Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"
Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3934
- Joined: Apr 25th, '10, 17:03
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
Maybe you should lend them yours.........Bubba wrote:You kids had enough yet? Without either of you having a Delorean equipped with a flux capacitor, we're all just going to have to wait a while for the answer.
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
To push things back towards a climate conversation...here is an interesting opinion about the MSM/activists narrative on climate and how corrupted it is.
From : Carlin Economics and Science Climate change from the viewpoint of a skeptical former Sierra Club activist and USEPA senior analyst
ARTICLE : The Climate Alarmists’ Gross Perversion of the Word Clean
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The guy has a CV that deserves respect including supervision within the EPA: "I carried out or supervised economic and scientific research on public policy issues for over 45 years, first at The RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California from 1963 to 1971, and from 1971 to 2010 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC" and.... being an environmental ACTIVIST: "I have an extensive background of working with and in environmental organizations as a volunteer. In the late 1960s I worked very closely with the Sierra Club to present economic arguments against the construction of two proposed dams in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. This campaign was ultimately successful and the dams were not built. In 1970-71 I served as the Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, then the Club’s second largest chapter. I am the recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work." more details here: http://www.carlineconomics.com/abou" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Money Quote:
"Climate alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public acceptance of their doomsday premise that the world must greatly reduce its use of fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They have fudged the surface temperature data, used meaningless climate models, argued that human emissions of carbon dioxide will warm the planet despite the strong evidence to the contrary, and so on, but their greatest perversion is of the English language."
Basically argues that the MSM/ IPCC case is entirely PROPAGANDA.
Looks at "green energy" and claims:
"A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output."
So we have a former EPA insider and environmentalist calling out the fraud in climate science.
Cheers
From : Carlin Economics and Science Climate change from the viewpoint of a skeptical former Sierra Club activist and USEPA senior analyst
ARTICLE : The Climate Alarmists’ Gross Perversion of the Word Clean
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The guy has a CV that deserves respect including supervision within the EPA: "I carried out or supervised economic and scientific research on public policy issues for over 45 years, first at The RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California from 1963 to 1971, and from 1971 to 2010 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC" and.... being an environmental ACTIVIST: "I have an extensive background of working with and in environmental organizations as a volunteer. In the late 1960s I worked very closely with the Sierra Club to present economic arguments against the construction of two proposed dams in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. This campaign was ultimately successful and the dams were not built. In 1970-71 I served as the Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, then the Club’s second largest chapter. I am the recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work." more details here: http://www.carlineconomics.com/abou" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Money Quote:
"Climate alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public acceptance of their doomsday premise that the world must greatly reduce its use of fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They have fudged the surface temperature data, used meaningless climate models, argued that human emissions of carbon dioxide will warm the planet despite the strong evidence to the contrary, and so on, but their greatest perversion is of the English language."
Basically argues that the MSM/ IPCC case is entirely PROPAGANDA.
Looks at "green energy" and claims:
"A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output."
So we have a former EPA insider and environmentalist calling out the fraud in climate science.
Cheers
Ski the edges!
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3934
- Joined: Apr 25th, '10, 17:03
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
Lots of cool ideas in this article.
A tie into skiing as well! Could Graphene, a material used in Head's top rated Supershape line of skis be the key to batteries holding more power and charging in a fraction of the time of lithium ion? The company behind it claims the potential for a 500 mile range for a car while charging 33 times faster than lithium ion.
Maybe.....
Time will tell
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380- ... er-the-air" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A tie into skiing as well! Could Graphene, a material used in Head's top rated Supershape line of skis be the key to batteries holding more power and charging in a fraction of the time of lithium ion? The company behind it claims the potential for a 500 mile range for a car while charging 33 times faster than lithium ion.
Maybe.....
Time will tell
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/130380- ... er-the-air" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11618
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
We were talking about cars. New technology in cars, and battery management in electric cars. Focus. Or explain how your company's technology is relevant to electric cars, driverless cars, or lithium batteries.Woodsrider wrote:No nessasarily true. The new technology I offer is exceedingly less expensive than than doing nothing. The ROI is huge. My biggest competition by far is fear of change. The unions are my largest anti-sponsors purely because they fear we will automate their jobs and they have leverage over management. Which has never happened by the way. Their tasks just change. The majority of early adopters have visionary leadership. Regardless of company size.Mister Moose wrote:Woodsrider wrote:I am sorry you see me this way Moose. I do not view other opinions as lesser than mine. Quite the contrary.Mister Moose wrote: Have you changed your mind yet that a different point of view is not necessarily a less educated, less "grown" point of view?Fear, uncomfortable, doesn't grow. Your words. Those don't sound like desirable characteristics to me.Woodsrider, just one page ago wrote:I think you can boil this all down to those who distrust technology and fear change vs. those who embrace technology and do not fear change. I'd say this country is pretty well split between the two. Whichever one you are, time waits for no one.... [Change] simply makes them uncomfortable and they prefer things the way they are. While those who embrace change always want something better. It's an insatiable appetite. Neither is good or bad. One grows, the other doesn't.
Exactly. New technology is usually expensive, and when it is expensive the first adopters are the large companies or wealthy individuals that can afford it, and can afford the risks associated with something unproven, but has promise. There is no correlation to level of interest, education, fear, comfort with technology, or desire to grow. Limited resources pose unyielding boundaries.Woodsrider wrote: managing the risk of new technology is just too expensive.
So with respect to cars, anyone who is maxed out on paying their mortgage or child's tuition bill isn't going to pay well over $5,000 extra, re-wire their garage, and hope the unproven battery pack lasts 10 years. They aren't necessarily uncomfortable with anything other than the increased cost. They aren't afraid of electric motors. They aren't going to grow any more or less as a result of being financially prudent.
The one constant in life is change. Be ready for it or get left behind. Kodak is a great example of a successful organization that lost vision.
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11618
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
There's your answer. Nobody else does either.deadheadskier wrote:Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3934
- Joined: Apr 25th, '10, 17:03
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
Nobody?Mister Moose wrote:There's your answer. Nobody else does either.deadheadskier wrote:Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
That would suggest it's not very viable and Apple might drop it. They won't because it's simple to use and cheap to offer/use. Ease of use and affordability is a big factor in technology adoption; not just volume of use.
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11618
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
Nobody else uses it all the time. It was in big, bold letters. Lots of people use it occasionally. Occasionally is not "widely adopted". Widely adopted would be the majority of the time.deadheadskier wrote:Nobody?Mister Moose wrote:There's your answer. Nobody else does either.deadheadskier wrote:Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
That would suggest it's not very viable and Apple might drop it. They won't because it's simple to use and cheap to offer/use. Ease of use and affordability is a big factor in technology adoption; not just volume of use.
Are you trolling?
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3934
- Joined: Apr 25th, '10, 17:03
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
I disagree with your perspective. I view widely adopted as the percentage of people using the service, not the frequency they use it. Literally everyone I know personally or in business uses FaceTime or Skype pretty much every week. Weekly video conference calls for work has been the norm for me since 2007, often times multiple occasions per week.Mister Moose wrote:Nobody else uses it all the time. It was in big, bold letters. Lots of people use it occasionally. Occasionally is not "widely adopted". Widely adopted would be the majority of the time.deadheadskier wrote:Nobody?Mister Moose wrote:There's your answer. Nobody else does either.deadheadskier wrote:Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
That would suggest it's not very viable and Apple might drop it. They won't because it's simple to use and cheap to offer/use. Ease of use and affordability is a big factor in technology adoption; not just volume of use.
Are you trolling?
Most people I know text or email as a means of communication in the ratio of hundreds per every one phone call. Are telephone conversations no longer a widely adopted technology?
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11618
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
A while back in this thread (a very long time after this week) the subsidy given to Tesla was compared to oil subsidies, and offered as justification.
I've heard this argument enough I decided to venture into Bubba territory and look into just what and how much the oil subsidies are.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillingin ... 3f18f36e1c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
According to Forbes, these "Subsidies" are actually different depreciation schedules, protections of partnerships from the double taxation of corporations, and a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries (same as when you bring in a car bought out of state and you get credit against your state's sales tax for any tax you already paid in in the state you bought the car). None of these "subsidies" (which really aren't subsidies at all) are in the form of direct cash payments or credits such as Tesla received.
I've heard this argument enough I decided to venture into Bubba territory and look into just what and how much the oil subsidies are.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/drillingin ... 3f18f36e1c" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
According to Forbes, these "Subsidies" are actually different depreciation schedules, protections of partnerships from the double taxation of corporations, and a credit for taxes paid to foreign countries (same as when you bring in a car bought out of state and you get credit against your state's sales tax for any tax you already paid in in the state you bought the car). None of these "subsidies" (which really aren't subsidies at all) are in the form of direct cash payments or credits such as Tesla received.
- Mister Moose
- Level 10K poster
- Posts: 11618
- Joined: Jan 4th, '05, 18:23
- Location: Waiting for the next one
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
There are over a million Ford Model As still registered and on the road, but are driven only once in a while. By your definition, using 1920s technology is "widely adopted".deadheadskier wrote:I disagree with your perspective. I view widely adopted as the percentage of people using the service, not the frequency they use it. Literally everyone I know personally or in business uses FaceTime or Skype pretty much every week. Weekly video conference calls for work has been the norm for me since 2007, often times multiple occasions per week.Mister Moose wrote:Nobody else uses it all the time. It was in big, bold letters. Lots of people use it occasionally. Occasionally is not "widely adopted". Widely adopted would be the majority of the time.deadheadskier wrote:Nobody?Mister Moose wrote:There's your answer. Nobody else does either.deadheadskier wrote:Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
That would suggest it's not very viable and Apple might drop it. They won't because it's simple to use and cheap to offer/use. Ease of use and affordability is a big factor in technology adoption; not just volume of use.
Are you trolling?
