Top NASA Professor Calls Global Warming Nonsense

Posted by khalling 9 years, 11 months ago to Science
96 comments | Share | Flag

brought to my attention by producer JBW:
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
SOURCE URL: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/03/another-prominent-scientist-dissents-fmr-nasa-scientist-dr-les-woodcock-laughs-at-global-warming-top-prof-declares-global-warming-is-nonsense/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago
    Really? Duh! I'm certain that global warming is not nonsense. GW occurs on every planet and is a natural occurrence. However, man-made global warming is nothing more than science by consensus designed to keep money pouring into scientific institutions and the pockets of snake oil charlatan's (Al Gore).

    That whole teapot thing was thrown at me when discussion the existence of God. Unlike man made global warming, the "God" argument (never seems to be a discussion) is one that no one alive will ever win.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 11 months ago
      Indeed, global warming does happen naturally, and we are but specks.
      And no one will be able to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God exists, but I do agree with your later argument that the odds of something this amazingly complicated could have evolved make the inverse of Avogadro's number look like a big number.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
        j, can you give us more context?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
          Throughout the history of the earth there have been "cool" and "warm" periods as identified in artifacts such as tree rings. It is hypothesized that the success of Hannibal over the Romans was due in part to a warming period that allowed his horse based cavalry to venture further south and for longer periods than they had before. There was a "little ice age" from about 1350 to 1850 (yes, 500 years). The evidence seems to suggest a 6 to 14 Deg F decrease in temps during this period.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
      we'll agree to disagree on the last statement. I don't think about it in terms of winning. Do you apply the same standards of proof to theism as you apply to environmentalism and man made global warming? Because if anyone said to me that it was impossible to know man made global warming did not exist, and so, we should plan for it just in case...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago
        Winning may have been a poor choice of words. Perhaps I should have chosen 'be proven correct'. As for providing proof, I poke holes in everything people tell me. Neither science or faith/religion can definitively offer proof since there is no way to turn back the clock to witness the "birth" of mankind. That being the case, I leave the door open to either possibility. There is very much that cannot be explained just as there are many patterns in nature that, to me, lend themselves to intelligent design. My 2 bits.

        I do appreciate Chapter 1 in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Fascinating. I also really appreciate Clarke's Childhood's End. Staggeringly compelling.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
          The difference fo me is this. Intelligent Design is a theory predicated on God and existence of God. All of the puesdo science must fit that model. Evolution is a scientific theory not based on existence or non-existence of God. there are gaps in the theory. Just as there are gaps in math and gaps in explanation of the beginning of the world. There is no reason logically to fill those gaps in with a Deity, however predictable by human nature. I am not familiar with the second book. I'll check into it
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
            I view intelligent design as predicated on a higher intelligence which might have been perceived as God by someone, but not by me, and apparently not by some scientists conducting research on the subject.
            I am willing to suspend judgement on both theories at present. Plenty of things yet to learn and neither theory requires an immediate answer, imo.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
              you're ignoring evolution? how does that work? how is it possible for us to do the research we are in genetics without relying on at least 3 or 4 basic tenets of evolution. No one can deny them.
              1. selection mechanism 2. offspring of any species is not a clone of the parent (sexual reproduction, random genetic variations/mutations, epigenetics) 3. reproduction
              All of these are obvious and observable and you benefit from this knowledge and to deny it is to say gravity doesn't exist.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago
                I wouldn't deny an evolutionary process. Sure there is adaptation in all species on earth to best hone them for survival in their environment.

                Where I take issue is the Origin of the species. The odds of even 1 minuscule step in the "evolutionary" scheme is astronomical. Combine all of the necessary steps and the prospect of randomly making life is inconceivable odd-wise. I won't even go into the placement of the planet or the type of sun or the miraculous meteorite theory that brought with it the seeds of life. The odds are much better for intelligent design or God placing us here.

                But alas, we won't know until we're beyond this phase of existence.

