Author Topic: Free Energy is just a bad name...  (Read 173978 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #750 on: February 22, 2016, 11:00:05 am »

I never said I question the conclusions of the scientific community. What I question is people using articles, charts and graphs from think tanks funded by *either* side.

Fair enough. But recognize that I and others generally post links to actual original research - peer reviewed journal articles.  Or in some cases websites that summarize the findings of several journal articles - but which always provide links to the journal articles themselves.

That is much different from someone posting manufactured graphs from fossil fuel industry funded denial sites and never links to any actual scientific referenced source.

If you believe there is large money coming from somewhere to fund promotion of the actual real climate science -please show evidence of that - there is none that I'm aware of - though I guess it is possible some small PV company could be contributing money. There is no large corporation that would benefit from more public acceptance of climate science. That's too bad. I wish there was.

The funding for denial websites has been well documented.

And once again - it's a fact that as of 2011 97% of journal articles and climate scientists with an opinion on the matter agreed with the tenets of AGW.

There truly is consensus in the scientific community. Yes, there really is.

So on one side you have fossil fuel industry funded "think tank"  websites and on the other side you have actual climate scientists.

Again - the fact that you think that is not the case indicates to me that their disinformation campaign is successful.

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

I know you may not want to admit this, but the scientific process isn't perfect. Scientists lie, they make mistakes and take shortcuts, just like everybody else. Mind you, not all of them, not all the time or even on purpose, but it happens. Psychology in particular was rife with this for many years. (See: Richard Feynman's commencement speech a few posts up.)

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all the data is bad and climate change isn't happening. Like I said earlier, there is clearly a climatic change; this can be easily proved with data from many varied sources. What I am saying is that the *cause* of that change isn't so easily pinned down. This is where manipulation of the data to fit an agenda comes in.

Big Oil pays think tanks, but what does the Green Energy side have? Well, all those researchers want grants to keep studying, companies want grants and investments to develop the next big thing in solar cells, etc. So, instead of a few Fortune 100 companies, you have thousands of small companies, academic institutions and so on vying for a piece of the pie.

It wouldn't be the first time a researcher fudged data to get more money to keep studying. Again, I have no direct evidence that's the case here, but can you see why it makes me apprehensive?

In my opinion, the "Natural vs Man-Made" (or a mix of both) debate is a red herring, it doesn't matter. Ultimately, there's only two simple facts that matter: 1) The climate *is* changing. 2) Fossil Fuels are a finite resource. Even if you disagree with #1, it doesn't matter because #2 is irrefutable, which means we all need to stop bickering about the former so we can start working on a solution for the latter.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #751 on: February 22, 2016, 11:07:45 am »
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.

Please quote my post that you are referring to.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #752 on: February 22, 2016, 11:16:46 am »
.
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 11:19:58 am by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #753 on: February 22, 2016, 11:21:54 am »
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #754 on: February 22, 2016, 11:46:28 am »
.

I saw that. ;)

I use the three minutes rule :)

Tapatalk can't delete posts.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #755 on: February 22, 2016, 11:53:35 am »
.

I saw that. ;)

I use the three minutes rule :)

Tapatalk can't delete posts.

Yes it can!



(Tap the post to bring up the "Quote Edit Share More" menu, tap "Edit" and finally tap "Delete".)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 11:56:04 am by timb »
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #756 on: February 22, 2016, 12:33:56 pm »
(Tap the post to bring up the "Quote Edit Share More" menu, tap "Edit" and finally tap "Delete".)

Not on my Android Taptalk 4.5.2 but I see now that they have a new app (new app ID, not just new version) so I will give it a try.

Thanks for the pointer. This thread became very useful. :)
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14334
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #757 on: February 22, 2016, 01:21:44 pm »
:phew: my head is about to explode.
Question if it is caused by man ( I don't think it is) can we do anything about it?
I have read that the volcano eruptions in the last few years have put more carbon in the atmosphere than man has since the start of the industrial revolution. How do we do anything about that?
Where did you read that? Another dodgy fossil fuel industry sponsored website!

