Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
This sums up the idiocy of the "climate change is a hoax" argument nicely.

.
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
What if all the things the East Anglia scientists are accused of is true? What if the worst interpretation of every single email is correct? What if they are guilty of every sin they are accused of? What if all their research is invalidated because they can't be trusted? What does the rest of the available data tell us?

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: millenien
What if all the things the East Anglia scientists are accused of is true?
Why just some East Anglia scientists should be responsible for it? Why not NASA scientists, for example?
Or whether glaciers started to grow or something?
What if the best interpretation of every single email is correct?

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I think we should solve this debate once and for all , nip it in the bud.

get two identical stadium sized teraniums.
get 100 people who believe in global warming.
get 100 people who dont.

allow them to choose the power systems they want to use to power their teranium.

they can grow gardens or they can choose canned foods or both.
they can grow trees or they can use scrubbers or both.

the only thing they cant choose is the type of power system.
gas , natural gas , oil burning boilers , etc for those that dont believe global warming is real.

and

solar , geothermal , alternate , etc for those that do believe that global warming is real.

1 mature tree can supply the oxygen for 10 people , so they each get only 10 mature trees.

those who use gas , oil , natural gas , etc
must find ways to deal with the carbon monoxide and ways to scrub the excess co2 generated from their choice of power supplies.

each teranium must maintain a minimum of 100 kw power output from their power generating systems.

to account for 1 kw for each persons daily energy usage.

no one can enter or exit the teraniums for any purpose for 1 year.

emergency oxygen supplies can be taken in for the purpose of
emergencies , medical , etc.

the skin of each teranium wouild be clear to allow the sun light in.


this would not cost no more than apx 200 million and that would supply wages for the participants of apx 50,000 each for the year.

the answers to many of our questions could be found out through this experiment , and ways to deal with the problems encountered could be found.

I think it would be a usefull expenditure of government funds , much better than wasting the money allready being spent on junk science.

I would imagine that finding the 100 believers would not be a problem at all.

but finding 100 non believers would be extremely hard.

it would be a put up or shut up scenario that they know would defeat their cause.

but wouldnt it be nice to watch all the oil company executives
volunteering for the experiment. LOL




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
M
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
M
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 9
I don't know what I did to make the repeated post.

That's very good Paul. I don't think if people thought their lives were at stake they'd be so philosophical and argumentative about climate change. As long as it's other people's lives, it's all right.

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
M
Max Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 93
Somehow, I think those who know what a "terrarium" is will be the ones to live. "teraniums" get millions of degrees down there.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
How global warming skeptics are faking data.

Another popular cheat is to present derivation instead of real trend ..



Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Science denialism works differently. Creationists are unmoved by the wealth of fossil, molecular, and anatomical evidence for evolution. Global-warming denialists are unimpressed by mountains of climate data. Denialists ignore overwhelming evidence, focusing instead on a few hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man, or a few stolen e-mails. For denialists, opinion polls and talk radio are more important than thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. ... If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water, they spread misinformation in arenas not subject to expert scrutiny: mass-market books, newspapers, talk radio, and blogs.

Recently another "evidence" suported by "trends of trends" has given. It seams, the presentation of temperature differences and anomalies instead of real trends is favorite cheat of GW skeptics...

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
Zephir, your faith in the scientific community is touching.

Peer review is a crock when it comes to Climate Change. Many scientist have been unable to get their work peer reviewed, because the peer review process is dominated by like minded individuals who think that it is a crime to entertain doubts. This is why they use the pejorative term 'Deniers' - so we can associate them with Holocaust Deniers.

It is a variation on Godwin's law.

I see we have posted graphs above showing the DENIER'S dirty cover up of Global Warming.

Go here to see the IPCC's dirty cover up of the Middle Ages warming period:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/understanding_climategates_hid.html

There is nothing extraordinary about what we are experiencing. Oh sorry, the extraordinary thing we are experiencing is being rinced of our tax dollars by the scientific gravy train. At least people in the Middle Ages didn't have that problem.



And as for the joke at the top. What an ignorant, simplistic view of the issues. Fit only for a cartoon.

The world faces many problems and we need to attack the real ones. Money for developing countries is being diverted to bogus carbon projects as we debate this issue.

There is certainly a reason to do away with AGW theory if it is incorrect.

Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 6
Glad you made the analogy, Z (AGW & Evolution).

Actually, the same tactics as were highlighted in those "few hacked emails" are employed by the evolutionary camp -- subjectively fudging data, preventing other scientists from publishing in "peer-reviewed Journals," which are in turn reviewed only by "peers" that buy into the reigning paradigm, including only selected data points/sets that will help the cause in their published work, ignoring/discarding/sweeping under the rug data that may even remotely conflict with the desired result(s).

And it goes on and on.

But you are entirely welcome to continue deluding yourself, just wish you would do less with regard to infecting others with your delusions.

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Zephir
... If denialists had evidence disproving global warming or evolution, they could submit it to scientific conferences and journals, inviting analysis by scientists. But, knowing their arguments don't hold water....

Thanks Zephir,
All good points.

The over-reaching proclamations of a few contrarians seem fairly lame when stood up against the continuing "official statements" released by all the scientific and social organizations around the globe, supporting the notion that climate change is a problem --and worth fixing-- regardless of those tangentially diversionary emails.

Just try googling: "scientific misconduct" pharmacology
...or "scientific misconduct" economics, or "scientific misconduct" anthropology, or "scientific misconduct" physics, or "scientific misconduct" examples, or....
...to see what science can be like, under any microscope....
...but do these denialists say that all of medicine or technology must therefore be a hoax?

It's hard to find it even worth countering the lame claims, smile
but....

I liked Socrates2007's point about:
"The world faces many problems and we need to attack the real ones. Money for developing countries is being diverted to bogus carbon projects as we debate this issue." -Soc'07

So, "bogus" or not, the carbon projects should provide education, health, security, equity, and sustainable development for the participants.
What's the problem?
===

Socrates'07,

What about the: MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS....
http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml
Are these real enough problems for us, or are you thinking 'not enough SUV's to choose from' as our main problem?

1. Global Partnership
2. End Poverty and Hunger
3. Universal Education
4. Gender Equality
5. Child Health
6. Maternal Health
7. Combat HIV/AIDS
8. Environmental Sustainability

Doesn't it seem as if the first seven goals would be met by just solving the eighth goal; a large part of which is related to restoring water quality and mitigating climate change (via goal #1) by "universally" educating everyone about the choices for healthy and valuable (poverty-fighting), soil-restoring, carbon-sequestering, water-cleansing, life-preserving, biodiversity-enhancing, pursuits... and lifestyles.

It would sure be a lot cheaper than trying to tackle each goal separately.

~ wink


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
I'm going to build a wind power system this summer , I have thought about the type of wind turbine I would like to build.
the large wind turbines seem to have avoided the use of wind , mostly evident by the narrow blades and the number of blades -> 3
as pictured below.
also if you will notice the blades are tapered so that they get narrower and narrower as they get further out along the radius where the torque available to the shaft would be greatest.
what a waste of energy.


the older wind mill blades seemed to focus on the power of the wind a lot more as the blades would capture more of the wind energy.



it seems as if the new wind power has focused on ineffiecient use of the wind , and if you will notice the old wind mills have a shaft that leads to ground level where the work is performed.

and not atop the tower.

the older wind mill has 18 blades the newer wind turbine has 3.

the older wind mill has wide blades where the newer wind turbines have narrow blades.

from the pictured old windmill the working surface of the area where the wind would perform work on the blades is 100 %

and the newer wind turbine appears to have a working surface of only 5%

I'm not sure why they build such inefficient wind turbines
unless they are getting government grants and this was a stipulation in the grants.

to not compete with oil.



the older wind mills were picturesque and normaly you didnt see but one on a farm or ranch.

perhaps the intention of using the 3 blade designs was to litter the land with wind turbines so that their appeal was lessened , or to make people think that they would need 50 in their yard to use wind power as pictured below.



anyway which design would you think would be better for both energy and appearances?






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Socrates2007
Zephir, your faith in the scientific community is touching.
In fact, the concentration of egocentric asocials is much higher in scientific society due the positive correlation of Asperger's syndrome or bipolar disorder and intelligence. Whether does the Sheldon character from "Big Bang Theory" sitcom appear so improbable for you? It's in fact the stereotype of highly intelligent scientist!

For further reading: Philip Tetlock Any individual expert is likely to be wrong. This is because just the experts are trained to occupy specialized, i.e. biased view of reality. Even Albert Einstein, the relativist never accepted the concept of quantum mechanics. He spent whole rest of his life by finding of errors in quantum mechanics.

We can say, individual scientists are always wrong, because they're trained for it. You can believe me, because I'm an expert to asocial traits of science..;-)

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
S
Member
OP Offline
Member
S
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 46
It is not scientists being wrong that bothers me. It is when they suppress the truth.

The climategate emails uncovered the dishonest means by which they tried to expunge the medieval warming period from the records.

It is a disgraceful abuse of their position.

It was warmer than it is now and yet there was no industry. You can understand why they felt the need to deny it. It is very embarrassing.

Just like the fact that Greenland used to be farmed and the Romans used to grow grapes in England.

Maybe climate scientists are just historical illiterates.

What we are seeing is just the natural temperature cycle of the planet. But people here have commented that it doesn't matter if it isn't true because it will force the planet to deal ecological issues. I always thought science was the search for the truth. Maybe that was in a better age.

Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Z
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Z
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 498
Originally Posted By: Socrates2007
It is not scientists being wrong that bothers me. It is when they suppress the truth
This is what scientists are doing all the time. The people, who fighted against Galileo weren't alliterated trolls, they were most educated specialists of their era: Tycho de Brahe, Orazio Grassi or Christoph Scheiner were all active astronomers with many own findings. Contemporary scientists are just continuing in their traditions.

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4
You may be interested to read that one of the first inquiries into Climategate has cleared the science, even if it says that the researchers may have broken the law trying to avoid having to share the data:

Climategate researcher's science cleared, data sharing questioned

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4
C
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
C
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 4
And another inquiry also cleared the science last week, but this time advocated that the researchers bring in scientists from other disciplines, such as statistics. It was headed up by a former chairman of Shell, and I would be surprised if he were biased towards hyping up climate change. It's mentioned about halfway down this article:

Hot water awaits?

and the actual report is here:

UEA Report

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 370
An example of a lie by wikipedia.org is the leaving out of the inconvenient part of this graph



from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

where the hockey stick part of the graph, near the present age, is missing.

This is roughly what it should look like;



-----------------------------


Above is an animation of continental "drift" due to the collision written about at: http://preearth.net/


Earth formed from a collision
www.preearth.net

Plate-tectonics is wrong
www.preearth.net/plate.html
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
Where did you get your extra data? From the Vostok cores? Are you saying that 'hockey stick' shows the CO2 increased 1000 years ago, so is therefore not caused by burning fossil fuels?

Clearly you can't represent the most recent 100 years on that graph because the line would be much narrower than a pixel.


Last edited by kallog; 06/27/10 05:07 AM.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


I think the above chart in the previous years to the oil age shows increasing CO2 due to increasing life forms and decreasing volcanic activity.

temperatures increase due to the increase in CO2.

the dust is the result of volcanic activity
that follows methane releases
that are the result of lowered sea levels - normaly
because of the decreased temperatures
due to the lowered amount of life forms.
due to the decreased temperatures.
due to increased volcanic activity.
due to methane releases.


following every decrease in dust
there is a increase in CO2
followed by a increase in temperature.

as in today it looks as if methane releases stopped the last ice age apx 10,000 - 20,000 years ago
according to the chart.

we are currently warding off a new ice age , using pollution.

but we are not maintaining it properly.

we are causing too much extra CO2 by burning fossil fuels which is melting the ice caps.

this melting in turn is slowing the earths rotation gradually , because the melted water moves
outward from the center of rotation.

this slowing is heating the earth more from within gradually , because the earths core spins
faster than the rest of the earth.

this extra heat will cause more volcanic action and life will decline.

the volcanic action will bring on the next ice age causing life to decline greatly , because of the decreased temperatures.

then after a hunderd thousand years or so , the sea levels will be just right and the pressures will be just right and there will be a worldwide massive methane release again and the ice age will stop.

life will once again begin to thrive.

and they will most likely make the same fatal mistakes we have.

but people live through ice ages as they have in the past.

their bones and bodies change with the changing environment.

such as this man , 30,000 years ago


cro magnun man
who was alive close to the begining of the end of the last ice age.

or this man apx 50,000 years ago.


Homo sapiens neanderthalensis , also living durring the last ice age.

or this man ,Homo sapiens (archaic)



who lived 250,000-500,000 years ago.

or this man , Homo erectus (or Homo ergaster)



living 1.7 million years ago.

and this child , Taung Child


who lived apx 2-3 million years ago.

this child was found in a cave as are many fossils
which is most likely where people lived durring ice ages.

and durring ice ages , most of the surface of the earth is
swept into the sea by glaciers , or by the torrential rains following the methane releases.

wipping their slate clean.

and is most likely why we never find fossils with larger brain cavities.

our bones and bodies learn to adapt , but our minds are affected by the changes in temperatures and we loose information.

A modern childs skull



lived just before the next ice age.

notice the large brain cavity in the modern child skull.

large brain cavities denote warmer climates and smaller brain cavities denote colder climates.





3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5