Jump to content
tanknet.org

Don't Go Being Politically Insane You Climate Change Skeptics


Recommended Posts

Climate change or no climate change is not something that I worry about For more information on it:

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

 

If I had the time, I would like to test an idea of mine that those who believe in global warming are those who want tax dollars to study this for the rest of thier lives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Climate change or no climate change is not something that I worry about For more information on it:

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming

 

If I had the time, I would like to test an idea of mine that those who believe in global warming are those who want tax dollars to study this for the rest of thier lives.

 

I think it was one Upton Sinclair that stated:

 

 

 

It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It seems likely humanity originated in Africa. But it is not definitively proven and it could well have been Wisconsin.

Except Josh, that is based on evidence in the fossil record. The AGW-CO2 Link is based upon models. There is not evidence to actually look at.

 

Evidence trumps models or theories.

 

Are there models that say either the temperature isn't rising sharply in the last 50-100 years relative to the last 20,000? One assumes if models are flawed, there multiple models that predict the opposite. So is there a model for global cooling? I'm honestly asking.

 

 

Wrong question.

 

Correct question; If someone with serious Atmospheric Science creds developed a model that correlated well with empirical data, that failed to support the AGW hypothesis, would that model get published anywhere?

 

Answer; https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review

 

Answer; https://www.technologyreview.com/s/403256/global-warming-bombshell/

 

Answer; http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/censorship-at-the-agu

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are there models that say either the temperature isn't rising sharply in the last 50-100 years relative to the last 20,000? One assumes if models are flawed, there multiple models that predict the opposite. So is there a model for global cooling? I'm honestly asking.

 

The model data is based on VERY large sample rates with lots of data gaps. We have data now, since about victorian time with much shorter data sampling rates. Data for temperature back 1000 years ago is not with remotely the same fidelity as it is now. It's also VERY spotty for where there is data based on the methods of extrapolating temperature from growth rings and other methods. then there's the issue of contamination of some of the measuring stations used. A lot of the measurements are from weather stations at airports. Airports that have seen increased development which means heat islands and extraneous sources of heat from operating equipment. Supposedly that was adjusted for, but the question is, was it properly adjusted.

 

There was a model that implied global cooling in the 70s and 80s. Then there was a 180° direction change in the direction of the theories.

 

The question is not just what is happening, but "why?".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the fallacy that science! is only corruptible by big oil, corporations, or religion. Somehow there is magically no possibility of corruption or debasing from the direction of the governments, bureaucracies, and politicians who control the purse strings and job status of many of these scientist. Not to mention the human factor that finds its way into everything, greed, ego, peer pressure, group think, cliques, ass covering, and last but not least, good old fashioned stupidity..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another genuine question: what exactly is the end goal of this huge conspiracy to fake man made global warming? Client scientists justifying their own budgets? Is Trump right; it was invented by China?

 

 

It's their rice bowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another genuine question: what exactly is the end goal of this huge conspiracy to fake man made global warming? Client scientists justifying their own budgets? Is Trump right; it was invented by China?

 

It's their rice bowl.

 

Question still stands. Who exactly benefits from made up global warming? The politicians that have to sell that idea to coal minors in West Virginia? If the entire thing is inaccurate and made up, where does the money from said lie go to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't Trump deny that during the Debate?

I didn't figure you for a Trump supporter....

 

I don't think he is; I think he was merely pointing another one of Trump's flip flops. Which seems pointless given how many times the guy has either switched opinions or outright lied. I'm quite certain in Trumps mind lying is good business.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question still stands. Who exactly benefits from made up global warming? The politicians that have to sell that idea to coal minors in West Virginia? If the entire thing is inaccurate and made up, where does the money from said lie go to?

 

1. There's a market for selling carbon credits. Al Gore is central to that. They're not selling commodities, they're selling dispensation to pollute. They've monetized a government pardon as it were. That's Billions of $ globally. Several hundred million in the US. Being part of that, brokering them, that's money to be made. Selling them when you can make them yourself (sequestering carbon) is another. How do you get it? Pump cow manure into a vat, tap off the methane, sell that. Get paid $10 per ton of methane on top of that in carbon credits. A coal plant in another state buys the carbon credits and reduces their emissions on CO2 output by doing so.

