Top scientist resigns admitting gobal warming is a big scam!

[bishop]

That sums up your scientific 'expertise' quite eloquently.

1) you disagree with the vast majority of scientists about climate change
2) you believe that cold fusion is legit

Thanks.

NASA did announce their cold fusion reactor and details about the process. The same NASA that you hold to such high esteem when they support your AGW hypothesis is the same entity that made announcements about cold fusion.

My argument is not the AGW is fake it has always been that AGW is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method. You insisting that it is scientific gives AGW much much more grandeur than it deserves.

 

[Frankfooter]

NASA did announce their cold fusion reactor and details about the process. The same NASA that you hold to such high esteem when they support your AGW hypothesis is the same entity that made announcements about cold fusion.

My argument is not the AGW is fake it has always been that AGW is not scientific because it does not follow the scientific method. You insisting that it is scientific gives AGW much much more grandeur than it deserves.

97% of climatologists disagree with your 'scientific method' line, as does the AAAS (amongst other organizations) that represent real, working scientists.
And your claim about the scientific method just looks silly when in the same breath you back a process that breaks the laws of physics.

 

[Moviefan-2]

And you are trying to fudge the numbers by trying to put answers in different groups then they were put in to cheat the numbers.

"Fudge the numbers?" I think you're confusing me with your hero, fake Nobel laureate Michael Mann. Next, I imagine you'll be accusing me of trying to "hide the decline."

Nonetheless, I am interested in this comment. Are you saying the "consensus" includes climate researchers who believe that natural factors are the primary cause of warming?

Please clarify.

 

[bishop]

So basically all you have is an appeal to authority, that is all you ever had, all you have, and all you will ever have. Just put that in your signature, you do not have to keep giving the same appeal to authority over and over and over as an answer to every question, as a solution to any problem.

 

[Moviefan-2]

97% of climatologists disagree with your 'scientific method' line....

Is that an actual 97% or is it closer to 66%?

 

[fuji]

There is alot of research into new things that show alot of promise. Electric cars are of no real consequence, to me they are just window dressing, an electric car is all about the battery and how to efficiently store energy, it is not about efficiently generating power which is really the real problem/issue. An electric car is just an AC motor + battery, the AC motor when first invented by Tesla was probably 90% efficient already, now you can buy a cheap AC motor that can easily get maybe 95%+ efficiency, more expensive motors can get 99%+ efficiency. So ultimately an electric car is just about the battery or energy storage.

Electric cars are a key part of the puzzle, though, because they mean that you can have a car powered by ANYTHING. Previously, you could only have a car powered by hydrocarbons.

And even when you use hydrocarbons to generate the electricity, if you do it in a power generation plant there are many more opportunities to reduce the emissions--a power plant can use technology and filters that you can't easily put into a car.

And of course you can use relatively clean things like nuclear power to generate the electricity instead of hydrocarbons. While the left gets into a tizzy over nuclear power, the reality is that it doesn't cause global warming or climate change--it has some local risks around the nuclear plant, but no significant risks to the planet as a whole.

So yes while electric cars just move where the power is generated from the car to a power plant, by doing that they open up the playing field for ANY power generation technology that we can devise.

 

[Titalian]

Electric cars are a key part of the puzzle, though, because they mean that you can have a car powered by ANYTHING. Previously, you could only have a car powered by hydrocarbons.

And even when you use hydrocarbons to generate the electricity, if you do it in a power generation plant there are many more opportunities to reduce the emissions--a power plant can use technology and filters that you can't easily put into a car.

And of course you can use relatively clean things like nuclear power to generate the electricity instead of hydrocarbons. While the left gets into a tizzy over nuclear power, the reality is that it doesn't cause global warming or climate change--it has some local risks around the nuclear plant, but no significant risks to the planet as a whole.

So yes while electric cars just move where the power is generated from the car to a power plant, by doing that they open up the playing field for ANY power generation technology that we can devise.

you ignorant puts. Its all about oil and money.

 

[fuji]

you ignorant puts. Its all about oil and money.

Your post is free of content. Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion, or are you going to hurl these childish insults and waste everyone's time?

What do you dispute here? That electric cars are fed by power plants? That power plants can use any energy source? That even when they are hydrocarbon power plants they are cleaner than cars?

Let us know when you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.

 

[Titalian]

Your post is free of content. Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion, or are you going to hurl these childish insults and waste everyone's time?

What do you dispute here? That electric cars are fed by power plants? That power plants can use any energy source? That even when they are hydrocarbon power plants they are cleaner than cars?

Let us know when you have something meaningful to add to the discussion.

I just posted value. Your to ignorant to see it. As usual.

 

[fuji]

Some days I think I am overpaid, I wonder how is it that I am paid so much more than the average person. Did I just get lucky? Was it the privilege of growing up in a modestly well off family? Am I really more capable then others?

Then I come and read one of these conspiracy theory threads and I feel better.

you ignorant puts. Its all about oil and money.

I just posted value. Your to ignorant to see it. As usual.

....

