Five Small Problems with AGW science.
in [Physics]
|
From: Benj on 22 Feb 2010 01:10 On Feb 21, 11:13 pm, Chris L Peterson <c...(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > It's already affordable. It is only the fact that the real costs of > using fossil fuels are hidden that makes it appear otherwise. We easily > have the ability to radically reduce our CO2 emissions: existing > alternate sources (wind and solar), carbon sequestered coal plants, new > nuclear technologies. For less than we're wasting on the military, we > could develop solar-to-liquid fuel technologies. And great advances are > possible in the area of simple conservation. These things are all doable > in the next ten years. So your idea is to spend all our resources trying to "solve" something that isn't even a problem. Your idea is "solar to liquid fuel technologies", right? Oh I remember that's the idiot idea of burning food that started the Third World on the road to starvation! Swell. Look. It's simple. Just shut up and listen for a minute, Bubba. Conservation is simple. We can cut our electricity use in half. Just turn the power plants off for 12 hours a day. No votes. No taxes. Believe me people will suddenly start to innovate. And IF global warming proves to be a problem, MIT scientists have devised a plan to inject SO2 into the stratosphere to control it. Go read the book Superfreakonomics for a layman's description of the plan. And while we are at it, for the cost of a decent bridge we can stop all hurricane damage! Go read about that too. But instead all you idiots are somehow sold that the "answer" lies in the happy times of the 19th century. Haven't you learned yet that you can never go home? > We don't have to instantly stop using fossil fuels, we just need to be > serious about heading in a new direction. Now THAT is the first sensible thing you've said so far. But allow me to suggest that it's better to head in the CORRECT direction than in just ANY direction so you can pretend you are "doing something". "We live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama.
From: I M on 22 Feb 2010 02:01 On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 21:13:18 -0700, Chris L Peterson <clp(a)alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: >On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 23:03:22 -0500, "I M @ good guy" <I_m(a)good.guy> >wrote: > >> You must have watched one too many >>movies, maybe China, India and the rest of >>the third world is damaging the environment, >>the air and water in western countries has >>never been better. > >China is rapidly becoming the world leader in green technology. They may be producing more solar cells and wind turbines, but then they have way over a billion people, and low wages, and the help of the western companies that have showed them how to make things. >They're smart enough to know that they have to change. They don't have to do anything they don't want to do. >> What science? CO2 traps heat? > >That's the most obvious, since it's undisputed. It is baloney, all web sites say not to think that. >But the knowledge base >is much deeper than that. When will it surface, it must be a well kept secret, all the AGW nuts talk about is CO2 and how it causes Global Warming. >> Do what, about what, only nutcases think >>anything can be done if you mean stop using >>fossil fuels before alternate energy is available >>and affordable. > >It's already affordable. It is only the fact that the real costs of >using fossil fuels are hidden that makes it appear otherwise. You are really brainwashed, there are no alternate energy sources for people in most places, solar is only viable here and there, wind is even worse. Geothermal requires considerable electricity, but like solar, costs a lot to install, and only young people who buy a house and plan to stay there a while and who can afford to go the extra money will use it, although very few people even know the advantages. >We easily >have the ability to radically reduce our CO2 emissions: Very few people do, you are in the sun belt, you are delusional about the reality of the huge proportion of the population that lives in the Northern Hemisphere cold country. >existing >alternate sources (wind and solar), Are all but non-existent, and mostly worthless in most places, none are for sale locally, distribution is essential to sell such things, production is not there to increase sales much even though it has been rising at near 50 percent per year, you are a blow-hard talking through your hat. >carbon sequestered coal plants, BS, will never work, is not safe, and takes more energy than it is worth. >new >nuclear technologies. Not with all the eco-nuts. >For less than we're wasting on the military, we >could develop solar-to-liquid fuel technologies. Do you have any idea what that is supposed to mean, maybe you would rather fight terrorism in your back yard. >And great advances are >possible in the area of simple conservation. Sure, dress like an Eskimo, sit around and do nothing, shut down all the factories, park the cars, be stupid. >These things are all doable >in the next ten years. But not now? Then "we" can't do it now? >We don't have to instantly stop using fossil fuels, we just need to be >serious about heading in a new direction. >_________________________________________________ > >Chris L Peterson >Cloudbait Observatory >http://www.cloudbait.com We need to get people back to work, producing something, less office work, and more production, only every home is filled with every gadget known to man, wages are 10 times what they are in China, nobody has any money, things would be worse than the 1930s if it wasn't for Social Security, SSI, welfare, disability, food stamps, Mothers With Children benefits, etc. The AGW movement has cost way too much already, and has done nothing to reduce emissions or get alternate energy devices in production. Small business is suffering, many places sales do not even pay the rent, congress is a bunch of cantankerous know-nothings spending twice the tax revenue, how long can that keep up. And the AGW nuts just keep on parroting the prepared script.
From: Yousuf Khan on 22 Feb 2010 03:21 Marvin the Martian wrote: > Scientific experts like Al Gore and Barack Obama assure us that the > science of AGW is settled; and it is except for a few minor details, > those details being: > > 1) There isn't any warming. Even Jones admits this. > 2) CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect. Water vapor does. > 3) We didn't put the CO2 into the atmosphere. A warmer ocean did that. > 4) AGW science isn't science, it's bullshit and leftist propaganda. > 5) If there was warming, it wouldn't be bad, it would be good. > > Gawd, Humans are a gullible species. I can't believe you fell for AGW. This ain't no progressive vs. conservative positional test. There's plenty of liberals who find the whole thing to be hokum too. Yousuf Khan
From: AM on 22 Feb 2010 07:18 Chris L Peterson wrote: > On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 22:14:02 -0500, AM <sctuser(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >> No, what matters is what the voters think. > > That doesn't change the likelihood that we're rapidly heading towards > ecological and economic disaster. The science it what it is. And yet you can't say with 100% certainty that what the AGW people think will happen will happen. And if it doesn't. than the science will be even more pushed back or ignored. If it does happen, we will adapt and overcome. Humans do that very well. Human nature is something these scientists did not take into consideration when they did their incredibly poor job of trying to convince people about AGW. And when it's the peoples money, they do have a say in what happens. The people see a very left wing bias in those scientists, and that also turns them off in a big way. Science is supposed to be without politics, yet these same scientists seemed (on the whole) to ignore nuclear power and push for wind/solar. Wind power has a very poor record in this country, and solar is very pollution intensive to make the hardware. People can and have seen this and wonder the agenda behind these same scientists. They also see most of the *green jobs* being created as being not in this country, another insult to the voters, and they know it. Another turn off to the very people needed to pay for change. That and the leaked emails showing some manipulation of data sent people running away from AGW in a hurry. Some data was screwed with, and people saw it for what it was, Pushing an agenda by those scientists. Instant turn off from the very people being asked to pay for the solution. > What the > voters think only affects whether we do anything about it, And at this point they are more concerned with our govt spiraling out of control, putting them into debt at a rapid rate. Cut taxes, you make people happy. Raise them, they get unhappy. This administration is hurting our economy terribly, and people see it. AGW, forget it, people don't want to pay for it. > and it > doesn't look too likely we will. No we will not. The cost is just too high for something (the solution) that is not very well thought out right now. Nothing will happen for a long time to come... -- AM http://sctuser.home.comcast.net http://www.novac.com
From: Sam Wormley on 22 Feb 2010 10:14
On 2/22/10 12:03 AM, 0 O Z B O N wrote: > The projections are based on results from computer models that involve > simplifications of real physical processes that are not fully understood. One doesn't need a computer model to see the trends of the last century and the likelihood that these trends will continue during this century! Human contributed increase in green house gas CO2 http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-13.jpg http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/10/16/0907094106 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif And accompanying Sea Level Rise http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png |