                I'm reading a book on Hinduism now for research...fascinating stuff.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
                Think before you type.
                If you know everything about how things came to be in the universe, then you can instruct me on ignorance.
                You don't. I said nothing about ignoring anything. You drew conclusions from something I made no mention of and made no assertion about.
                Since you ignored what I typed above, i will not explain it further.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AO...
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                  the more I think about this, the more I conclude your behavior is completely out of line. why would you choose to stoop so low on this site? have you run out of reasoned arguments? if you were making a joke, please let us all in on it. Instead you stooped to attacking and running. I enjoy good debate, but I will not be insulted on my own posts. If I see you do it again to producers on this site I will flag you
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                  I thought the video would be some evidence to back your comments. huh. I'll give you a pass because we all get cranky in LA
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
                    Thanks, I agree that my video reply was not appropriate to your post.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                      ok then. get back in there and prove me wrong!
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
                        For the 3rd time, my original comment was "I am willing to suspend judgement on both theories at present." That is exactly what I meant to say. I also said "I view intelligent design as predicated on a higher intelligence which might have been perceived as God by someone, but not by me, and apparently not by some scientists conducting research on the subject." . In addition in my view intelligent design and many aspects of evolution do not have to be mutually exclusive. Your reply was to attack some other view of intelligent design, not the view I stated. I don't have to prove you wrong about your post because I do not understand it as a reply to my post.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                          In order to predicate a higher intelligence to intelligent design, you must have some basis. What is this basis? Why is an intelligent designer necessary? As we've already said on this forum, the originator of the theory is a theologian and mathematician. Clearly there was bias at the outset. Darwin had no such bias. He did not set out to prove Deity/or no deity. He was looking for a natural explanation (based in nature). It's an incredibly powerful theory explaining millions of facts. So when you say you suspend judgement-are you really? You make decisions daily based on the proof of his theory. I'v already agreed there are gaps. There is no such thing as perfect knowledge and so it cannot be used as a valid criticism.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
                            Thanks for the explanation of your view. As I originally stated, my view of intelligent design does not require God, so the bias of the originator is not mine. Bias of the originator is only relevant if it affects current scientific examinations. I can't attest to bias on the part of scientists involved in the investigation of intelligent design or if/how it may affect the work.
                            As stated earlier "What I know about the theory of evolution is that the fossil evidence partially supports it. It does not completely explain how humans have come to be as they are, much less all other parts of the universe." Intelligent design is one theory that may explain this more completely, or not.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                  "I am willing to suspend judgement on both theories at present." I read your comments carefully. I do not have to know everything about how the world works in order to know theories are true. Above is clearly an assertion. Did you really tell me to think before I type???
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
                    Suspension of judgement on a theory is not the same as ignoring it.
                    I made no statement whatsoever against the theory of evolution except that I reserved judgement. Read your own post and see if you think it was a calm rational response to my comment, or if it could be taken as hostile (as I read it to be.)
                    What I know about the theory of evolution is that the fossil evidence partially supports it. It does not completely explain how humans have come to be as they are, much less all other parts of the universe.
                    Having a theory of evolution that is partially supported by the fossil record does nothing to preclude intelligent design.
                    You are confident of the complete truth of the theory of evolution. Based on evidence, the theory is not adequate, imo. Perhaps someday it could be, or maybe not.Therefore I reserve judgement.

