Climategate Lies - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-06-2010, 09:30 PM   #136
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
New Zealand could pay all the money in the world and zilch will be done by CO2. BTW planet earth has had 20 times the CO2 in the past and we are nowhere near it and won't be near it for hundreds of years. Conservatives simply inherited this mess and like all taxes and regulations it's hard politically to remove them once they are in.
20 times the CO2 during a hothouse earth period; have you ever heard of anoxic marine basins?
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:36 PM   #137
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Until then we use cheap energy. No excuse for a cap and trade world government.
Which for West Texas and Nevada is wind, and Austrailia is solar.

My house it's passive heating, cooling systems and water collection with a combination of solar.

Even if you don't believe in climate change you know that we'll have to move, that's just common sense. Are you going to wait until there's shortage until you invest in new technologies? That's just poor planning.
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:41 PM   #138
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:36 PM
The conspiracy widens.

YouTube - Climate Denial Crock of the Week - Climate Change and National Security
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 09:50 PM   #139
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
20 times the CO2 during a hothouse earth period; have you ever heard of anoxic marine basins?
The point is that we are nowhere near that level yet we are often told of 6 degrees increase in warmth in the next 100 years.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:05 PM   #140
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
This alarmist crap is great. Keep the claims going regarding 1 metre sea level rises and catastrophic water and oil wars and ice completely disappearing. Ocean acidification killing the oceans. The problem is the years when these events are supposed to happen keep being pushed back. It's nice to try and tie current floods to AGW. This is embarrassing. It's just more of the same "somethings happening, you could argue, but somethings happening." "We've got to act now!" Un huh. $$$$$$

CO2 Science



Maybe the animals aren't so bad off?
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:07 PM   #141
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
My house it's passive heating, cooling systems and water collection with a combination of solar.
That's great you can afford solar but it can't be mass produced in a cost effective way. Not everyone can afford it or else everyone would have solar by now. We need energy sources that can pay for the equipment. The people who produce solar admit the cost savings aren't there after you factor in the capital cost.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:10 PM   #142
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
That's great you can afford solar but it can't be mass produced in a cost effective way. Not everyone can afford it or else everyone would have solar by now. We need energy sources that can pay for the equipment. The people who produce solar admit the cost savings aren't there after you factor in the capital cost.
It paid for itself within 4 years, I calculated 5...

When retrofitted, you're probably right, it would take much longer, but if integrated with the right design it can do so much quicker.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:16 PM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
It paid for itself within 4 years, I calculated 5...

When retrofitted, you're probably right, it would take much longer, but if integrated with the right design it can do so much quicker.
Oh it's a new house. Well as long as it doesn't increase the cost of new houses much that's great. Most people would have to retrofit and of course they would have to not live in Canada.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:27 PM   #144
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 06:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Oh it's a new house. Well as long as it doesn't increase the cost of new houses much that's great.
The cost was more initially but had to be able to pay itself off within at least a decade or it wasn't worth it. It did
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:34 PM   #145
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
The cost was more initially but had to be able to pay itself off within at least a decade or it wasn't worth it. It did
As long as new technology is affordable for some people that's alright with me. What would be cool is to develop enough nuclear power plants to run electric vehicles.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:36 PM   #146
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
This alarmist crap is great. Keep the claims going regarding 1 metre sea level rises and catastrophic water and oil wars and ice completely disappearing. Ocean acidification killing the oceans. The problem is the years when these events are supposed to happen keep being pushed back. It's nice to try and tie current floods to AGW. This is embarrassing. It's just more of the same "somethings happening, you could argue, but somethings happening." "We've got to act now!" Un huh. $$$$$?
The DoD needs to deal with the reality of anthropogenic climate change. No amount of anti-scientific obscurantism (which the denialist movement is engaged in) will change that.

As far as your link goes I suggest you be a little bit more critical about your sources
Quote:
On it's website Sherwood B. Idso writes that "our typical response is that we never discuss our funding. Why? Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them ... It is self-evident, for example, that one need not know from whence a person's or organization's funding comes in order to evaluate the reasonableness of what they say, if - and this is a very important qualification - one carefully studies the writings of people on both sides of the issue."[3]
The Center states on its website that it "accepts corporate, foundation and individual donations" and that "all donations are kept confidential".[4]
Sherwood Idso confirmed that Exxon "made some donations to us a few times in the past" but attributed this to the fact that "they probably liked what we typically had to say about the issue. But what we had to say then, and what we have to say now, came not, and comes not, from them or any other organization or person."[3]
ExxonMobil's 2001 list of groups it funded listed a $10,000 contribution to the CSCDGC in 2001. Center for Science in the Public Interest, "Center for the study of carbon dioxide and global change", Integrity in Science, undated, accessed March 2004. [5]
StopExxon.org reports CSCDGC has received $90,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005 comprising: [6]
1998: $10,000
2000: $15,000
2003: $40,000
2005: $25,000
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change - SourceWatch

I know that you don't believe in peer reviewed journals because they discriminate against cranks (and there was that time you linked to several articles which didn't backup your assertions). But you will probably need to start using them if you want people to take you seriously.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:37 PM   #147
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
As long as new technology is affordable for some people that's alright with me. What would be cool is to develop enough nuclear power plants to run electric vehicles.
That's not going to happen whilst the coal and oil lobbies are able to disrupt any positive actions.

Would you support a massive rollout of nuclear power at cost to the taxpayer to cut CO2 emissions?
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 10:56 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
That's not going to happen whilst the coal and oil lobbies are able to disrupt any positive actions.

Would you support a massive rollout of nuclear power at cost to the taxpayer to cut CO2 emissions?
It depends on what can be affordable. I'm sure we can gradually increase nuclear but the U.S. has a debt crisis so as long as stimulus is rolled out it's probably not going to happen. There needs to be a balanced budget but at least creating a proven green source without cap and trade is not a bad idea. Of course these new plants would have to be able to reprocess spent fuel like in France and Japan.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:05 PM   #149
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:36 PM
That's a non-answer.

I suspect that you would continue with coal plants as long as they generate cheaper electricity.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2010, 11:10 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 05:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
I know that you don't believe in peer reviewed journals because they discriminate against cranks (and there was that time you linked to several articles which didn't backup your assertions). But you will probably need to start using them if you want people to take you seriously.
Well "peer-reviewed" doesn't mean the same thing after the 2007 IPCC debacle and climategate. The fact that government funding of studies is considered impartial on your part and that climate models have failed the question is does anybody take the IPCC seriously? Do you really believe that climatologists have the same currency as they did pre-climategate? The appeal to authority argument can't work anymore. Your video asks us to take your word for it without evidence because something might happen. If we used this logic for every special interest group asking for money it would be unaffordable.

Pushing people out of your favorite "peer reviewed" journals is more like ostracism than science.

Global warming: Interview with John Christy--Models, sensitivity, the PNAS paper and more

Quote:
Examiner: Stephen Schneider recently co-authored a paper published in PNAS exploring the level of expertise found in scientists who support the consensus position on climate change compared to those who do not agree with the consensus. What is your reaction to this paper?

J.C. I was one of only three scientists who made both the "good guy" and the "bad guy" lists. Quite an honor I suppose. However, I think the study was pathetic. It basically says, "Those of us who agree with each other like to cite the work of our friends and not the other guys." Duh. (One of my fellow scientists calls this "tribalism" - an appropriately primitive description.) I think the more sinister motive was evident in that the paper chided the media, such at the SF Chronicle, to stop investigative-reporting and just "trust us" (the guys on the "good guys" list) when it comes to climate change. It really was an attempt to make a blacklist. In that sense, I guess I ended up being gray, which fits my hair color now.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com