It's bullshit and was debunked a long time ago.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638-climate-myths-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #758 on: February 22, 2016, 01:37:07 pm »
Here is an interesting interview with Professor John Christy, an ex NASA scientists, that discusses the gap between the models used by the IPCC and the evidence.

Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #759 on: February 22, 2016, 03:45:32 pm »
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.

Please quote my post that you are referring to.

So you are denying that you've made several posts that have tried to imply global warming is not occuring?

For example the large cherry picked graph you posted in post #625 or the misleading graph you posted in #712? 

Or even your post just above (#747) :

Quote from: zapta
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring

Check his graph around 18:41, basically no increase after 1998.

The question then becomes if you actually do admit that global warming is occuring (As Roy Spencer does) why would you make those posts??
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #760 on: February 22, 2016, 03:54:44 pm »
Here is an interesting interview with Professor John Christy, an ex NASA scientists, that discusses the gap between the models used by the IPCC and the evidence.

Yeah- John Christy is one of Spencers colleagues in the 3% minority.  He along with Spencer unfortunately have been caught trying to publish erroneous data..

We could both post youtube videos all day long. But that is no way to debate the merits of the science.

Still no actual science from you. So once again Zapta I will ask for you to supply any links to legitimate scientific publications or even other non-fossil fuel funded evidence to support the claims you've repeatedly made regarding AGW or the supposed conspiracy leading the consensus of the scientific community to be falsified.

I'm still waiting...
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #761 on: February 22, 2016, 04:08:28 pm »
So your own video contradicts what you've been stating.

Please quote my post that you are referring to.

So you are denying that you've made several posts that have tried to imply global warming is not occuring?

For example the large cherry picked graph you posted in post #625 or the misleading graph you posted in #712? 

Or even your post just above (#747) :

Quote from: zapta
And as I posted above, Roy Spencer does not support your previous claims in this thread that global warming is not occuring

Check his graph around 18:41, basically no increase after 1998.

The question then becomes if you actually do admit that global warming is occuring (As Roy Spencer does) why would you make those posts??

You are making things up again.

I said that the claims of catastrophic-man-mad-global-warmings are exaggerated and this is in agreement what Roy Spencer said.

I said that there was no significant increase in global temperature level since 1998 which is in agreement with what Roy Spencer said.

We are trying to have an honest discussion here and you keep distorting the facts.


« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 04:10:47 pm by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #762 on: February 22, 2016, 04:26:57 pm »

I said that there was no significant increase in global temperature level since 1998 which is in agreement with what Roy Spencer said.

We are trying to have an honest discussion here and you keep distorting the facts.

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #763 on: February 22, 2016, 05:03:54 pm »

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/global-temperature/

And then there is the question of cause,  the pro and cons of increased CO2 level,  and the implications of increased temperature.

As I said, the catashtrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions are grossly exaggerated, the notion of 'settled science' is a lie,  and so is your claim that the above contradicts Roy Spencer.

mtdoc, are doing disservice to science.

« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 05:05:28 pm by zapta »
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #764 on: February 22, 2016, 05:14:20 pm »
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #765 on: February 22, 2016, 05:25:23 pm »
I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

Sorry mtdoc, I tried to reason and be patient with you but we are going in loops.

I just want to hope that you will not be disappointed if the catastrophic-man-made-global-warming predictions will not materialize (and I don't expect the CO2 emissions to go down any time soon).
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #766 on: February 22, 2016, 05:28:19 pm »

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.


Zapta - you repeatedly post links and cut and past from the same discredited fossil fuel industry funded disinformation site (wattsupwiththat) but despite repeated requests never post links or anything from reputable scientific sources.  Why is that?

As I've posted before - there is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is occuring (even Spencer agrees). One again here are some links to reputable data sets:

Full data set showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.

Cherry picked data - starting at the 1998 debunked by REMSS themselves.

Continuing to post that demonstrates you have no interest in truth but are simply interested in trying to seed FUD.