                    I have no vested interest in either theory being true or false. I don't care enough to continue a discussion with you.
                    If you wish to report me to the teacher, by all means do so.
                    I am sure you have a lot more "pull" than I do.
                    Then the teacher can block my posts and censor my opinions.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                      in no way was I hostile. Incredulous, perhaps. Hardly deserved the ad hominem and ridicule.
                      The intelligent design concept of "specified complexity" was developed in the 1990s by mathematician, philosopher, and THEOLOGIAN William A. Dembski.[4
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent...
                      so, we have a theologian who first postulated the hypothesis of intelligent design. Theologians do not generally acknowledge "some higher form of intelligence" rather God. again with the ad hominem attack. Your experience with our administrators on this site has been one of "teacher" vs unruly student? really? I did say "flag" and I meant "hide" which is a producer post privilege. I am sorry for the confusion on that. This site is about discussing ideas within reason and logic. Prepare to support your assertions. I have to do it on this site, why don't you? I began a post about man made global warming. We are now discussing intelligent design. Most producers would say start your own thread. I said immediately, have the conversation. but I did not call you names, nor did I intentionally insult you. Rather I questioned your assertions, expecting lively debate. Instead you sort of called me ignorant, and yes, a slut. well done
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 11 months ago
                    You stated that intelligent design is "a theory predicated on God and existence of God." I stated that is not my view. Intelligent design is about higher intelligence and does not require God or any all powerful being (although the actions of higher intelligence, even human intelligence, have been considered as such in the past.) It is not religious theory. I think your arguments were inappropriate to the content of my post.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 11 months ago
                  Your ignorance of epistemology could fill an encyclopedia. Your argument is that without knowledge of everything you know nothing. Then why are you typing these words? Clearly, you don't know everything, so your words are meaningless.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
      If all of mankind were blind, would that negate the existence of said teapot?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago
        nope, just means we can't see it.

        The whole if a tree fell in the forest thing. It kind of smacks with justifiable arrogance. :)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
          So, in a world where vision were unknown and incomprehensible, the existence of an item would not depend on whether those existing in the same universe could observe it or not, am I getting that correct?

          So, prior to radar and spacecraft, if there were a mutation where one person were to have sight and "see" said teapot, all others would have to have "faith" in order believe that person, am I getting that correct?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 11 months ago
            Always interesting food for thought. The whole premise rests on whether perception, or in this case lack of perception, qualifies existence. I think it does not. When we die or someone we know dies the world continues on without their active perception. For them existence ended (changed) but what they knew to be existence is now gone to them. Still, reality, perception, continues on for everyone else.

            second part, yes that would be the qualifier but people would have to believe him/her (and not everyone would - human nature).
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
              just because someone says they don't believe in microwaves because they can't be seen, does not mean they don't exist for that person. extreme empiricist point of view-
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
            no, they have to have proof. and there are many ways to prove things we can't see. gravity for one. we can't see photons
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
              The one seeing person has the proof.

              Are you saying that the only things that you accept as valid are those that you have personally verified? I doubt that. So, you have "faith" that those that did "see" whatever it is, are telling you the truth.

              I don't want to get into that argument again, but the analogy applies.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by airfredd22 9 years, 11 months ago
      Re: AJAshinoff,
      You are probably correct with your statement regarding God, "...is one that no one alive will ever win."
      However I must disagree with the other part of your statement, " (never seems to be a discussion)." In my experience I too have found many people calling themselves Christians who don't seem to be clear on the concept. In my opinion, any serious Christian will be happy to "discuss" God and Christianity. I have also witnessed many atheists who tend to attack Christians and Christianity and the existence of a God and therefore set up a situation where discussion on the subject tends to be difficult. That of course should not prohibit true Christians from discussing the subject rather than argue about it.

      Fred Speckmann
      commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.comk
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 11 months ago
      You're dropping context. "GW" in our political culture means there is a trend, it is global and is man-made. None of these is true.

      The burden of proof is always on the believer; e.g. It is appropriate not to believe in a god without proof.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 11 months ago
      Anyone who wants proof that God exists misunderstands the point entirely. Life is meant to be an unbiased test to see what we will do in a variety of situations: how we act, what values are important, etc. If the only reason you don't do something is not to get caught, you are operating under the compulsion of fear, rather than on a foundational understanding and commitment to unchanging principles.

      For those who want to find proof, it abounds. For those who want a personal manifestation to scare them into changing their ways - or simply just so that can experience something spectacular - they are asking for the equivalent of a spiritual atom bomb to get dropped on their heads. Personally, I advise that there are much easier and less dramatic ways to answer the question, but they do involve replacing open antipathy and skepticism with a real openness and scientific pursuit of the truth.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 9 years, 11 months ago
    This is the same scientist who empirically compared all of the published global warming models to the real temperatures over the past 20 years and found that none of them were accurate and only one of the twenty was even in the ballpark.

