Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This pointless debate has been going on for years with one side believing what the climatologists are saying and predicting the other side believing it to be all lies and deception from a scientific community that has hidden agendas.
I doubt anyone has changed their opinions/viewpoints on the issue particularly from what is being put forth on forums,i'll continue to believe the scientific community as to date i've seen no credible evidence to refute their claims..
The agendas are not hidden. They are out in the open. When all the scientists make a living from tax dollars, they are essentially parasitic. In order to continue to make a living, they need to convince us that it is vital to keep their research going. Research that does not yield a controversial conclusion cannot compete with Armageddon in some form. Trouble attracts money. Scientists are human. Humans want to eat and live in nice houses. Scientists see that studies that predict trouble get the money. Scientists, who are human, react accordingly. They compete with each other to get the welfare money from the government, and that money goes to the sexy studies that predict trouble. After all, something that is causing trouble begs for more studies to clarify the trouble. It's not a conspiracy or a hidden agenda. It's human nature. It's survival. Without feeding at the public teet, research scientists would be faced with the unsanitary enterprise of looking for work.
Additionally, scientists operate largely in the university subculture. We all know that the typical university is a cauldron and emitter of leftist collectivist ideology and groupthink. So, scientists immersed in this culture naturally do as the Romans. That is why you almost never see a research scientist who supports Capitalism. They are in lockstep with the rest of the university culture. Which is a culture of leftist adoration and confabulation.
Solution: Separation of Science and Government.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 02-26-2017 at 09:30 AM..
I've noticed that most of the people who believe in anthropological global warming know next to nothing about data. When you ask them why they believe in AGW they almost always just say "because 97% of scientists believe we are warming the planet". Putting aside that this 97% figure is a lie that traveled around the world (actually 2/3 of "scientists" of all kinds of different backgrounds have no opinion), saying "because scientists say so" is not data. It's a logical fallacy (fundamental attribution error).
And when you confront believers in AGW about the Vostok / Greenland ice core data they say "Huh?" Never heard of it.
Or if you ask them what they think of the Danish Meteorilogical Institute that demonstrated a direct correlation between sun spots and earth temperature, they've never heard of that either.
Or if you confront them about the short, cherry picked time period that AGW supporters use to create their "hockey stick", they have no answer. They usually just get defensive.
Note that you are confusing the ice-core data in Greenland with global effects
Easterbrook plots the temperature data from the GISP2 core, as archived here. Easterbrook defines “present” as the year 2000. However, the GISP2 “present” follows a common paleoclimate convention and is actually 1950. The first data point in the file is at 95 years BP. This would make 95 years BP 1855 — a full 155 years ago, long before any other global temperature record shows any modern warming. In order to make absolutely sure of my dates, I emailed Richard Alley, and he confirmed that the GISP2 “present” is 1950, and that the most recent temperature in the GISP2 series is therefore 1855.
Like a detective story, first you need a victim, in this case the planet Earth: more energy is remaining in the atmosphere.
Then you need a method, and ask how the energy could be made to remain. For that, you need a provable mechanism by which energy can be trapped in the atmosphere, and greenhouse gases provide that mechanism.
Next, you need a ‘motive’. Why has this happened? Because CO2 has increased by nearly 50% in the last 150 years and the increase is from burning fossil fuels.
And finally, the smoking gun, the evidence that proves ‘whodunit’: energy being trapped in the atmosphere corresponds exactly to the wavelengths of energy captured by CO2.
The last point is what places CO2 at the scene of the crime. The investigation by science builds up empirical evidence that proves, step by step, that man-made carbon dioxide is causing the Earth to warm up.
The agendas are not hidden. They are out in the open. When all the scientists make a living from tax dollars, they are essentially parasitic. In order to continue to make a living, they need to convince us that it is vital to keep their research going. Research that does not yield a controversial conclusion cannot compete with Armageddon in some form. Trouble attracts money. Scientists are human. Humans want to eat and live in nice houses. Scientists see that studies that predict trouble get the money. Scientists, who are human, react accordingly. They compete with each other to get the welfare money from the government, and that money goes to the sexy studies that predict trouble. After all, something that is causing trouble begs for more studies to clarify the trouble. It's not a conspiracy or a hidden agenda. It's human nature.
Solution: Separation of Science and Government.
Every post you make shows how little you know of science and the scientific method.
Where is your evidence that global warming ISN'T happening? The burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. You say GW isn't happening, why don't YOU prove it.
Skeptical science is a blog, ran by a cartoon artist who has been caught so many times in lies that nobody pays attention to him anymore and all of his papers have been retracted because the guy couldn't do a proper evaluation to save his life.
Seriously, if you are educating yourself on that site, then it is no wonder you "believe" the things you do. By the way, Cook is also known for post editing the content of the scientists who have came to his site to defend their work. Nobody goes there anymore to defend because they are charlatans.
Do some actual investigation on the issue, everything I have said can be absolutely confirmed (Wayback machine is such a great tool for frauds!)
I've posted direct scientific normal articles here, and as I thought they would be, they were competent ignored.
It didn't seem like anyone wanted to adress the science articles directly, but you're welcome to read some of them yourself.
I have not been educating myself at SkeptucalScience. As a practice with all scientific research, I read the direct peer-reviewed journal articles themselves, usually starting with review articles - digging out from there to the dozens/hundreds of individual citations.
I had found the SkeptucalScience site useful as a very basic resource (usually for sharing with people that don't have tyne time or interest to read direct journal articles) because they break out and address specific criticisms individually.
I hadn't found any inaccuracies (from checking the sourcing), but that's good to know about them, if what you say is true.
Every post you make shows how little you know of science and the scientific method.
Scientists haven't been concerned with the Scientific Method for some decades. Today's scientist is loyal to the Scientific Method in the same way as today's politician is loyal to the "public good".
Furthermore, scientists are human, and they should be treated as such. The correct procedure in dealing with Big Science and Big Environmentalism is the same procedure we use with any criminal enterprise: Follow the Money.
Today, that is the Scientific Method of unpacking the method of science.
Scientists haven't been concerned with the Scientific Method for some decades. Today's scientist is loyal to the Scientific Method in the same way as today's politician is loyal to the "public good".
Furthermore, scientists are human, and they should be treated as such. The correct procedure in dealing with Big Science and Big Environmentalism is the same procedure we use with any criminal enterprise: Follow the Money.
Today, that is the Scientific Method of unpacking the method of science.
And you just show more examples of my point. You know nothing about what you talk about.
Your point is , since we cant disprove the science, we must question the credibility of the scientists who show us this science.
But if the science is wrong, then other scientists who dont agree with the conclusions can show this. Thats how science works.
So far none have. Why? Because the science is solid.
The agendas are not hidden. They are out in the open. When all the scientists make a living from tax dollars, they are essentially parasitic. In order to continue to make a living, they need to convince us that it is vital to keep their research going. Research that does not yield a controversial conclusion cannot compete with Armageddon in some form. Trouble attracts money. Scientists are human. Humans want to eat and live in nice houses. Scientists see that studies that predict trouble get the money. Scientists, who are human, react accordingly. They compete with each other to get the welfare money from the government, and that money goes to the sexy studies that predict trouble. After all, something that is causing trouble begs for more studies to clarify the trouble. It's not a conspiracy or a hidden agenda. It's human nature. It's survival. Without feeding at the public teet, research scientists would be faced with the unsanitary enterprise of looking for work.
Additionally, scientists operate largely in the university subculture. We all know that the typical university is a cauldron and emitter of leftist collectivist ideology and groupthink. So, scientists immersed in this culture naturally do as the Romans. That is why you almost never see a research scientist who supports Capitalism. They are in lockstep with the rest of the university culture. Which is a culture of leftist adoration and confabulation.
Solution: Separation of Science and Government.
It's clear to me that you've never worked in a Univiserty science department. I have nearly a decade of experience doing so over my scientific career, and your characterization of typical scientists is hilariously off/simplistic (word of advice: don't read everything you read on Internet forums).
Some of the biggest proponents of capitalism that I know I met in academia. Especially those of an entrepreneurial nature, starting their own companies (such as a major biotech company that I work at now).
You do point to legitimate issues in the scientific funding system, but those issues don't mean that there is a conspiracy against the truth (as you imply) nor do they prove corruption.
What you dream of either with reliable solar or wind WILL cause what you pay for energy to necessarily skyrocket. Grid scale storage technology doesn't exist, so grid solar, other than immediate load as the sun is shining, will not happen.
House solar see link to basic cost and continued cost numbers I posted based on a PV solar system for an average (average is based on average home electrical usage) home. //www.city-data.com/forum/47144649-post78.html
There is a lot covered there. This post I made wasn't only about solar.
I looked at the post you linked to. In it you said a "typical" solar PV system will cost $65-75k. That is wayyyy off. We have a solar PV system and it cost us $15k, before any rebates. It produces 21 KWH of energy per day. The national average home use is a bit higher than that at 30 KWH per day. So scale up our system to that amount and the cost would be $22k.
We don't have batteries as we are grid-tied but I priced out batteries as I considered going off-grid. Batteries currently cost about $80/KWH of storage. A good rule of thumb is the daily energy usage of storage, so for the typical house that is 30 KWH, or $24k. But for most people batteries are not required.
I'm good with that. Maybe it is stupid. One day though we will figure out ways to avoid explosions when we launch spacecraft. Maybe a new fuel. Maybe nuclear power itself in some new form. It would be a good solution then.
When they were initially experimenting with nuclear for energy they found something that was working incredibly, was low temp, relatively safe, had spent fuel that was safe and there was/is an incredible abundance of easy to get fuel but was soundly rejected because it did aid or contribute to military nuclear bombs which was all the rage at the time during the cold war.
The reactor is a Thorium Molten Salt reactor and the project was called (MSRE) Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment Another version is the (LFTR) - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