 

2. Scientists who feed the hype have work. Grants. Grants are $. I worked for a doctor who was making enough on his medical practice and research to buy pairs of Ribbon Speakers at $40,000 a set to see which ones he liked just off hand.

 

3. The politicians make money selling carveouts to the right people. Power is a way to get money. Look at the Billionaires in congress. You don't think there's an advantage to be had by screwing the coal industry for the 'renewables' industry?

 

 

 

 

I don't think he is; I think he was merely pointing another one of Trump's flip flops. Which seems pointless given how many times the guy has either switched opinions or outright lied. I'm quite certain in Trumps mind lying is good business.

So, he's appealing to Trump's authority on the subject or something? Why is Trump's view on this relevant? He's neither an expert NOR is he a power broker in the field.

Edited by rmgill
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Didn't Trump deny that during the Debate?

I didn't figure you for a Trump supporter....

 

I don't think he is; I think he was merely pointing another one of Trump's flip flops. Which seems pointless given how many times the guy has either switched opinions or outright lied. I'm quite certain in Trumps mind lying is good business.

 

Unlike Ms Clinton who views it Standard Operating Procedure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meh, scientists are just props used by politicians to justify their fuckery upon the taxpayers. No politician of significance actually gives a shit what they say, only how it can be used to further their goals. S/F....Ken M

 

It's a symbiotic relationship. The politicians feed billions and billions of dollars to the scientists and the scientists feed the politicians the "evidence" they need to force wholesale change on the masses while getting millions in campaign donations and cushy jobs once they leave office.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been watching the IPCC models' curves get adjusted and re-adjusted upwards over the years, chasing actual measured temperatures. Graphing the adjustments, it sure looks to me like temperatures are increasing on some kind of superlinear curve.

 

I don't care if it's caused by humans or not, but I do think we need to adapt to changing conditions. By "adapt", I do not mean cut energy use and cripple our economies; quite the opposite.

 

Human civilization suffers from an energy shortage. Anywhere there is drought, it is because we lack the energy to distill water at sufficient scale. Anywhere there is famine, it is because we lack the energy for some or more of: make fertilizer, work the land, irrigate, transport produce. Anywhere there is scarcity of manufactured goods, this too is energy-limited.

 

If we find it in our interests to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, we can do that, too, with sufficiently profuse expenditure of energy.

 

Petroleum and natural gas are not a scalable solution to this shortage. They are increasingly expensive to get out of the ground and toxic when they spill. Also, we just can't pull them out of the ground fast enough to meet the world's needs.

 

Nuclear power, on the other hand, can scale, if built out correctly.

 

America hasn't done it, yet; expensive, dirty LWR was a flop.

 

Japan and France almost got it right, using breeder/burner-cycle reactors which converted almost all of their waste into more fuel. They treated the excess fuel like waste needing sequestering, though, which made them effectively as dirty as LWR and expensive.

 

If the excess fuel were instead incorporated into radioisotope thermoelectric generators (which are inexpensive, safe, low-maintenance, though admittedly lower-efficiency) and spread around wherever power and heat were needed, that fuel would cease to be a burden and start paying its keep. The average cost per watt of the entire system (B/B reactors plus RTGs) would decrease, and the aggregate output of the system would increase over time as the reactors re-enriched the exhausted fuel.

 

Whatever the cause of climate change, we're pretty sure there will be more droughts. Coastal fleets of nuclear-driven desalination plants would rectify that. We're pretty sure there will be more famine (due to soil salinization). Plentiful water and power would render more land productive. We're pretty sure there will be more need for ponds, dams, culverts and levees. Plentiful power would facilitate construction and the production of construction materials.

 

It also looks like coastal cities will flood, displacing millions of people in the United States alone. Perhaps levees could help mitigate this, but I think some displacement is inevitable. Expect to see a lot of refugees -- people from Texas, Louisiana, Florida, especially New York (all of Manhattan, 1.6 million people from there alone) and the east coast in general. Not so much the Pacific Northwest (though San Francisco and Petaluma at least are screwed). I don't know if abundant power could help rectify this problem, but it wouldn't hurt either.

 

In other words, the solution to at least some of the problems posed by climate change is not scarcity (as the Left would have us believe), nor refusing to change anything (as the Right seems to advocate), but to power up and power through. We've been needing to do this for a long, long time; this crisis is just a handy excuse to go ahead and make it happen.

 

Will it happen? I doubt it. The citizenry thinks nuclear power is The Devil, the oil industry treats nuclear power as a competitor to its own interests, and nuclear infrastructure is tightly regulated by self-serving and reactionary governments.

 

This doesn't bode well. Our descendents will just have to adapt as best they can, and look after their own. Ponds and culverts are a lot easier to build with powered machinery, but shovels will get the job done eventually.

I missed this post since it got piled under a load of other people's bullshit. I agree 100%.

Edited by Jason L
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

As a validation of data it is not bad by any reasonable scientific standard. Laymen apparently have unrealistic scientific standards.

 

A lot of money is being spent on this small subject. Those in this industry talk up their own book.

 

As opposed to being spent on what? Building stadiums? Expanding the welfare state?

 

Of all of the things we spend money on, science is the ONE thing that has provided the greatest, largest, and most important payouts to humanity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends. We have a lot of science/engineering being squandered on bullshit, when they could be designing and building me Warbird class orbital weapons platforms and pulse plasma rifles in the 40megawatt range. S/F....Ken M

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is accurate? 20% is pretty good agreement for an engineering model. Most computational models that aren't dealing with something that can be solved almost exactly generally only get good agreement because they have equation source terms specifically fit to experimental data.

Are you willing to bet your job and career and welfare on such a computational model? You're willing to bet OTHER people's jobs and careers. But somehow I suspect you're not willing to bet your own.

 

We're not talking engineering models here asshole. We're talking weather models. Not quite the same thing are they?

 

And 20% of what? 20% off course is bad. 20% speed variability that'd be a problem. 20% nose down when you're supposed to be level would be a problem too.

 

No, they use the best available knowledge at the time. The link between greenhouse gases is not model driven, it is emprical evidence driven for both anthro and non anthro sources.

Which ignores factors they don't yet understand. LIKE Solar wind and other interactions with the magnetosphere.

 

No, there is overwhelming empirical evidence that various gases can increase temperatures.

Sure. But how they work in reality with the larger system, of carbon sinks, heat sinks and other factors is another question.

 

The heat transfer and thermodynamics (basic bitch shit that IS straighforward). The models fail because various source terms are wrong. This is admitted in pretty much every paper I've seen. They are very clear about what they don't know.

Yes again, but the larger picture of how that all works in a big system with chaos theory driving the system is another question entirely. You're trying to use modeling what an explosive does 20 miles away to the weather in my house. Close up you don't have a lot of variability. Far away and distributed over large volumes of space, it doesn't work as well.

 

If all this was simple weather prediction would be 100% accurate all the time. It's not.

 

 

You're just throwing words in there. Of course solar ouput influences global temps. It is also and incredibly hard thing to model. Also there is zero empirical evidence based on solar measurements that would explain how the sun is driving what is by all accounts unprededented warming.

Bullshit. I've seen and discussed some of these effects with people in the field relating to cloud formation. Remember that little experiment from grade school where you put a beta emitter into a cold chamber and get little cloud traces?

 

Subatomic particles create cloud effects.

 

Cloud formation changes albedo.

 

Cloud formation changes the energy input.

 

Is that simple for you?

 

 

Science works by likelihoods. It is unlikely that recent warming is based on sun farts, as opposed to cow farts based on current emperical evidence.

 

Of course, no one is disputing that. You do realize that the papers are being written by the same people you think are shitty scientists though, right?

If you're going to understand a system you must understand ALL of the system. Not knowing what coronal mass ejections, solar wind, magnetosphere effects and such is idiotic.

 

MANN is one of the shitty scientists.