    The reality is that man-made global warming is a hoax pushed on us by people who want to profit from the government regulations they are pushing. Want proof? Look no further than the high priest himself: Al Gore. His net worth as Vice President was under a million dollars. After he became the face of anthropogenic global warming he became worth tens of millions of dollars.

    To presume that mankind can predict the weather - one of the most complex interactions in science - is an act of sheer hubris.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 9 years, 11 months ago
    The teapot belongs to philosopher Bertrand Russell. He used it when discussing the existence of God. See this article:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27...

    Russell created a system of expression for symbolic logic, and is perhaps famous for a paradox:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27...

    Russell's view of logic was not the same as Rand's. My own attempts to cast Rand's logic into the framework of Russell's met with failure right at the outset. Still, he is worth readingfor his often provocative viewpoints. Among Objectivists Russell has been described as inconsistent in his philosophy, but perhaps it's only because he lived long enough to change his mind several times. I heard one Objectivist wit remark (borrowing from Heraclitus who said that all is change, and that you cannot step into the same river twice), "You cannot step into the same Russell twice."

    As for global warming, I try to ask the proponents of the theory to explain Mars, where CO2 is presumably at a higher concentration in the skimpy Martian atmosphere.

    The global warming "science" is actually a religion, as it is to be believed in the face of contrary evidence. It is "settled" and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
    I dissagree, scientific proof has been provided and reality has shown us that these facts are real. Whether they be caused by the use of fossil fuels or not is another matter, but global warming is definitely real.

    Industry, especially heavy industry, produces alot of CO2. Thermal Power Stations do so as well, so it´s not only transportation and fossil fuels. Even buildings contribute to the effect of global warming through the consumption of energy at unrational levels, radiation by reflection and lack of green in cities, and of course the massacre of forests. Some have taken measures against these issues. California, Spain, Germany, Australia, and other countries and regions have switched to "greener" sources of energy such as solar power, wind power and nuclear power. Architects have gone as far as creating certificates and prizes for "greening" buildings.

    Nevertheless, some things still remain the same. Deforestation ceases to stop or be controlled fully, fossil fuels continue to be abused despite the obvious and many countries such as China continue to consume Thermal Energy using open air coal burners and such. Meanwhile, the storm keeps building up.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
      1) Global warming and cooling has always occurred.
      2) CO2 emissions have continued to increase over the past 20 years, yet warming has not. Thus, the causal effect (at least at the range of current levels) is clearly not established. There may be some causal effect from very low levels upwards, which then asymptotically level off, or there may also be an effect at very high levels (higher than can sustain mammalian life), but not in the range we're at now (and although it wasn't measured in the 19th century it is hypothesized that the CO2 in the atmosphere was much higher due to the types of uses of fossil fuels at the time, yet no global warming was observed then).
      3) What you call "green" power sources really aren't so, as they consume much more fossil fuels to create the power generation apparatus than they ever produce.
      4) These "green" power sources must be augmented with fossil fuel power plants since none of them are a reliable source of substantial power generation - the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine. Operating these fossil fuel plants at lower than optimum capacity is highly inefficient and doing this for long periods of time can cause rapid deterioration of the power generating capacity.
      5) Nuclear is more highly regulated than even fossil fuels. When's the last time you heard of a nuclear power plant being authorized to be built? The last one to come on-line was in 1996.
      6) Your "scientific proof" has been debunked. Nobody has been able to recreate the "hockey stick" curve independently, AND those "scientists" were caught via e-mails in having fabricated the data.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
        Nuclear Power Stations are under construction as we speek, it´s just that you can´t see beyond the border. Solar Power has become extremely efficient, superior to Damns even. Sustainability is using these sources today as power sources, again partly in the USA and more and more so in other countries. And, finally, the scientific proof hasn´t been debunked Robbie, and in the 19th Century there was alot less CO2 emissions. This is measured accurately with ice in both the Artic and Antartic regions, that can go back alot further than 100 years. They can go back thousands of years. Have a nice day.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
          What good to foreign nuclear power plants do me?

          You're mistaken about solar. The solar panels have a very short useful life. They begin degrading in efficiency almost immediately. They use precious metals and mercury.

          As for CO2, how do you explain the past 20 years?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
            Let´s see, hmmm. It seems to me you know little about what you´re talking about. Solar Panels, my friend, are just one form of converting radiation from the sun to electricity. There are many others, but the most efficient is reflection towards boilers that use the same system as thermal and nuclear plants, steam. And no, solar panels have nowadays a life span of over fifteen years without dregrading, have become alot more efficient and use different forms of designs and shapes (curved panels, for instance, produce an optical effect that can use and concentrate more solar power by, again, reflection).

            Nuclear Plants are in vogue again, and there are new technologies that produce "batteries" of low powered, naturally cooled systems that are alot safer than those major domes. You can look into to it. The fact that the US doesn´t want to use Nuclear Energy is beyond me, but the crisis is about the world and not just one part of the woods.

            Have you ever stopped to wonder why the railway system in the US is so primitive? Being there incredible electric powered train systems in europe, Japan and other countries; why doesn´t the US allow trains to become a major means of transportation? The problem, appart from being cultural (my car, my time, my sofa with wheels) is also quite political and financial, since all those "puppeteers" that really run the show (Obama, George W., Bill and the rest are all puppets) well, the real masters of the game have already invested alot of money on fossil fuel based industries such as the automobile, the extraction of raw oil and, yes, the grand federal reserve. Weapons of mass destruction? Why doesn´t the US destroy their own, having the largest arsenal on earth the question still stands, doesn´t it?

            Do some research and then argue with facts, not ancient history...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 11 months ago
              If you want to generate and sell electricity and already have investment in one technology, it makes no sense to invest much more money in another technology, even one that has lower running costs.

              If you want to invest in solar, go ahead. But if you want to sell the electricity generated, you have to accept the market price set by the cheapest option which is coal. That price will cover the operating cost but will not be sufficient to justify the investment. There is a way out, get government to extract the difference from taxpayers and give it to you, what we call a subsidy. Everyone, except the solar investor (moocher), loses. without those subsidies there would next to no solar generation.
              Trains. Electric trains are as you say, clean quiet and generally cheaper than coal or diesel. You will not find many coal powered steam trains today. Diesel has the great advantage of not requiring big investment in infrastructure such as overhead power lines and high voltage transmission lines. This is not an advantage in densely populated areas but is important for freight lines covering long distances in areas remote from electricity generation and power lines.
              For passenger travel, I doubt you could find a single line in Europe, Japan or Australia that is not government subsidized.

              Other points. The USA is not (yet) a centrally planned economy so saying the US "should" or "allow" does not apply.
              Yes, solar panels deteriorate with age, I have seen the figure of 1% pa of capacity used.
              Crisis: yes the globe is in crisis, it is political from the application of fallacies in economics, and trying to be altruistic inappropriately. There is no climate crisis, there is no energy crisis.
              "Woods" I know you used this word in a different context but it is relevant to point out that politically driven and artificial high energy prices are causing deforestation as people chop trees for fuel, this is happening in Europe.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
                I don´t see much rebutle of what I have said now, friend. And no, a solar investor is not a moocher, as you say. They´re cutting edge, vanguard adventurers that dare go against the status quo, those who are the real moochers. Diesel engines are out of date nowadays, as you have clearly said so yourself. And well, I recommend you do some research for solar power and nuclear energy are not only the way of the future, they are a kickstart in the right direction. Happy Easter...which means nothing to me in particular, just another tall tale of the most fit and dominating moochers of all.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                  as well, there are almost no new innovations in solar since the 70s when we tried it before. the only real innovations have occurred because of the semi-conductor industry so I reject "cutting edge." same with wind energy.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                  vanguard adventurers tapped into govt subsidy. If you want to take the risks-go for it! Instead, solar company after solar company fails at a good business model-but not until every penny of govt backed loans and grants and forced market incentives are exploited.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
                    Dear Lord, you´ve got a cutting edge example of Solar Power in the State of California and you don´t even know it. It doesn´t use solar panels at all, just mirrors in a physics effect we know all too well called reflection that activates boilers for good old fashioned steam powered palets (just as thermal stations and it´s newest variation, nuclear power plants). Since it´s located in the dessert, radiation is pretty much constant and it uses variations for night meaning that it does not go idle at all. It´s name is IVANPAH, please check it out (critics such as yourself are crying about how the heat concentration from the mirrors is killing birds in plain flight). Good luck, I suggest some tea for digesting this small proof that you´re just talking ´cause the air is free...
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                      yes, I'm well aware of it. that tech is not new.
                      and they are in DEBT. big debt
                      http://reason.com/blog/2011/11/30/rfk-jr...
                      to provide some balance to the argument this is an article recently from a green tech site-obviously they are biased in favor:
                      http://cleantechnica.com/2014/02/13/cont...
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
                        Well tell me then, what new energy system isn´t based on credit? Thermal, open air coal energy plants too are in debt you know, for it takes alot of investment to get them going. Damns as well, for that matter. And Ivanpah isn´t new you say? Why, ´cause it wasn´t inaugurated in the spring of 2014? Please...
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                          not new because I am speaking in a technological sense. we hang out in the tech world...so
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
                            Well then nothing´s new since the wheel and the quest for fire I guess. Or since the relativity theory and nuclear energy (the new fire). Ivanpah is new, for it uses reflection to generate heat and electricity. Not the best way to do so, but creative nevertheless. Check out CAREM nuclear systems, that´s another novelty to have in mind. Have a nice week.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                              well it's newer than the wheel. :) Think of it this way. the technology to do something can be around long before it's implemented. Usually costs and market viability or regulations are involved. I do not mean to downplay the tech as a way of discrediting the plant. My argument is simply economic viability and opportunity costs. If we can do game changer stuff with solar I'm all for it-but I don't want it rammed down our throats because a bunch of politicains say it's an important investment. The market will decide most efficiently and usually correctly. Did you see the post on production of biofuels "harming" the environment more than alternatives? The farmers knew all along they wanted the corn byproducts fertilizing and protecting their fields. Why did they sell it? Because of the artificial market for biofuel out of corn. Why artificial? Because ethonol is propped up by the govt-thereby allowing biofuel manufacturers to offer good money for the by-product. and now for the opportunity cost. While we were taking the by-product to make fuel for an artificial market-which has been proven to destroy engines btw:http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alternative-fuel/biofuels/e15-gasoline-damage-engine
                              the fields were yielding less. So less food production for more alternative fuel production. We still have people starving on the planet. No one thinks about opportunity costs!
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by illucio 9 years, 11 months ago
                                Well, I wasn´t talking about biofuels. Never liked them, for when you use food for something else it´s a crime in my opinion. Solar energy is and always will be the past, the present and the future. Fossil Fuels are morally just as extinct as the dinosaurs themselves. To continue to invest in extraction of raw isn´t only acute, it´s wrong. Anyone can see how the whole middle eastern intervention is about oil and nothing more, just as the desire to intervene in Venezuela and the ALCA plan for latin america (which also includes a new currency, sweet water).

                                Come to think of it, we could use solar energy for electricity and the production of drinking water, all at the same time. Just imagine, using the reflected radiation for separating salt from sea water and then, after the steam activates the generators, it´s condensed and used as drinking water (after, let´s say, five or six cycles). Dunno, creativity is key in science, otherwise it´s just math...
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
                                  the biofuel thing was just an example to show unintended consequences of a push for something that sounds really cool but turns out works against stated goals. I am not against solar energy plants. But I do not find it criminal to use other energy sources like natural gas. There is alot of disinformation about so-called "fossil fuels." and the lengths of time to produce them. For instance natural gas can be used to produce crude. Whenever we have given into the peak resource argument it almost always fails. I'm not saying that we do not look for alternatives. Yes! But governments should get out of that business. Policies and agendas are always first about money then power. Good intentions aren't even on the table
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 11 months ago
      Illucio,
      which proof? we have spent a great deal of time on this post showing the mis information and out right lies in these reports. You can deny it, but it's reality. While I agree it's important to move into more efficient power producers-so far solar and wind have not proven out. Regulations keep new nuclear facilities from being built and of course, the goal would be to get China out of 2nd world status on manufacturing. The only way for them to increase their level of technology is to strengthen their patent system and create wealth. Deforestation happens where govts own the forests. Private owners are careful with their resources.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SRS66East 9 years, 11 months ago
    I agree that we are debating a potential tempest in a teapot. Given our extremely limited climactic data and the historical evidence to the contrary I would say the THEORY of global warming is just that a THEORY. That said any group that runs off and demands action based on a THEORY that has so many holes in its science is acting rashly.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 11 months ago
      Yes but the correct term in this case is hypothesis.
      In essentials it has been dis-proven.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
        Global warming has not been disproven, in fact, there is quite a bit of evidence that it has occurred throughout history (cooling as well). What has not been established is the impact of mankind's use of fossil fuels and consequential CO2 or "soot" in the atmosphere as a causal factor of either warming or cooling. The best scientific theories are that it is a function of solar activity, possibly sunspots. But we don't have sufficient data to make that a proven theory, yet.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 11 months ago
          GW cannot mean cooling and cannot mean periodic or regional warming.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
            Who made you the arbiter of all things about global warming?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 11 months ago
              Is it arbitrary to say that "warming" is not "cooling"?
              That if warming is not everywhere, then it is not "global"? Don't get defensive.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
              • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
                Why don't you read the entire comment? Sheesh.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 11 months ago
                  You responded to my one sentence; what else would you be criticizing?
                  Note that warming and cooling have existed, but not GW as a warming trend over time. GW has a broader meaning in today's political climate; in that context: no evidence, BOP is on the environmentalists.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 11 months ago
                    No, Lucky said that "In essentials it has been dis-proven," which is factually incorrect. Man-made global warming is still a theory that has substantial evidence that it is not correct. However, global warming, and cooling for that matter, has significant evidence that it does occur - naturally and from causes not man-made. If you had read my entire comment, you might have picked up on that.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by tdechaine 9 years, 11 months ago
                      He said that the GW hypothesis - that there is a warming trend that is global, man-made, dangerous to man and significantly damaging to the enviroment - has been essentially disproven.
                      The hypothesis - as presented by environmentalists - does not merely say that there is warming and cooling. Further, what warming we have had has not been truly global.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 11 months ago
    The crucial aspect of this issue is that Science (note capital "S") does not exist in an environment where the 'correct answers' are politically controlled. I have a definite opinion on global warming, but the absolutely essential element is the ability to disagree with whatever the currently favored answer is and still be published, have tenure track, and not have perjorative social labels applied.

    We have just gone through this with pre-Clovis settlement of the New World, and have weathered this same storm with genetics/environment, continental drift, and Lamarkism. Science must be free to doubt.

    Jan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 11 months ago
    Without proof, it is the fallacy of trying to prove a negative. "There's a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon." "Oh yeah, prove it." "Well, prove that it's not." Don't get sucked into that one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by JBW 9 years, 11 months ago
    I get a strong flavor in this paper, from the young and the old, of an interest in the scientific. Where so, I sugest that those among you who do call up "Cosmological Musings" via Google.

    It may interest you that I was compelled, some 40 years ago (or more) to get rid of an Expanding Universe. I believe I did, with the help of Ayn Rand.

    Jim Wright
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 11 months ago
    Just what I have been saying for years since this bs started. Global Warming/term du jour cannot be proven via consensus of the folks with all the initials behind their names. A scam meant to separate the gullible from their money to donate to something which no one can do anything to change. The planet will continue to go round and round doing whatever it does, and has done since before man was a factor at all. That man can change that, either for the good or the bad, is highly egotistical. Yes, GW, is nonsense.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 11 months ago
    If I may return the discussion back to the theme of the original post-

    We have seen it before but it is so good that it is worth a second round.
    For the record, there is a sentence which I am sure is a misquote
    (credit to poster on the Yorkshire newspaper forum):

    "There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years."
    It should say:
    There is no reproducible scientific evidence that CO2 has caused any significant increase of temperature in the last 100 years.
    That is, there has been a measured increase in CO2, but it does not correlate with measured temperature.