There are several data sets that have been looked at all of which agree that the planet is warming.

So based on your post - you seem to be continuing to try and convince others that significant global warming is not occurring (despite what your posted video expert says). So why did you assert otherwise just above?  Why do you refuse to post any reputable scientific research data to support that claim? No, cherry picking the 1998 date does not count - as by REMSS themselves point out:
Quote
The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope
 

Offline zapta

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6004
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #767 on: February 22, 2016, 05:37:25 pm »

You are the one who is being dishonest.   I just pointed to several of your posts that - as anyone can see - are a deliberate attempt to refute the reality of global warming - (which Spencer does not refute -despite what you say).

So if you want to move past that please answer 2 simple questions:

1) Do you believe the planet is warming?
     a) Yes
     b) No

2) If a) then why have you made repeated posts which try to convince people otherwise
    If b) - why post videos from Roy Spencer who believes it is warming and please provide some evidence for your claim.

Thank you.

At some layers of the atmospheres there is a measurable warming that is below the levels predicted by the IPCC models. The rate of increase is almost insignificant since 1998. When computing the 30 years average (the classical 'climate' period) , the pre 1998 warming increases the overall slope so the slop of the change from 1998 is even lower.


Zapta - you repeatedly post links and cut and past from the same discredited fossil fuel industry funded disinformation site (wattsupwiththat) but despite repeated requests never post links or anything from reputable scientific sources.  Why is that?

As I've posted before - there is no disagreement in the scientific community that global warming is occuring (even Spencer agrees). One again here are some links to reputable data sets:

Full data set showing the 0.124 K/decade temperature increase.

Cherry picked data - starting at the 1998 debunked by REMSS themselves.

Continuing to post that demonstrates you have no interest in truth but are simply interested in trying to seed FUD.

There are several data sets that have been looked at all of which agree that the planet is warming.

So based on your post - you seem to be continuing to try and convince others that significant global warming is not occurring (despite what your posted video expert says). So why did you assert otherwise just above?  Why do you refuse to post any reputable scientific research data to support that claim? No, cherry picking the 1998 date does not count - as by REMSS themselves point out:
Quote
The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope

OK.
Drain the swamp.
 

Offline MT

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1290
  • Country: cn
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #768 on: February 22, 2016, 10:03:37 pm »

Well - that bunch of nonsense -clearly demonstrates much about your mental clarity and agenda. Religion, Streisand effect, eating pigs and farting cows. Again - we're back in the la la crazy land where this thread started. ::) 

Perhaps it was a bait and you took it, again and again..or not. You seams to be very angry all the time particularly if questioned around things you claim absolute facts and the only truth!
 
Basically, you started it throwing tantrums, such as "Cherry picked" "poor reading comprehension" "mental clarity", "political agenda is shameless", "consensus", "not a climate scientist ", "trolls", "old nut", "nonsense","pseudoscience", "ideologists", "debunked", "factually deficient disinformation", just a "weatherman not a climate scientists", " there were no mammals alive bigger than a tree shrew". "worldwide conspiracy", consensus","not honestly","manipulating data, not a climate scientist", etc, etc, etc and every other label possible the mindset of a character assassin mini pope could come up with.

You went so far calling out on George Carlin not climate scientist!!

So ask yourself why on earth (even if you where 101% right) should i or anyone else bother to read any of your links or posts to educate our self's when you show off such a arssassin mentality.

Few sane would say the climate/temperature is not changing rather it is changing but of which reasons, man fart made or not, i'm not climate scientists nor
are you as far as i have seen , i might have missed, nor are science absolute, humans massages data.

For example the tree line in Scandinavian Caledonides mountains have moved several hundred meters uphill in large areas, the forest is
also a lot denser with species that usually not present earlier, i measured it over a 23 year period, surely there is a reason but which one?

So you will probably end in an infinitive negative loop of dishonesty while mutter tantrums about how nice the forum was back in ol' yee days before yourself made it nasty. ::)

Ah, well, i was warned by some folks here when i joined  this forum could be quite nasty at times..
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 10:12:42 pm by MT »
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #769 on: February 22, 2016, 11:14:24 pm »

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

I already answered that: Money is the reason.

