The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Theo520 said:
Your proposal that science is consensus based is, frankly, shocking.
Click to expand...
Unless you are actually doing science yourself, as an expert in your field, yes, science for you and me is consensus based. How could it be anything else?
Stop attacking Spencer and Bastardi when they have been proven right.
Click to expand...
Tell me what prediction Spencer or Bastardi ever made that subsequently came to pass. What theory did they propose that was subsequently proven right?
 
mikekle said:
Thats the million dollar question…I have a feeling the powers that be are not prepared and we are just speeding towards a brick wall.
Click to expand...
Precisely!

The mismanagement of world economy is even more infuriating once you realize that viable alternatives were being researched until early 1970s, when several interesting projects have been shut down, particularly in the nuclear area (LFTR, fast breeder, reprocessing).
mikekle said:
If Im not mistaken, peak oil was reached back in the late 1970s…
Click to expand...
Global peak of oil production has been reached in 2005 (the production remains flat since).

In 1970s we’ve reached peak in world oil production per capita, and peak in US domestic oil production. This led to oil shocks of 1970s.

France responded to this crisis by deploying nuclear power generation, US responded by importing oil and (since 2003) using military to invade oil-producing countries.
 
lynnvinc said:
Al Gore is not a climate scientist. It would be better if they debate with real climate scientists, which apparently they have done and lost.

.
Click to expand...
So if we are only to listen to climate scientists why do keep quoting Popes?
 
estesbob said:
So if we are only to listen to climate scientists why do keep quoting Popes?
Click to expand...
Because we can trust our Catholic popes to tell the truth – and we can NOT trust the AGW denialist industry hacks posing as climate scientists, who are paid to lie or are rewarded nicely for lying. Also , the popes take it further by indicating the responsibilities we have about AGW, the moral side of the issue. However, they only spell it out in general terms; it is then up to us to figure out concrete ways to mitigate AGW. They also lead by example, having made the Vatican “carbon neutral.”

RE Al Gore, tho he is not a scientist, he does know quite a bit about AGW (one of his college professors was a climate scientist) and he can be trusted for the most part. The climate scientists have said what he tells about AGW is basically correct.

As for me – you don’t have to trust me to have gotten my information from climate scientists or even to be telling the truth. What you can do is read the top-tier science journals yourselves, or even contact climate scientists directly. That’s what I do, and I’ve found the popes’ statements on AGW to be accurate. They know of what they speak and they are not lying to us.
 
lynnvinc said:
Because we can trust our Catholic popes to tell the truth – and we can NOT trust the AGW denialist industry hacks posing as climate scientists, who are paid to lie or are rewarded nicely for lying. Also , the popes take it further by indicating the responsibilities we have about AGW, the moral side of the issue. However, they only spell it out in general terms; it is then up to us to figure out concrete ways to mitigate AGW. They also lead by example, having made the Vatican “carbon neutral.”

.
Click to expand...
So its OK to listen to people who aren’t climate scientists as long as they don’t dispute AGW?
 
mikekle said:
Thats the million dollar question…I have a feeling the powers that be are not prepared and we are just speeding towards a brick wall.

If Im not mistaken, peak oil was reached back in the late 1970s…yet they just keep on cranking out new cars with the same old internal combustion engines!!! Sure they have hyrids and full electrics, but they ensure they wont become too popular, Im sure big oil has alot to do with that as well. LOL, so while those cars may be cheaper to operate, it equals out when the price tag is ridiculously expensive.

I tend to believe there are probably very cheap energy sources out there, but the powers that be, DO NOT want the public to ever hear about them, as this would lead to the collapse of major industries, just google the topic, there have been a few people who had great ideas but oddly, they were either threatened or bought out, making sure they never release their discovery.
Click to expand...
I think as more people buy EVs they will become cheaper – it’s probably more a matter of economies of scale, not to mention push-back from the auto industry. If you saw WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR? there is a part in it where it becomes very clear – maintenance is very cheap for EVs and maintenance and parts are a big part of the auto industry’s business.

There are some EV clubs around the country – people converting ICE cars into EVs. I had the Fox Valley EV Assoc bring one for Earth Day around 1995 – a 1976 Toyota Corolla. I drove it around – like stepping on a sewing machine pedal 🙂

We now have a 2012 Volt (saving us $1000 a year), but we may not have been able to afford it if we had not been doing many other AGW mitigation things, like living close to work/shops and other energy/resource efficient/conservative things.

We got solar panels in 2013 (saving us about $1000 a year), and run our home and car on 43% solar and 57% wind from Green Mt Energy.
 
Some people refer to electric cars as “coal cars” sine they are often recharged from electricity produced by coal fired power plants.
 
JimG said:
Some people refer to electric cars as “coal cars” sine they are often recharged from electricity produced by coal fired power plants.
Click to expand...
AGW aside, coal cars will at least keep running after oil runs out.
 
JimG said:
Yes, I think there is plenty of coal left.
Click to expand...
Yup.

And if you drive a Tesla in France, you have a nuke-powered car, right?

And if you drive a Tesla in Norway, you have a water-powered car, right?
 
weller2 said:
Yup.

And if you drive a Tesla in France, you have a nuke-powered car, right?

And if you drive a Tesla in Norway, you have a water-powered car, right?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how much of Norway’s power is water generated, but yes. And nuke powered cars in France. That’s a good alternative. If one is intent on not using fossil fuels, nuclear is the logical alternative.
 
But of course. Today’s carbon dependency can be in a large part credited to the environmental movement, which blocked development of nuclear power.

(FYI, electricity production in Norway is 95.3% hydroelectric).
 
“Al Gore is not a climate scientist. It would be better if they debate with real climate scientists, which apparently they have done and lost.”

Really? When and where did this debate transpire?

To you personally, Lynn, what measures should we take to combat “global warming”, a phenomenon if true, seems like it would be a very good thing. Unfortunately, Israel has had a snowstorm and Niagra Falls has frozen over. And we are two months past the winter solstice! 😦
 
RACJ said:
“Al Gore is not a climate scientist. It would be better if they debate with real climate scientists, which apparently they have done and lost.”

Really? When and where did this debate transpire?

To you personally, Lynn, what measures should we take to combat “global warming”, a phenomenon if true, seems like it would be a very good thing. Unfortunately, Israel has had a snowstorm and Niagra Falls has frozen over. And we are two months past the winter solstice! 😦
Click to expand...
Here is an explanation, at least for your part of the world: skepticalscience.com/warming-arctic-weird-weather.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top