 

[Frankfooter]

So basically all you have is an appeal to authority, that is all you ever had, all you have, and all you will ever have. Just put that in your signature, you do not have to keep giving the same appeal to authority over and over and over as an answer to every question, as a solution to any problem.

Appeal to authority?

No, there are mounds and mounds of very detailed work, referenced to the peer assessed reports and to the data.
There is so much science, backed up by independent scientists in over 150 countries with a 97% agreement that its happening.

That's not an 'appeal to authority', its an acceptance that the science is legit and supported by pretty much every single report.
The IPCC isn't an 'authority', its a body that reviews all papers and research on the matter and then assesses the full work.
Its findings quote and link to the original works.

 

[Frankfooter]

Is that an actual 97% or is it closer to 66%?

Here, watch this video put out by the AAAS, the organization that represents most American scientists (not just climatologists).

As the AAAS says:

Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

http://whatweknow.aaas.org/

Lets just say that your faulty math and attempts at dishonestly quoting reports and directly lying about their results show only your own personal and faulty views.
In order to keep claiming that the 97% number is false you have to accuse the AAAS of lying.

Do you really think the AAAS is lying?

 

[FAST]

Is that an actual 97% or is it closer to 66%?

With the 66% belonging to the same select clubs,...IPPC, NOAA etc,...the remaining,...being free thinking , none club members,...and NOT worried about their employment, and personal economic gratification, scientists.

With the UNEMPLOYABLE in these clubs STILL standing behind the discredited "hockey stick" graph lie,...that pretty much takes them out of the picture,...doesn't it groggy.

FAST

 

[Moviefan-2]

Lets just say that your faulty math and attempts at dishonestly quoting reports and directly lying about their results show only your own personal and faulty views.

So, now Frankfooter is accusing me of lying and of "faulty math."

LOL. Let's take another look at the numbers.

I counted up every single respondent who supported the hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century. According to the numbers that have been posted by both Basketcase and myself, the numbers look like this: 17.1% plus 32.2% plus 16.6%.

I say that adds up to 66% (actually 65.9%, but I rounded it off).

Frankfooter insists this is "faulty math" -- although he has yet to explain what is "faulty" about it.

Looking at his insinuations, two possibilities arise:

1) Frankfooter doesn't know how to add.

and/or

2) Frankfooter's "consensus" includes researchers who believe that natural factors have been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century -- in other words, the "consensus" includes researchers who think the IPCC is full of shit.

It sure would be helpful if Frankfooter would stop relying on insults and appeals to authority and actually explain why he thinks my math is "faulty." :thumb:

 

[Moviefan-2]

With the 66% belonging to the same select clubs,...IPPC, NOAA etc,

Indeed.

It's worth remembering that the same survey asked the climate researchers how current temperature trends compare with the predictions. About 70% of respondents got it wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

I counted up every single respondent who supported the hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases have been the dominant cause of warming since the mid-20th century. According to the numbers that have been posted by both Basketcase and myself, the numbers look like this: 17.1% plus 32.2% plus 16.6%.

Your faulty math is based on you not including those who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change but are unsure of the percentage of temp change attributed to man made causes.
It is 'hair splitting' as bishop stated.
You are misinterpreting data intentionally to misrepresent a study, directly calling the author of that same study a liar in order to make your claim.

You are dishonest.
And its a lame argument based your dishonest take on one question of one of multiple studies.

Typical of all you write here.

This should be the final word, the findings of the study, which you stated are correct.

The results presented in the PBL-study are consistent with similar studies, which all find high levels of consensus among scientists, especially among scientists who publish more often in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.pbl.nl/en/faq-for-the-article-scientists-views-about-attribution-of-global-warming

 

[Titalian]

Again this is only a theory, and not proven science. The only people that will be affected are the ones paying for this energy. Cap and tax !!!
If we were really serious, we d search for alternative means of energy.

 

[fuji]

Again this is only a theory, and not proven science. The only people that will be affected are the ones paying for this energy. Cap and tax !!!
If we were really serious, we d search for alternative means of energy.

Tobacco industry says the same thing about smoking and cancer. Nothing is ever proven in science, there is a flaw in every hypothesis. We know that our theory of gravity is wrong and that there is a better explanation that we haven't discovered yet.

Human caused global warming is the best predictive theory we have, fitting the data far better then any alternative theory.

All the theories have holes. If you demand that there e absolutely no unexplained data point before you accept a theory then you can't even accept the theory of gravity because it doesn't explain quantum mechanics.

 

[basketcase]

... It's like something out of Nineteen Eighty-Four.
....

You're right. Quoting a survey as 'proof' when only a minuscule percentage agree with your stated view is downright Orwellian.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Your faulty math is based on you not including those who support the theory of anthropogenic climate change but are unsure of the percentage of temp change attributed to man made causes.

Now, we know who's being dishonest.

There was nothing that said the respondents who voted unknown or don't know "support" the hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases are the dominant cause of warming. You just made that up.

Even worse, since you're counting those respondents as part of the "consensus," you have confirmed the "consensus" is a total crock.