    Ok to now return to religion and epistemology.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 11 months ago
      Hi Lucky,

      Actually there appears to be a lot of problems with the "science" associated with determining CO2 levels. See http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/ and http://www.fakeclimate.com/arquivos/Inte... and http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/35-....

      The problem with having a rational discussion about AGW is that AGW prophets think it is acceptable to lie about the data. This makes a rational discussion almost impossible.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 11 months ago
        dbhalling, your comments are very pertinent.
        Measuring and modeling how much CO2 is in the atmosphere

        Yes it is quite a difficult and uncertain exercise even doing it now with modern instruments. Quantifying amounts in the past is subject to vast uncertainty.
        On top of that there is misuse of data as your first ref shows.

        Yet there is evidence that CO2 is a temperature indicator, it seems to lag (not lead) temperature by 800 years. Temperatures go up, 800 years later there is an increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere, this matches what is known about the oceans releasing CO2 as temperatures increase.
        This is consistent with your second and third refs.
        So, if CO2 is increasing now, were global temperatures higher 800 years ago?
        Yes! the medieval warm period when the Vikings colonized Greenland.
        (Do not expect to see this in the notorious 'hockey stick').

        There are several natural processes whereby CO2 leaves the atmosphere. How long does it (on average) stay?
        Several studies have come up with answers of between 2 and 20 years. The IPCC says- 100 years. Using a shorter residence time, the climate models would not predict the fast warming that they say is caused by human CO2 emissions.
        What physical evidence -observations, measurements- was used by the IPCC for the 100 year figure? None.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by dbhalling 9 years, 11 months ago
          Thanks, I knew about the ocean lag, but did not know about the 800 years. AGW prophets have manipulated the data on this also, so that their data does not show the lag.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 9 years, 11 months ago
            From memory, a good source for showing this is Al Gore (!).
            It may be his An Inconvenient Truth.
            There is a graph showing CO2 concentration and temperature going back thousands of years. With a bit of imagination you could say they go up and down together. The periods are on average about 10,000 years. The commentary draws attention to this and says - so CO2 drives temperature. But, if you look closely it can be seen that temperature movements are a bit ahead, by on average 800 years. So CO2 follows temperature.
            ( Well, you could say that temperature follows CO2 by about 9,200 years. )
            When you see the jaggedness of the graph lines, and realize the lack of precision of the numbers, there can be no justification for any kind of action.

            800-year discussion on:
            http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/carbon-...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by SolitudeIsBliss 9 years, 11 months ago
    The utter Hubris of Humans to think they can understand and predict a climate system that's been around for 4.5 Billion years !
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 9 years, 11 months ago
      Solitude, you need to find some Bliss. To paraphrase your statement: "It is the utter Hubris of Humans to think that they can understand and predict a gravitational (electro-magnetic; chemical; biological; physcial; metaphysical; astronomical; geological; cosmological; subatomic;...) system that's been around for 4.5 Billion years !" Can we understand a literary tradition only 5,000 years old? Can we understand and predict the behavior of beer-producing yeasts (also about 5,000 years old)? The fossil evidence for eohippus has come under question, raising the deeper problem of how we can understand and predict the behavior of modern horses...

      Actually, Solitude, maybe you should cast off that bliss and seek out some serious discomfort among people who know something you do not.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by SolitudeIsBliss 9 years, 11 months ago
        In solitude, there is time to read, expand one's horizons expanding one's knowledge. You're asking me to socialize with people who for the most part have an average IQ of 80 ? No Thank you. And if scientists can't even predict weekly weather are you really going to trust them with the global weather system? Please.......
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo