Global Warming?

[houstonscott]

Pat

Logical thinking until you find out that removing CO2 in gigantic qualities is easy, a few machines around the world that do this and bingo no man effect. Car companies tried this early on in fight, easy to scrub more pollution from air than car emits, but EPA is not concerned with using science to clean up air just want control the manufacture of your auto. Then comes the truth about this stuff, they are not interested in cleaning up anything they want control of your energy, your health care, and then you, it's a hoax.



HS

 

[IslandTractor]

The big hitters in this thread have all lost interest. The companion thread had over 2000 posts, then this one. Randy all the so called science that these last few hold outs have been proven to be fake, altered, just plane wrong, by the people he sites as experts. CO2 has been long ago (years now) not to be a warming gas. (that ends the man made stuff) On top of that emails and other omissions (wikileaks) and other show these people in a hoax after their data showed no evidence of warming in last 16 years. The bottom line is there are many sciences that are studying global climate change, most now admit it's much to complicated to explain by one science. Not knowing for certain temps and atmospheric makeup in the past and even the very big one of mean pressure make it all but impossible to create a real model taking all the sciences into account. More modern and less biased science is showing sun activity and earth orbits are more a controlling factor than previously thought, the to point of studying atmospheric gases is a wild goose chase, that can never be accurate due to all the guessing about the past atmosphere, temps, and pressure. Things that will never be known to the exact numbers required to make predictions. The idea that mans activities are some how influencing the global climate of the future and making changes to weather now are all but stuff of the aluminum hat crowd now.

HS

Please list the scientific studies you refer to as dismissing greenhouse gases as critical drivers of climate forcing. Please refrain from simply referring us to some blog or an individual journalism piece.

If you cannot find them, maybe you could check with one of your "big hitter" friends.

 

[IslandTractor]

Pat

Logical thinking until you find out that removing CO2 in gigantic qualities is easy, a few machines around the world that do this and bingo no man effect. Car companies tried this early on in fight, easy to scrub more pollution from air than car emits, but EPA is not concerned with using science to clean up air just want control the manufacture of your auto. Then comes the truth about this stuff, they are not interested in cleaning up anything they want control of your energy, your health care, and then you, it's a hoax.

HS

I'm interested. What CO2 scrubbing device are you referring to?

 

[houstonscott]

Please list the scientific studies you refer to as dismissing greenhouse gases as critical drivers of climate forcing. Please refrain from simply referring us to some blog or an individual journalism piece.

If you cannot find them, maybe you could check with one of your "big hitter" friends.

I don't have two years to give you all the data shown on this thread. Just let me tell you it's been presented. Your like the guy whom walks into a room after a three year discussion and then says hey, prove it to me. Go do your own homework, open your mind to something besides sciences that base their models on things they can't never know, never did, and never will know, like the mean earth pressure 150 million years ago, or even how much rain has fallen to earth yesterday, all things necessary to create a so called model of global climates. Atmospheric gases are not the controlling or may not even play a role in climate changes. I'll give you the four most important ones given to me by a NASA guy here in Houston with the caveat, anything else is a guess.
1. When the sun heats up the earth heats up.
2. When the sun cools down the earth cools down.
3. When the earth is closer to the sun it heats up.
4. When the earth moves away from the sun the earth cools.

Take all other info with a grain of salt, it's most likely just plane wrong.

HS

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Nearly all groups and individuals with power seek to neutralize threats to that power. I don't think it had to do with religion so much as preserving a massive power structure that served the interests of many of those within the structure. Science itself plays out small and local examples of this behavior daily. I know it does but most would find it hard to believe until they see it with their own eyes.

True, but don't forget, the power structure we're talking about is the church, which in turn is based on religious dogma. Religious dogma and science are often diametrically opposed. Give the church the power of the government and the outcome is not often good for science or the scientist.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

If you have to ask you may be one.

Flat Earth Society = Ludites

Look it up.


Me? I may not be from your planet, monkeyboy.

I turned on my advanced BS preprocessor/filter and ran a series of these posts through it. There wasn't nearly as much to read.

If awards were to be made based on childish name calling and tantrums the winners would be found here.

It seems for some here the "rule" is if you have no credible evidence to support your contentions then call your detractors names, impugn their intelligence and motivation, and act as a cheering section for like minded who in turn support you. (Credible evidence from refereed recognized scientific journals not National Enquirer level of BS.) Volume and repetition do not equal validity.

Science is not a democratic process where everyone gets an equal vote and physical processes are subject to political correctness. Science is ... well... science, the application of the scientific method. Scientists are flawed humans subject to all the human foibles but there is no better process for finding out how things work than the scientific method.

I note that in addition to name calling and mindless tis taint tis taint retorts where it seems the goal is "scoring sarcasm points" on your "enemies" there is pigeon holing. Statements such as if you believe that xxxxxx then you are a left wing *&^%$) or support yyyyyy and you are a right wing ^%^%4 &^*&!!!

I have never missed voting for president since becoming of legal age. I have never voted for a Democrat for president (but did for some other offices depending on available choices and some independents too.) I have several conservative tendencies. My job title at retirement was SCIENTIST.

Intelligent design? I think evolution IS intelligent design. I have a concealed weapon permit and I do carry and advocate it for all law abiding citizens.

So what camp does that put me in? AGW or denier????

I think the preponderance of evidence is insufficient to irrefutably identify a smoking gun for AGW but is certainly sufficient to warrant our attention and funding of research. To deny AGW out of hand because it would be inconvenient if conclusively proven and an expensive response were to be required is whistling in the dark. I bill myself as an optimistic realist, one who hopes for the best and deals with reality.

I have seen examples of folks who refuse to go to the doctor because if the doctor found them to be suffering from xzxzxzx they wouldn't like the treatment regimen. Similarly some folks who fear the consequence(s) of some situation deny all or part of its component parts like children getting hyperactive trying to avoid the inevitable bedtime.

Science works as a self improving system with corrective feedback not unlike Newtons method of successive approximation. Want the square root of a number? Say 139. Take a guess. divide the guess into 139 add the quotient to your guess and divide by 2. Use this result as the new divisor of 139. Repeat the process till you get as many accurate digits as you want. Being smart about the guess doesn't help much. By analysis it is easily seen that the answer is greater than 11 (squared is 121) and less than 12 (squared is 144.) So 11 1/2 would be a SMART first guess but the end result is not changed and the number of iterations to get the desired result is not greatly reduced. Improvement through self correcting feedback... the driving force behind the scientific method.

Science works a lot like this. You make a guess and then experiment to see if you can improve on the guess. The initial guess is not nearly as important as the method of proving/disproving/improving on the guess. If you make a simplistic model of the climate it will have large errors. Modifying the model by iteration, guided by its performance will evolve the model to a closer approximation of "the truth."

If this interests you, I suggest you read some on the topic of Artificial Intelligence through evolutionary programming.

I have a dog in this fight. I live in an area experiencing extreme drought with less than 15 inches of rain so far as the year is drawing to a close. Our average rainfall is 37 inches. In the last 12 years I have experienced the wettest year on record and the driest year on record, dryer than the dustbowl at its worst. The "normal" pattern is a roughly 7-10 year wet dry cycle with some odd flyers but... things are looking pretty bleak with credible experts suggesting a high probability of desertification (becoming a desert.) If some of this is human caused and reversible I'd be interested in reversing it. If not human caused but reversible, I'm interested. Otherwise... my wife and I enjoy the desert but not sure we want to experience becoming one.

Pat




d self corrects to rapidly converge on the cube root accurate to as many decimal places as you want depending on the number of iterations you perform.

Good post Patrick; it would be well for some of us to read it, save it and re-read it from time to time.

 

[houstonscott]

I'm interested. What CO2 scrubbing device are you referring to?

In aviation they say you don't know what you don't know. Your question is like crashing. You haven't even opened your mind that real scientist have looked far ahead and asked "If CO2 is an issue can we build a machine to remove it" and cancel mans effects ASAP. The answer is yes, but no one whats to do that, it doesn't remove the fossil fuel from the people and make green energy guys the new energy power brokers. Did you know a $10 filter on your car could scrub all the equivalent pollution it emits, but EPA is not interested in this path to clean up the air. You couldn't be trusted to change it was their response. I'll all so state real scientists are not working an academia, or looking for money in grants to study something they believe and are trying to prove, come **** or high water. Academia types can't make it in the world of real science.

HS

 

[IslandTractor]

In aviation they say you don't know what you don't know. Your question is like crashing. You haven't even opened your mind that real scientist have looked far ahead and asked "If CO2 is an issue can we build a machine to remove it" and cancel mans effects ASAP. The answer is yes, but no one whats to do that, it doesn't remove the fossil fuel from the people and make green energy guys the new energy power brokers. Did you know a $10 filter on your car could scrub all the equivalent pollution it emits, but EPA is not interested in this path to clean up the air. You couldn't be trusted to change it was their response.

HS

I am aware of the concept. I just never saw a description of a process or device for efficiently fixing atmospheric CO2 other than a green plant. If the device you refer to is efficient and transforms CO2 into a storable solid form, I would think entrepreneurs would be all over it.

And, what $10 filter are you referring to?

 

[Renze]

Again, baloney. There is no comparison between systematic religion inspired violence and the individual unrelated crimes of a small percentage of scientists. Listing the few dozen well described examples of scientific fraud, nearly all uncovered by other scientists, as evidence that scientists are "as corrupt as politicians" is absurd. There are hundreds of evangelicals who have been convicted of murder or adultery. Does that fact mean all evangelicals or Christians are cheating criminals?

Did you read me write that all scientists are ? I didnt say that. Though its a fact that scientists publishing research that questions mainstream scientific "belief" their funds are cut and they are ignored by the rest of the scientific world. Especially when it comes to global warming: If governments would admit that their data might have been a little off, what would that mean to corporations that have invested in EPA rated engines, hybrid cars, etcetera ? they just cant turn it back for the sake of credibility.
Furthermore, political corruption is often also uncovered by other politicians, who get a lot of resistance

Scientists self police. Examples of fraud are usually quickly identified because one of the tenets of the scientific method is to independently repeat experiments and when results cannot be repeated further investigation can uncover fraud. There is no such tradition in major religions where malfeasance is often covered up to protect the system. Witness clerical *** abuse in the Catholic church and some of the gross financial abuse by some TVangelical churches.

The scientific research fraud cases in Holland have been going on for 20 years before being uncovered.

You cannot blithely state that "science is a religion". Religions virtually all look backward to some sacrosanct document that cannot be challenged. Science is the opposite, it looks forward and willingly reexamines older theories in an effort to improve upon them. Religions teach a series of unchanging facts from one generation to another and not infrequently resort to war in defense of that set of beliefs. Science seeks and incorporates new information and theories and changes constantly. It is simply absurd to say a hypothesis is the same as a religious belief. There is a huge and fundamental difference.

Global Warming extremist looses it about ClimateGate on Fox - YouTube

I dont see the incorporation of new information... Laws are made based on the global warming idea that we got after looking at temperature data of the last 150 years, disregarding there was a small ice age in the 17th century. Entire industries are built onto this hypothesis, so science as a whole would loose its credibility if they allowed criticism on this, let alone recalled something with such huge consequences. Honest scientists that just happen to get different outcome of their research are discarded as deniers or quacks, their research isnt even looked into... incorporation of new data ? no... sarcosanct documents that cannot be challenged !!

p.s. oh yes there was/is a serious pollution problem in large cities. The emission is way too concentrated, unhealthy air to breath. Heavy metals, sulfur, bad things. But Co2 causing global warming ?? stop kidding me. Dump that Co2 in the rainforests and watch it grow !!!

We dont control, nor even remotely understand the systems of our planet.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

In aviation they say you don't know what you don't know. Your question is like crashing. You haven't even opened your mind that real scientist have looked far ahead and asked "If CO2 is an issue can we build a machine to remove it" and cancel mans effects ASAP. The answer is yes, but no one whats to do that, it doesn't remove the fossil fuel from the people and make green energy guys the new energy power brokers. Did you know a $10 filter on your car could scrub all the equivalent pollution it emits, but EPA is not interested in this path to clean up the air. You couldn't be trusted to change it was their response.

HS

HS, I too would be interested in these devices. Having spent 20 some years in the permitting, regulation and enforcement of regulations regarding Air Quality standards and emissions, it seems odd I haven't heard of these things. Must be fairly new. Amine units have been around for some time, but hooking one up to a coal fired power plant is fairly expensive, not to mention the maintenance required. As for the $10 filter on your car, the last guy I ran into who had something similar was prosecuted for, and found guilty of fraud.

 

[toppop52]

If C02 were the only enemy, it could be rather easily controlled by planting unused open lands in fast growing, high exchange rate plants, duckweed, many grasses and some trees.

 

[houstonscott]

HS, I too would be interested in these devices. Having spent 20 some years in the permitting, regulation and enforcement of regulations regarding Air Quality standards and emissions, it seems odd I haven't heard of these things. Must be fairly new. Amine units have been around for some time, but hooking one up to a coal fired power plant is fairly expensive, not to mention the maintenance required. As for the $10 filter on your car, the last guy I ran into who had something similar was prosecuted for, and found guilty of fraud.

http://greenupgrader.com/3744/synthetic-trees-could-be-environmental-co2-scrubbers/

I'm interested that a professed regulator never thought to invest time and effort to investigate if removing pollution for the air directly might be a better, easer and cheaper way of tacking a problem rather than regulate. Just shows me how narrow minded these regulators are and the lack of interest in really solving the issue but just regulating, what many of us have know from the every start. I have read about many over the years, 2 seconds of search turned up these, it's an old idea. Spending tax dollars to scrub CO2 rather than look to spend billions to get a 1 ton truck to get 55mpg just maybe a better idea. My point is there is no threat, if you assume there is you find the people articulating the threat are not interested in solving it. It's a hoax, get it...Always was.

HS

 

[IslandTractor]

I'm interested that a professed regulator never thought to invest time and effort to investigate if removing pollution for the air directly might be a better, easer and cheaper way of tacking a problem rather than regulate. Just shows me how narrow minded these regulators are and the lack of interest in really solving the issue but just regulating, what many of us have know from the every start.

HS

We asked you for further information on your $10 miracle filter. Do you have a reference or name?

Some of you keep referring to science or devices that are never referenced. Sounds almost like the old Sen McCarthy trick of waving around a wad of paper that is supposed to be a list of hundreds of commies. He was shown to be a fraud. Where is your information?

 

[houstonscott]

Maybe just older than you and followed the auto industry since the 1960's and pollution control devices on auto's. I have lived all this crap for 50 years. It's obvious to me Mr. IslandTractor with all your intellect you just discovered the other half of the coin. You just don't know what you don't know. You have allot of homework, maybe years or decades worth before you spout this man made global warming thing as some settled science with a bunch of hay seeds holding out, it's you whom didn't even consider or recognize the whole picture. That's ok, many people like you have been fooled, so called educated ones too.

HS

 

[Egon]

I'm not sure I get your point; I agree with what you say, but the way I see it, the conflicts that stifle science are between science and the stilted religious community(s). When the church is as powerful or more powerful as the host government, and has it's own courts to punish (or convert, or stone or burn at the stake as the case may be), science has to work undeground or in a more hospitable country. In such a case, dogma wins every time. Admittedly, today science will progress in enlightened areas of the world, but things were a bit slow in the dark ages. It's really scary to think that at one time, you could be executed for theorizing that the earth revolved around the sun, instead of vice versa, simply because any science to the contrary was in opposition to the absolute "truth" as seen by the church.

The Dark Ages? Depends on where you refer to. Timbuktu was once the centre of knowledge and economic power!

Scientist are; well, Scientists. Normal folk one and all. Some just get vetted through more rigorous regime's than other's!

 

[skspurling]

Dark Ages? You mean when learning and science were preserved by the Irish monasteries? Maybe you mean the period after that when universities that provided the bastion of higher learning were all religious institutions? No? Maybe you mean that great hieratic, Isac Newton? Well, he did say "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Dang! He's not an atheist. So, where does this notion that science and religion are in direct opposition come from?

Randy brings up an important point. If the problem is CO2, Why don't we plant more fast growing CO2 processing plants? The best answer I can think of is because it doesn't end up in the regulation of others behavior. The plants would sequester the carbon, and release the O2. Much better than just pulling it out of the air and burying it.

 

[houstonscott]

My main point is if you really believe in GW, you should spend your time and money building and developing machines and science that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. What you don't do is put regulations in place to destroy your economy and access to cheap energy. Trying to get a one ton truck get 55mpg is stupid. The only reason to destroy the biggest most successful economy on earth through these green agenda is to take power, it has nothing to do with CO2, get it? As for the Senator McCarthy comment, read this...again a product of miss education or propaganda.

Most-hated senator was right

HS

 

[Cat_Driver]

The real reason for Global warming:

AGENDA: Grinding America Down (Full Movie) FREE for a limited time. on Vimeo

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Synthetic Trees Could Be Environmental CO2 Scrubbers | greenUPGRADER

I'm interested that a professed regulator never thought to invest time and effort to investigate if removing pollution for the air directly might be a better, easer and cheaper way of tacking a problem rather than regulate. Just shows me how narrow minded these regulators are and the lack of interest in really solving the issue but just regulating, what many of us have know from the every start. I have read about many over the years, 2 seconds of search turned up these, it's an old idea. Spending tax dollars to scrub CO2 rather than look to spend billions to get a 1 ton truck to get 55mpg just maybe a better idea. My point is there is no threat, if you assume there is you find the people articulating the threat are not interested in solving it. It's a hoax, get it...Always was.

HS

CO2 regulation is a fairly new phenomenon, and as far as I know, there aren't any final regulations in place. Emission and removal of CO2 was never a regulatory issue until the obama adminstration. It is used in many industrial processes, but not as a regulatory requirement. I would be interested to know how a retired Coastie would presume to know so much about a the mindset of a former regulator whom you know nothing at all about. Oh, FWIW, the apparatus you referenced is still in the prototype stage. Building one of these things, doing pilot plant studies and working out the bugs is another ball game altogether...not to mention the environmental issues connected with putting the stuff down an injection well in the middle of the ocean.

 

[Egon]

Dark Ages? You mean when learning and science were preserved by the Irish monasteries? Maybe you mean the period after that when universities that provided the bastion of higher learning were all religious institutions? No? Maybe you mean that great hieratic, Isac Newton? Well, he did say "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Dang! He's not an atheist. So, where does this notion that science and religion are in direct opposition come from?

Randy brings up an important point. If the problem is CO2, Why don't we plant more fast growing CO2 processing plants? The best answer I can think of is because it doesn't end up in the regulation of others behavior. The plants would sequester the carbon, and release the O2. Much better than just pulling it out of the air and burying it.

Are you referring to a small portion of the world?