Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

When your 'proof' is propaganda it's all that matters.

---

Hi Speech,

Your statement is certainly true. It becomes a case of who is winning the battle for the hearts and minds of the population.

As I have said before, we are all extremely bad at predicting the future. Yet we see politicians galvanizing the population in opposing camps.

Strange isn't it? It is though one group knows the truth while the other group is deluded.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TUT317

Strange isn't it? It is though one group knows the truth while the other group is deluded.

Tut

---

Hi Tut interesting observation but which group knows the truth?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

but which group knows the truth?

---

Hello again, clete:

Who cares, if the solution provides benefits which far exceed the costs to implement them? The bottom line is we are running out of fossil fuels, so we'll have to replace them anyway. Why not now? Plus, we'd have the added advantage of NOT transferring our wealth to nations that hate us, and we might create a few jobs in the process.

If we DID that, we may NEVER find out which group knows the truth, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

excon

Last I heard the US had zero operating mines of the rare earth minerals required for alternative energies. The last one operating was shut down due to environmental concerns .So bottom line ;even with new technology we will still be net importers of energy from nations that hate us .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

even with new technology we will still be net importers of energy from nations that hate us .

---

Hello tom:

Not really. We won't be importing energy... We'll be importing the tools we need to MAKE our OWN energy... It's the difference between importing raw materials or importing finished products. It's a BIG difference, too.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Who cares, if the solution provides benefits which far exceed the costs to implement them? The bottom line is we are running out of fossil fuels, so we'll have to replace them anyway. Why not now? Plus, we'd have the added advantage of NOT transferring our wealth to nations that hate us, and we might create a few jobs in the process.

If we DID that, we may NEVER find out which group knows the truth, and it wouldn't bother me one bit.

excon

---

But ex what if you took the pain of higher energy prices and it didn't make any difference. I'm not against finding alternatives to fossil fuels but do you actually know, with all the emphasis on renewables, that they are predicting a rise in the use of fossil fuels after 2030. They already know it isn't going to work, the growth in demand is too great and we are going to take the pain now for nothing. We already have the solution both your nation and mine have vast reserves of uranium but we won't take the chance which is a very small risk really. Those jobs you need should be in construction of nuclear plants and we could put 50000 abos to work digging uranium where they have no prospect of employment now. What I know is we are too thick to see the obvious. That's the truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

they are predicting a rise in the use of fossil fuels after 2030. They already know it isn't going to work, the growth in demand is too great and we are going to take the pain now for nothing.

---

Hello again, clete:

I don't know who THEY are. But, THEY seem to be saying we don't need to do the science, because THEY already KNOW the outcome...

Seems to me, the only people who would say that, are people who DENY basic science.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I don't know who THEY are. But, THEY seem to be saying we don't need to do the science, because THEY already KNOW the outcome...

Seems to me, the only people who would say that, are people who DENY basic science.

excon

---

No ex the forecasters are using simple equations based on on the same science used to forecast climate outcomes. In the next two decades renewables will significantly reduce production of CO2 from Coal/Oil however after 2030 new technologies like sequestration will increase the use of coal/oil again and the curve goes right back up to where it started and way beyond
http://www.internationaltransportfor...ionPaper18.pdf. Look at the graph on page 15
There is also the problem of fugative emissions which no one is addressing.
Do some research man

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Do some research man

---

Hello again, clete:

Ok. THEY were predicting that the Wright brothers would fail. They didn't. Instead they changed the future... About the same time, Bell was up against naysayers too - it's a good thing he didn't listen... He changed the future. There's more.

The research you'd like me to do can only uncover the PAST. It couldn't tell me about future breakthroughs... But, it DOES tell me that breakthroughs HAPPEN.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

Ok. THEY were predicting that the Wright brothers would fail. They didn't. Instead they changed the future... About the same time, Bell was up against naysayers too - it's a good thing he didn't listen... He changed the future. There's more.

The research you'd like me to do can only uncover the PAST. It couldn't tell me about future breakthroughs... But, it DOES tell me that breakthroughs HAPPEN.

excon

---

It's not breakthroughs we need Ex it's breakouts. Our thinking is tied into our economy and so we only make incremental gains. 100 years after the Wright Brothers planes have just got bigger but the concept is the same, cars still use internal combustion engines. We must understand our past so we don't repeat our mistakes, but we must not be bound by it. No the research I'd like you to do is look at all aspects of the debate before you decide which side you are on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

No the research I'd like you to do is look at all aspects of the debate before you decide which side you are on.

---

Hello again, clete:

Let's recap. We're running out of oil. If we want to maintain our present lifestyle, we're going to have to replace it. Personally, I'm for SEEKING out whatever it is that WILL replace it. You? Not so much.

What am I missing?

excon

PS> Oh, yeah... If we DO that, then whether the world is heating up or not WON'T matter anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

What am I missing?

excon

---

Your consensus scientists are missing the obvious Ex their calculations are WRONG. Yet another report of how far they are out
Forests absorb a third of fossil fuel carbon emissions - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Now this doesn't solve the oil problem but it goes along way to solve climate change and AGW. The solution is simple stop the destruction of tropcial rainforest and the Amazon basin. It also tells us how much B/S we have been subject to from the so called scientists who gave us alarmist forecasts instead of firming up their research

I have given you the answer Ex but you didn't answer it. Nuclear! It seems like your ears are closed and you just want to push your argument first the garbage in the air barrow and now the peak oil barrow. We could also try wave energy there is plenty of ocean to go around, of course some of us have more than others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I have given you the answer Ex but you didn't answer it. Nuclear!.

---

Hello again, clete:

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, clete:

I'm a supporter of nuclear energy.

excon

---

How unfashionable of you, but it appears you and I agree on that one. We will have to watch it here Ex, you and I are agreeing on more and more

Lord Monkton said something interesting in his address to the Australian Press Club yesterday. He said that mathematically and he is a mathematician it isn't possible to predict more than a 1 degree rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. His logic was that doubling of CO2 concentrations since 1790 had only produced 1 degree of warming. While I think his logic was a little off on the day and pure rhetoric, it sounds like a good reason to revisit the modelling and question the assumptions particularly those of catastrophic climate change which he claims is not borne out by the evidence
Oh lord, there's a climate sceptic in the house
Although this fellow is a scientist investigating weather variability he doesn't regard himself as a climate scientist. Begs the question then, what is a climate scientist?

Let's see what has come forth since I posted this thread, we have been told "scientists" underestimated the impact of forests on CO2 emissions and we have been told that modelling was inaccurate regarding heat loss from the Earth. Now we know what happened to "global warming" it got lost with the rest of the scientific B/S. Now I wonder how many grants will be given out to investigate all sorts of issues, such as heat lost into space, heat retained by the Earth, absorption of CO2 in oceans and forests and let's not forget urban gardens, and the impact of greater vegetation growth due to CO2 abundance. I want a grant to investigate catastrophic climate change on Mars. I think it might have some relevance to Earth after all Mars has a CO2 atmosphere and guess what? Its colder. Where did all these "scientists" come from. Why higher education of course. We have been turning out educated idiots for years and this is what we have got

Hey Ex how's this for a consensus
Nearly Three Quarters Believe Global Warming Data Falsified
I'm willing to bet this is the sort of consensus you aren't willing to accept. It's not nice to find yourself on the wrong side of history. I 'know you are going to tell me these people aren't "scientists", but given the size of the population there must be a fair few "scientists" among them. Perhaps these are falsified statistics? Falsified in the same manner as the climate models were falisfied? Or is it that people have just lost faith in B/S

That poll is weak, It is an indisputable fact that the leading scientists ;heading the top climate research institutions ,proponents of man made AGW, falsified their data.

Hi Clete and Tom

Unfortunately when it comes to scientific consensus it doesn't matter what we think. We are not part of the consensus. Consensus is as an issue only applicable to the scientific community involved. This doesn't mean the consensus is right. It also doesn't mean we can't have an opinion.

Some consensus issue within science may be controversial within the public arena but non-controversial within the scientific community.


Tut

Tut ;don't you think that by definition 'consensus ' is anti-scientific by nature... especially when the consensus scientists control the media where their hypothesis should meet the falsifiable test ? Part of the most disturbing aspects of Climategate is the coordinated efforts to purge the publication of material that falsifies their work ;and to limit peer review to those that affirm their results.