Evolution is not a billion dollar a year industry. Neither is gravity, the Earth being round, etc.

Green Energy is.

Big Oil may be spreading FUD, but that's not the reason for my misgivings. In fact, the Green Energy side has been spreading the same fear for many, many years. No, my apprehensions directly relate to the fact that *both* sides are trying to sell me something.

Also, I've spelled out this out very clearly at least twice now: I don't doubt climate change is happening. What I have are doubts about the reasons. And, as far as I know, there is no consensus in the scientific community saying that humans are the [/i]sole reason[/i] it's happening.

If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)

If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.

So, what I don't get is why you're so caught up in the particulars of *why* people believe in climate change. Why isn't it enough for us to just believe the climate is changing? For the average person, does it really matter why?

This would be like us both believing in evolution, but you saying God was really behind it. You can't prove it and I can't disprove it, so at the end of the day we both still believe in evolution.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline Zero999

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14334
  • Country: gb
  • 0999
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #770 on: February 22, 2016, 11:36:43 pm »
If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)

If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.
There already is a fairly strong consensus amongst the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.

There's enough carbon down there to cause a lot of environmental damage. Another issue is the possibility of a positive feedback effects such as the melting of ice (which is reflective) exposing bare earth and sea, which absorbs more solar radiation and methane bubbles (another potent greenhouse gas) trapped in ice being released into the atmosphere, causing further warming. So, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, further warming may continue as a result of the damage we've already done.

The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.

The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #771 on: February 22, 2016, 11:41:06 pm »

I never said I thought that was the case. What I was getting at is this: Raw data doesn't lie, but humans do. You can massage numbers to say anything you want.

But, since I'm not a climate scientist, I can't take the raw data and get something meaningful out, to verify for myself. Therefor I have to take someone's word that what they're telling me is the truth. Therein lies the rub...

OK. But I assume you believe the scientific community when it comes to evolution - yet are not a biologist. I assume that in every other case of a scientific consensus that has emerged over decades of research you accept that consensus view without being an expert in the field.

So why is that not true for climate science?  I would posit that it is because the $100s of millions spent by the fossil fuel industry to create a manufactured controversy has been successful in creating doubt in you mind despite the scientific consensus.

This is why Reddits science forum banned posters like some of those here who continue to post  links to fossil fuel funded disinformation sites and never and reputable scientific sources (NO, I am not suggesting that be done here!).  That kind of pseudoscience - and repeated recursive links back to the same discreditted sources is very destructive to any rational discussion of the science. It leads otherwise intelligent people to come to the false conclusion that both sides of the debate are on equal scientific footing.

I already answered that: Money is the reason.

Evolution is not a billion dollar a year industry. Neither is gravity, the Earth being round, etc.

Green Energy is.

Big Oil may be spreading FUD, but that's not the reason for my misgivings. In fact, the Green Energy side has been spreading the same fear for many, many years. No, my apprehensions directly relate to the fact that *both* sides are trying to sell me something.

Thanks for your response. As I posted earlier in response to IanB - "green energy" is a trivially small business (likely <0.1%) in comparison to the fossil fuel industry which is THE largest business in the world by far.  I have never seen any evidence green energy spends any money sponsoring propaganda websites, lobbying politicians to support climate science, etc.  On the other hand many $100 of billions have been documented spent on such activities by the fossil fuel industry.

Quote
Also, I've spelled out this out very clearly at least twice now: I don't doubt climate change is happening. What I have are doubts about the reasons. And, as far as I know, there is no consensus in the scientific community saying that humans are the [/i]sole reason[/i] it's happening.

Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here, here, and here.

Quote
So, what I don't get is why you're so caught up in the particulars of *why* people believe in climate change.
What I am interested in is why people who otherwise trust the scientific consensus on every other issue, do not trust it on this issue.  And why on an engineering forum of all places, otherwise well informed and educated people either unknowingly or knowingly seek to mislead others on what the scientific consensus is.

I find these questions fascinating. Despite my arguing my views passionately and calling out others when I see them failing to justify their views with scientific evidence - what this is about for me is exploring how others - especially the engineers and electronics enthusiasts here  - come to their views on the subject and how they respond (or fail to) when asked to justify their opinion with science.  I also can't let pseudoscience and disinformation left unchallenged. For me it is exactly the same as the back and forth that occurred at the start of this thread by others with the OP regarding free energy and gall bladder cleanses.

Thanks again for clarifying your views.  And thanks to Zapta as well (I really mean it) for arguing his side of it. I've actually enjoyed the debate and learned something in the process. (yes, I know, perhaps I'm sick that way  :o)
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 11:44:59 pm by mtdoc »
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #772 on: February 22, 2016, 11:44:36 pm »
If our burning coal and petroleum *is* the sole cause, well the problem will take care of itself in the next decade when we have nothing left to burn, won't it? If it's *not* the reason, well, we're still going to run out of that coal and oil, right? So either way you slice it, it's still a problem that needs fixing. (That problem being our reliance on dead Pterodactyls and Brontosaurs as a fuel source.)

If we do that and the climate continues to change, we'll need to either adapt or come up with a way to tame Mother Nature, ala the Weather Generator Nets from Star Trek.
There already is a fairly strong consensus amongst the scientific community that burning fossil fuels is the primary cause of climate change.

There's enough carbon down there to cause a lot of environmental damage. Another issue is the possibility of a positive feedback effects such as the melting of ice (which is reflective) exposing bare earth and sea, which absorbs more solar radiation and methane bubbles (another potent greenhouse gas) trapped in ice being released into the atmosphere, causing further warming. So, even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, further warming may continue as a result of the damage we've already done.

The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.

The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.

I don't think it's a hoax or a big conspiracy. I also never said I *don't* think humans are responsible.

My personal viewpoint is that I don't really care either way. At the very least, burning coal and oil creates smog, which makes it difficult to breath. At the worst it's damaging the world in irreversible ways. We can't reduce emissions much more than we have now, so we need to start pumping money into research for alternative energy.

I don't think that's an unreasonable position to take. Is it?
« Last Edit: February 22, 2016, 11:46:12 pm by timb »
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 

Offline mtdoc

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3581
  • Country: us
Re: Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #773 on: February 22, 2016, 11:59:48 pm »
The idea that it's all a big hoax just doesn't make any sense. The amount of money the green energy companies have is dwarfed by the big fossil fuel companies. I used to be on the other side but I did some research and there's no way it's all one big conspiracy.

The annoying thing here is the free energy folk are deemed to be trolls when they push their pseudoscience, yet the some of the people who are calling them trolls are doing the same, pushing their anti-anthropogenic climate change bollocks. It's very hypocritical.

+1 Yep. Exactly.
 

Offline timb

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2528
  • Country: us
  • Pretentiously Posting Polysyllabic Prose
    • timb.us
Free Energy is just a bad name...
« Reply #774 on: February 23, 2016, 12:08:20 am »
Actually there IS consensus on that point. See here, here, and here.

From the papers that I've read, the theories seem to range from "CO2 emissions may be accelerating or influencing an existing natural climate shift" to "greenhouse gasses are turning our atmosphere into a blanket of death and we're all going to boil in our skin". I'm obviously paraphrasing and exaggerating there, but I guess my point is that I was unaware the global scientific community had reached a unanimous consensus on just how much we have affected climate change. Perhaps this has changed in the last few years? I don't really keep up on it anymore, to be honest. I'll take a look at those links.

I don't doubt that we're causing damage. I just question how much. It's hard to get a straight answer because I feel like *both* sides are engaging in hyperbole (or FUD, muddying the waters, whatever you want to call it). And if I, as an otherwise smart and logical engineer think this, imagine what the general public thinks!
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic; e.g., Cheez Whiz, Hot Dogs and RF.
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf