of evidence of which you speak?
You claim 50 years of study supporting this theory which would put us back to 1970. You are aware that throughout the 1970's there were a number of climate scientists speculating that we were entering another ice age right? In fact by 1980 it was conventional wisdom that this was how human civilization would end.
And for the record the science backing a destructive ice age wiping out civilization was far more robust then the current GW theory. You know why? Ice Ages have occurred in the past. They are a demonstrated part of Earths recent natural climate system.
Your argument would be stronger if you didn't appeal to authority. When you say "respected scientific community" what the hell does that even mean? I hope you're not referring to the ridiculous survey claiming that 97% of scientists support the theory of global warming?
And what is your obsession with my using the word "much"? This is a message board not a scientific journal. The fact remains that there isn't MUCH scientific evidence supporting the theory that human release of CO2 is changing the global climate in a dangerous way. If there is I'm open to you pointing me to a scientific article saying it is. I've read several such articles over the years and the "science" described is less then compelling.
I'm old, bald, fat, and ugly - but it's the fault of climate change.
My favorite term they use is "consensus" - very close to "preponderance." As soon as you use those terms in a scientific context, you have left the area of science and wandered into metaphysics. I just wish they would be honest about it. Just say that you are alarmed by some scientific data, but here is our theory about it (that it is an urgent existential threat to the entire globe), and here are our philosophical solutions to this problem. THAT would be honest. Instead, we get a bunch of leftist metaphysical constructs dishonestly wrapped in an alleged scientific wrapper. It's so infuriating.
I wonder what % of the population understands why "consensus" isn't a part of scientific knowledge - at least until something is tested and reproduced and becomes a part of the body of scientific knowledge. Even then, consensus doesn't really apply because it suggests some kind of belief is involved as opposed to a minority who do not believe it. I don't think there is a consensus on gravity. There aren't a preponderance or consensus of scientists who believe in it, but rather it is now fully accepted because it is demonstrably and reproducibly true via testing. It doesn't matter if someone believes it or not. Calling someone a "denier" is more akin to being called a "heretic" or "infidel" in a religious context. If you want to say someone is a "skeptic" that has direct relevance to science because skepticism and criticism are an inherent part of the process.
Unfortunately, we have been on the short end of this debate, in part, because we have not pointed out how the alarmists have used words, and educating the public at large about how to know whether someone is making a scientific argument or doing political polemics.
Your exchange there reminds me of the time I was watching, I think, Larry King Live many years ago when an atheist and a professor from the Southern Theological Seminary were discussing some weighty spiritual or moral issue. The atheist began to (very poorly and incorrectly) lecture the professor about what the Bible is and what it means.
When stuff like that happens, you don't know whether to laugh or be sad that someone has the lack of self-awareness to know that they shouldn't lecture someone about their life's study and work.
eastisbest
Well-known member
and then there's those that use words like "alarmists" to descibe interpretation of data that doesn't fit thier predisposed political narrative. That's not someone with a scientific bent. Science is impartial. It uses impartial words. LOTR, does not. You do not. He and/or you may or may not be a scientist but on this topic, you are not scientific. Poor Cru would call that position pedantic but Science calls it ethics and professionalism.
Last edited:
eastisbest
Well-known member
Instead of dodging, all you had to do was quote where I typed anything about climate. Good luck. It was not the topic of the post you quoted.
Now while you'll looking for that quote you're not going to find, why not educate the audience with your expertise on chaotic systems and "weather." It will be useful to the discussion don't you think?
In a parallel reality, I'm sure that makes sense.
I will help you. I am contending that those who believe, or, at least, purport that global climate change is an existential crisis are wrapping political goals into a scientific package. In that context, a political one, my political response is that they are dishonest alarmists. That has no implication on science whatsoever. Good data is good data. However, as soon as someone starts to apply meaning and construct practical responses to the data, now we are in the very fallible and subjective arena of philosophy, religion, politics, etc.
In my experience, in the leftist parallel reality, there is a lot of conflation, distortion, massive gaps in logic, and things of that sort - which makes learning from them or communicating solidly reasoned constructs very difficult and probably impossible. And that way of thinking and communicating on the left is amazingly consistent.
Thus we get people arguing with a straight face absurdities like that the earth will die in 10 years, men can be women, white Christian men are the source of most societal ills, the traditional nuclear family is not necessary or desired, and pretty much name the issue.
It's sad. I used to learn a lot from classic liberals. We had debates over the size and intrusiveness of government. They made some good points and taught me some things. Now the classic liberals have seemed to die off and their further left progeny offer conflation, distortion, and mis-contextualization.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
And the resurgent bison. You can’t forget the bison.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
I think this is the extreme that some have a problem with. Do you think she is correct? A complete world redesign?
Greta Thunberg just dropped a truth bomb in the punchbowl at Davos
"We don’t need to 'lower emissions.' Our emissions have to stop."www.motherjones.com
no more cars
we all will commute like this
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
You aren’t curious about the home turbine farce in his post, too ?
I have been published using chaos and bifurcating systems to analyze crystal growth (Journal of Crystal Growth).
I also was published using chaos and bifurcating/asymptotic systems to analyze microscopic microchip production using Atomic Force Microcopes.
Now, with respect to emissions, I have a couple patents (1 in, 1 still pending) on ultra low emission burner technology.
I spent more than a decade doing direct research in this field, now I work more as a consultant/application engineer helping customers lower their industrial emissions (NOx, SOx, CO, and CO2) out of their industrial furnaces.
I have been directly in the emission industry since 2003 either doing research or consulting, so about 17 years.
That’s my direct qualifications with respect to industrial emissions and chaos/bifurcating/asymptotic math systems.
Now, since you want to do the appeal to authority in reverse on me, list your chaos theory and climate related qualifications, outside of watching MSNBC.
I am still waiting on a single technology that is more efficient and cheaper than fossil fuels that the oil industry “pushed out”. Just 1 is all I want.
irish_buffalo
Well-known member
On World Environment Day, everything you know about energy in the US might be wrong
The energy landscape changes so fast, even experts have trouble keeping up.
www.usatoday.com
New Wind and Solar Power Is Cheaper Than Existing Coal in Much of the U.S., Analysis Finds - Inside Climate News
Not a single coal-fired power plant along the Ohio River will be able to compete on price with new wind and solar power by 2025, according to a new report by energy analysts. The same is true for every coal plant in a swath of the South that includes the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and...
insideclimatenews.org
Solar and Wind Power Will Cost Less Than Coal by 2030, According to One Analyst’s Math
World leaders are prioritizing renewables to slow the pace of climate change. The argument against these power sources is that they’re more expensive than traditional fuels.
www.barrons.com
This last one is for cabe if he can manage to get past some petty comments and pull his head out of his arse.
Micro gas turbine could help take homes off the grid - The Lead South Australia
theleadsouthaustralia.com.au
The company I work for is racing to engineer something similar. Many are. It will happen, just a matter of time.
On World Environment Day, everything you know about energy in the US might be wrong
The energy landscape changes so fast, even experts have trouble keeping up.
New Wind and Solar Power Is Cheaper Than Existing Coal in Much of the U.S., Analysis Finds - Inside Climate News
Not a single coal-fired power plant along the Ohio River will be able to compete on price with new wind and solar power by 2025, according to a new report by energy analysts. The same is true for every coal plant in a swath of the South that includes the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and...
Solar and Wind Power Will Cost Less Than Coal by 2030, According to One Analyst’s Math
World leaders are prioritizing renewables to slow the pace of climate change. The argument against these power sources is that they’re more expensive than traditional fuels.
This last one is for cabe if he can manage to get past some petty comments and pull his head out of his arse.
The company I work for is racing to engineer something similar. Many are. It will happen, just a matter of time.Micro gas turbine could help take homes off the grid - The Lead South Australia
Micro gas turbine.. what will be the price tag on that? Been looking for a house generator.
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
On World Environment Day, everything you know about energy in the US might be wrong
The energy landscape changes so fast, even experts have trouble keeping up.
New Wind and Solar Power Is Cheaper Than Existing Coal in Much of the U.S., Analysis Finds - Inside Climate News
Not a single coal-fired power plant along the Ohio River will be able to compete on price with new wind and solar power by 2025, according to a new report by energy analysts. The same is true for every coal plant in a swath of the South that includes the Carolinas, Georgia, Alabama and...
Solar and Wind Power Will Cost Less Than Coal by 2030, According to One Analyst’s Math
World leaders are prioritizing renewables to slow the pace of climate change. The argument against these power sources is that they’re more expensive than traditional fuels.
This last one is for cabe if he can manage to get past some petty comments and pull his head out of his arse.
Micro gas turbine could help take homes off the grid - The Lead South Australia
The company I work for is racing to engineer something similar. Many are. It will happen, just a matter of time.
Coal has been taxed, fee'd, and further undermined by a resultant shrinking economy of scale. That is a part of the cost equation that you will obviously ignore. Whatever. It may be for the best. If there was a cost-efficient way to clean up generation with coal, I guess that some would have fought harder for it here. None of this changes the fact that the globalists that you support politically endorse a dynamic that has more of our goods produced by workers (thus tax-payers and consumers) on the other side of the world. Workers in factories powered by a whole lot of coal-generated electricity. Same global "greenhouse", so same phonies, same wealth transfer.
So, as far as your mini-turbines - burning fossil fuels. Home generation, no grid. Gas. Fracking. Extreme increase of propane demand. Semi-green, but profitable for your circle. Got it.
I was apparently wrong in thinking you had some pipe dream about home wind turbines. I stand corrected.
So, right now I get an occasional prodding to help pay the utilities of po' folks. "Energy Share" or something. Already, much of their fees are subsidized in our overall deficit dynamics. Who is going to pay for the electricity of the poor ? Are we going to maintain a mass grid even as we make the homes of the top half of the economy electrically self-sufficient ? I guess the real dream is to have our tax dollars install these systems for those that cannot afford them on their own. How does this shifting paradigm look in your Demturd fantasy ?
As low-volume toilets and shower heads have come into vogue, we have already plainly seen that the fixed costs of any Water Department require a significant raise of volume-based consumption charges. Why would electricity be much different ? Therefore, can this mean anything other than the gubmint putting mini-turbines and battery buffers in every home or maintaining some form of our current grid at a far less cost-effective level when reckoned per user ? Certainly your side's liberal interpretation of the Constitution will have electricity as an inalienable right, right ?
Do I have this wrong, or is this where you are headed ?
Sorry, but you may as well be telling us that Hughes Internet is going to put Spectrum and Cox out of business. I think you bought a rah-rah sales pitch. Better pull yer head outta yer arse, Irish Buffalo'ed.
edit: Hold on. As long as yer head is up yer arse, have a look around and see if you can come up with a methane-recovery plan to use yer farts to run yer turbine......maybe a pick-up tube in yer recliner ? Toto make furniture ?
Last edited:
cabezadecaballo
Well-known member
Very attractive concept for those of us that can afford it. If the propane version is good I could see myself with two propane and one NG. After the prices go down and the weak sisters' models fall out of the production end.
Last edited:
