[paraclete]

Back to climate change, I expect you have heard that the Chilean vocano is expected to offset AGW for a while and make things a little chilly. I can tell you it was chilly enough without the volcano. I would really like to know where this supposed global warming is happening because it sure isn't happening here despite our emissions record and hasn't been for some years now. My daffadils don't know whether to bloom or hibenate with most opting to hibenate. Perhaps it is happening right next to the Hawaiian volcano where they take the readings. I go back to my original statement AGW is a northern hemisphere myth and we shouldn't be trying to do anything about it because it like spitting into the wind, it just comes back to you

[excon]

I can tell you it was chilly enough without the volcano. I would really like to know where this supposed global warming is happening because it sure isn't happening here despite our emissions record

Hello again, clete:

Global warming isn't weather.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, clete:

Global warming isn't weather.

excon

Ex the question isn't whether Global warming is weather but whether global warming is. AGM, as distinct from climate change, which is weather, is a concept, a theory, a model on someone's computer and thus far they are working hard to prove it and the planet is working hard to demonstrate there are more parameters than they have in their models. The theory is constantly revised, as most theories go, but their predictions are widely out in many directions and many lies have been told to uphold the theory, and the lucatrive grants which go with them. Many models have been manipulated so that the data they use is what best fits their theory. If the theory is correct, the planet will have a runaway greenhouse effect it has survived previously, even if a little ice did form. The marvel is you can have an ice age with high CO2. As the ice forms mainly in the northern hemispere, I still say it is a northern hemisphere problem

[excon]

AGM, as distinct from climate change, which is weather, is a concept, a theory, a model on someone's computer and thus far they are working hard to prove it and the planet is working hard to demonstrate there are more parameters than they have in their models. The theory is constantly revised, as most theories go,

Hello again, Clete:

This, from a person who doesn't believe in evolution.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, Clete:

This, from a person who doesn't believe in evolution.

excon

You are right Ex evolution is another man concocted theory which is unproven.

Next Ex you will be telling me you believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden. I'll give you an Irish take on the whole thing, it's the little people, those maneviolent leprechans, they're manipulatin the weather, don't you see. It's as good a theory as AGM and about as provable as evolution. Please tell me Ex which one of your forefathers was it that was an ape? Do you have an opposable thumb on your foot?

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

My point is, that it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about science with people who don't believe in science... That's all.

excon

[paraclete]

Ex like many people I find science useful, it offers explanations that can be demonstrated and cures for some malady's. Misuse of science has caused some problems notably the over perscription of antibiotics which have been administered to us by "scientists" and the atom bomb, please excuse me for thinking our scientists are more like the scorcer's apprentice. Now I place this AGW in the same category, for which I should not be admonished, in a century or so we will be laughed at as much as those who condemned Galileo. I think there are some branches of science that have lost the plot. I always remember the experience of a friend of mine in his first day in his university science class; he was told forget everything you have ever learned, it is all wrong. We had to teach you something so we taught you that

Please remember Mars, it has a CO2 atmosphere but no global warming, just various stages of cold and yet we have scientists who want to live there. I say good luck and can you go soon

[tomder55]

The questioning of a couple of popular scientific hypothesis is not a rejection of science... it is science in it's pure definition. If your hypothesis doesn't survive the falsifiability test then it is no different than an unprovable belief.
I happen to think evolution survives that test. I see nothing that convinces me man made AGW does. The conduct of the lead scientists who make a good living dependent on the hypothesis leads me to think 'there's something rotten in East Anglia'.

[TUT317]

The questioning of a couple of popular scientific hypothesis is not a rejection of science.....it is science in it's pure definition. If your hypothesis doesn't survive the falsifiability test then it is no different than an unprovable belief.
.

Hi

[excon]

The conduct of the lead scientists who make a good living dependent on the hypothesis leads me to think 'there's something rotten in East Anglia'.

Hello again, tom:

You keep bringing up the scientist in East Anglia, as though what HE says or does is important... I didn't even know East Anglia was a hotbed of climate science. I still don't think it is...

excon

[tomder55]

I didn't even know East Anglia was a hotbed of climate science. I still don't think it is...

It is.

The UN Climate IPCC report on climate change extensively used the "research " from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia headed by Phillip D. Jones.That's just a fact. But if you'd like I'll also add another exposed fraudster who's results were widely used by the man made AGW crowd... Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University . His so called 'hockey stick ' graph showed a rise in warming since the industrial revolution only when it ignored critical data from (hide the decline ) a lenghty period of cooling . He completely left it off the graph.

It was emails between Jones and Mann that exposed the extent of their fraud.

Most governments policies around the world related to climate change were bolstered by the results of the IPCC reports .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

Here's the problem I'm having... Even IF the two guys you're talking about DID fudge their numbers, the world of science isn't run by TWO guys. Besides, the other million or so scientists didn't do that. Don't they count?

excon

[paraclete]

Hello again, tom:

You keep bringing up the scientist in East Anglia, as though what HE says or does is important... I didn't even know East Anglia was a hotbed of climate science. I still don't think it is...

excon

Well ex we can be reassured by your lack of knowledge on the subject

[excon]

Hello again, clete:

Well, I guess we can shut down this thread... I know nothing, and if I did, you wouldn't believe it anyway.

excon

[tomder55]

Ex it is not the world of science that's the problem (although it goes much deeper than 2 guys as I've previously explained ) .The problem is that the research by the groups they led made it into UN reports that are used extensively by governments to develop policy.
I admire your FAITH in the integrity of the climate science community . But science doesn't work that way . You should be very suspicious of scientists who have vested interests in results . If I was talking about scientists working for the tobacco industry you would be agreeing with me.

[excon]

If I was talking about scientists working for the tobacco industry you would be agreeing with me.

Hello again, tom:

I would. But, the scientists I'm talking about work for SCIENCE.

Look. I don't doubt there are a FEW scientists who sell their opinions to the highest bidder. But you want to indict the ENTIRE profession. From a scientific point of view, it's just not reasonable to believe that the OVERWHELMING body of climate scientists are in the pocket of some, as of yet, un-named groups.

excon

[tomder55]

But, the scientists I'm talking about work for SCIENCE.

Yeah OK... Imagine them getting hired in East Anglia by Jones if they dared challenge conventional wisdom.
I don't know which scientists you are talking about . Every major player so far has come under suspicion. Jones' emails openly discussed the supression of results they don't agree with . There is enough and growing scientific evidence to counter the conventional wisdom(I can't believe I just used that phrase discussing science ) to make the "overwhelming" "concensus" suspect.

[excon]

There is enough and growing scientific evidence to counter the conventional wisdom(I can't believe I just used that phrase discussing science ) to make the "overwhelming" "concensus" suspect.

Hello again, tom:

We got a he said, she said, thing going on. You SAY, scientists believe thus and so... I SAY scientists believe OTHER thus's and so's. Consequently, we'll NEVER solve the problem on these pages SCIENTIFICALLY...

I'm GOOD with that, because both you and I agree that throwing our trash into the air does SOMETHING bad, even if we don't know exactly what. But, who cares particularly WHAT it does, because if we STOP throwing our trash into the air, WHATEVER bad it WAS doing will STOP doing it!

Beyond that, whether we agree about the climate or not, we ARE going to run out of oil. That is indisputable. Is it better to sit on our hands and wait till we do, or is it better to invest into technology that might avoid that crunch?

From MY point of view, sitting on our hands enriches our enemy's, and weakens us. Now, I don't disagree with you, in that the technology isn't there YET, so investing in it COULD be a waste. But, if we're going to revert back to the dark ages, I'm not going to give up without a fight. You seem willing to accept our fate. You seem willing to pay upwards of $5, $10, or even more for your gasoline as it runs out.. You seem willing to transfer the bulk of our wealth to the Arab's.

What have I got wrong?

excon

[speechlesstx]

What have I got wrong?

How about using the resources we have here at home?

Btw, we just installed a fire alarm at a huge new wind facility and you know what the guys there told us? We'll never get enough out of wind to make it worthwhile, but as long as everyone feels good about it and they keep getting subsidies and making a killing, that's OK.

[tomder55]

What have I got wrong?

More strawmen in a single posting than I've seen in a long time. We are hardly out of carbon based energy sources ,and will not run out for quite some time . We are sitting on a clean burning natural gas source that rivals what the Saudi's could ever provide. Yes there are challenges in extraction ;but there is NO energy source that doesn't have an environmental impact... not one .

The technology of the next generation will develop long before the last source runs out. That's how human invention works . It doesn't depend on government command and control; and it doesn't depend on wishful thinking on what will be. That is where corn ethanol subsidies come from... wasn't that a great idea!!

As you know I've never advocated "sitting on our hands " until the last of the carbon based sources are depleted .
What I don't get is penalizing people for using a source ,when there is no other choice currently ,to fund some future energy source that no one can name .

You complain about the cost per gallon . But how much of that is taxes ? The greenies would have you paying much more per gallon to make it worth your while to convert to things currently available that neither address the future energy needs of the planet,nor answer energy security issues ;nor are particularly environmentally friendly either .

As an example ,to just pour the concrete needed to construct the windmills in the Pickens Texas plan would require (429 tons of concrete per windmill) 8,346,707 tons of concrete to supply Texas 20% of it's energy from windmills . Each ton of concrete produces one ton of CO2.

Manufacturing cement is an energy-intensive process. It requires 3 to 6 million BTUs (British thermal units) of energy and 1.7 tons of raw materials, mostly limestone, to make one ton of clinker. Coal or coke is typically used to fire the kilns that are used to burn the limestone, clay, shale, and other materials; the materials must be heated to 1450 degrees C to form C3S. The process is a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions, in addition to nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, and particulate matter. Concrete manufacturing is one of the most significant sources of CO2 emissions from manufacturing sources; production of iron and steel also produce significant CO2 emissions. One ton of CO2 is emitted per one ton of cement produced, about half due to the use of fossil fuels and half from the calcination of limestone.Worldwide, cement production is estimated to produce approximately 5 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions from human sources.

The Environmental Literacy Council - Cement
The carbon footprint from just pouring the base consumes the same amt of c02 as 1million SUVs driving around 13-15,000 miles in a year.
Mind you... Texas would still need to find 80% of their energy from other sources. And this doesn't include the strip mining of rare earth minerals to provide battery storage ;or the price in dollars and carbon foot print to run the transmission infrastructure to the populated areas .
The garbage blowing into the air just comes from different sources.

The truth is that Europe has them ;has solar all over the place . Yet it has done NOTHING to reduce Europes greenhouse emissions .
Climate Change Paradox: Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International
Nor has it answered Europes future energy needs (and they already pay a heavier price per gallon /litre of gas/petrol whatever in both base costs and punitive taxes.)

The Germans are going to shut down all their nukes over the hysteria from the Japanese disaster . They will be permanently dependent on the good will of the Russians energy supply.