 

 

 

I'm not sure what distortion box you listen through, but I have never heard anyone say that the models prove anything. The models show what the various data sources show: that the earth is warming and if you model greenhouse gas emission you recover a warming effect in models.

We've established that you live under a rock in other areas. We've now established that you live under a rock and just apparently read Google Scholar. Come out into the real world. Look at what the politicians are actually doing and saying.

 

When they say the science is settled. That's what is indicated.

 

The models show what the various data sources show: that the earth is warming and if you model greenhouse gas emission you recover a warming effect in models.

Circular argument is circular. Especially when you adjust the numbers for the current data set. Sorry. Homogenize.

 

The models show MORE warming than what has been observed. They don't match reality.

 

As a validation of data it is not bad by any reasonable scientific standard. Laymen apparently have unrealistic scientific standards.

One really must wonder what sort of standards you have. Hopefully you're not skimming 20% off your contracts.

 

And again, I must observe that you're making claims which are entirely distinct from what the general view of the Global Warming Debate is. The arguments are not that the models might indicate a problem. They're cited as proof that there IS warming and that it is caused by human industry emitted CO2. The only way to deal with that is curtailing human industry. That is the result of the IPCC papers as conveyed to the people writing policy for US EPA regs, Kyoto Protocol and the Paris treaty. Trying to argue that the models aren't really proof, but just warnings, just a scenario, is utterly fatuous.

 

I was going to write a big long reply to all of your finer points but then I realized you were dropping stuff like chaos theory, and pretending you understand what engineering modelling involves when you clearly don't have a fucking clue....

 

And really it's pointless. This happens every time you shove your hamfists into a thread: you bury posters under so many layers of indignant bullshit on topics you don't comprehend deeper than scratched paint.

 

You don't understand even the vaguest realities of engineering even though you constantly throw it in people's faces. You understand doing science even less. You start talking about cloud chambers which are a unique case of charged PARTICLES influencing a supersaturated vapour. I mean really...

 

FWIW I 100% agree that climate models need a lot of work, I 100% agree that sunspot and flare variability need more study. However there is no reasonable/honest review of climate models that paints them as fundamentally flawed and there is zero evidence that warming is being driven primarily by solar effects.

 

The problem is that your approach to anything you don't agree with is some sort of weird Dunning Kruger powered religious conviction.

Edited by Jason L
Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends. We have a lot of science/engineering being squandered on bullshit, when they could be designing and building me Warbird class orbital weapons platforms and pulse plasma rifles in the 40megawatt range. S/F....Ken M

All the engineers working in SDI knew it was not going to work, but it paid their food.

 

And sure there is lots of bad planning and misallocation of money going on. Which all falls back on the politicians who decide on budgets in the end. The scientists just try to carve out a living and go where there is money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Question still stands. Who exactly benefits from made up global warming? The politicians that have to sell that idea to coal minors in West Virginia? If the entire thing is inaccurate and made up, where does the money from said lie go to?

1. There's a market for selling carbon credits. Al Gore is central to that. They're not selling commodities, they're selling dispensation to pollute. They've monetized a government pardon as it were. That's Billions of $ globally. Several hundred million in the US. Being part of that, brokering them, that's money to be made. Selling them when you can make them yourself (sequestering carbon) is another. How do you get it? Pump cow manure into a vat, tap off the methane, sell that. Get paid $10 per ton of methane on top of that in carbon credits. A coal plant in another state buys the carbon credits and reduces their emissions on CO2 output by doing so.

 

2. Scientists who feed the hype have work. Grants. Grants are $. I worked for a doctor who was making enough on his medical practice and research to buy pairs of Ribbon Speakers at $40,000 a set to see which ones he liked just off hand.

 

3. The politicians make money selling carveouts to the right people. Power is a way to get money. Look at the Billionaires in congress. You don't think there's an advantage to be had by screwing the coal industry for the 'renewables' industry?

 

 

 

So someone invented climate change to cash out on the research of climate change and the carbon credits that, AFAIK, don't currently exist. So basically its like Bitcoin only less clever and with a massive scientific conspiracy to back it up?

 

Were the Jews involved?

Edited by Josh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...