Most people I know text or email as a means of communication in the ratio of hundreds per every one phone call. Are telephone conversations no longer a widely adopted technology?
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1377
- Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
My company's technology has no direct relevance to electric or automated cars. I did spend 20 years in the automotive industry though before I moved to industry. My experience is relevant to the fear of automation and the reluctance of some to improve lives by embracing technology and change.Mister Moose wrote:We were talking about cars. New technology in cars, and battery management in electric cars. Focus. Or explain how your company's technology is relevant to electric cars, driverless cars, or lithium batteries.Woodsrider wrote:No nessasarily true. The new technology I offer is exceedingly less expensive than than doing nothing. The ROI is huge. My biggest competition by far is fear of change. The unions are my largest anti-sponsors purely because they fear we will automate their jobs and they have leverage over management. Which has never happened by the way. Their tasks just change. The majority of early adopters have visionary leadership. Regardless of company size.Mister Moose wrote:Woodsrider wrote:I am sorry you see me this way Moose. I do not view other opinions as lesser than mine. Quite the contrary.Mister Moose wrote: Have you changed your mind yet that a different point of view is not necessarily a less educated, less "grown" point of view?Fear, uncomfortable, doesn't grow. Your words. Those don't sound like desirable characteristics to me.Woodsrider, just one page ago wrote:I think you can boil this all down to those who distrust technology and fear change vs. those who embrace technology and do not fear change. I'd say this country is pretty well split between the two. Whichever one you are, time waits for no one.... [Change] simply makes them uncomfortable and they prefer things the way they are. While those who embrace change always want something better. It's an insatiable appetite. Neither is good or bad. One grows, the other doesn't.
Exactly. New technology is usually expensive, and when it is expensive the first adopters are the large companies or wealthy individuals that can afford it, and can afford the risks associated with something unproven, but has promise. There is no correlation to level of interest, education, fear, comfort with technology, or desire to grow. Limited resources pose unyielding boundaries.Woodsrider wrote: managing the risk of new technology is just too expensive.
So with respect to cars, anyone who is maxed out on paying their mortgage or child's tuition bill isn't going to pay well over $5,000 extra, re-wire their garage, and hope the unproven battery pack lasts 10 years. They aren't necessarily uncomfortable with anything other than the increased cost. They aren't afraid of electric motors. They aren't going to grow any more or less as a result of being financially prudent.
The one constant in life is change. Be ready for it or get left behind. Kodak is a great example of a successful organization that lost vision.
-
- Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
- Posts: 3934
- Joined: Apr 25th, '10, 17:03
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
OK, now we know who is trolling between us.
But even if you aren't and are just very confused about the difference between the concept of adoption and use, I'd be willing to bet more Americans have used FaceTime or the like in the past five minutes than have driven a model A in the past year.
But even if you aren't and are just very confused about the difference between the concept of adoption and use, I'd be willing to bet more Americans have used FaceTime or the like in the past five minutes than have driven a model A in the past year.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 26304
- Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
- Location: Where the climate suits my clothes
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
You're not outliers. We're closer to Luddites than techies and we use FaceTime almost every week for the same reason. We do a group call with kids and grandkids, especially if we haven't seen them in person for a while.deadheadskier wrote:Yeah, I'm done. Just had a nice FaceTime conversation with my parents in Florida so they could see their grandson. I don't use the technology all the time, but it sure is nice to have for our once weekly family call. Think it was mentioned in a recent page of this thread that such technology isn't being widely adopted. Guess my family are outliers.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave
"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald
"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
-
- Postinator
- Posts: 7028
- Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
- Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang
Always valuable to have the opinion of an 80 year old economist.Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:To push things back towards a climate conversation...here is an interesting opinion about the MSM/activists narrative on climate and how corrupted it is.
From : Carlin Economics and Science Climate change from the viewpoint of a skeptical former Sierra Club activist and USEPA senior analyst
ARTICLE : The Climate Alarmists’ Gross Perversion of the Word Clean
http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3740" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The guy has a CV that deserves respect including supervision within the EPA: "I carried out or supervised economic and scientific research on public policy issues for over 45 years, first at The RAND Corporation in Santa Monica, California from 1963 to 1971, and from 1971 to 2010 at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, DC" and.... being an environmental ACTIVIST: "I have an extensive background of working with and in environmental organizations as a volunteer. In the late 1960s I worked very closely with the Sierra Club to present economic arguments against the construction of two proposed dams in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. This campaign was ultimately successful and the dams were not built. In 1970-71 I served as the Chairman of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club, then the Club’s second largest chapter. I am the recipient of the Chapter’s Weldon Heald award for conservation work." more details here: http://www.carlineconomics.com/abou" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Money Quote:
"Climate alarmists have gone to endless efforts to gain public acceptance of their doomsday premise that the world must greatly reduce its use of fossil fuels to avoid catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. They have fudged the surface temperature data, used meaningless climate models, argued that human emissions of carbon dioxide will warm the planet despite the strong evidence to the contrary, and so on, but their greatest perversion is of the English language."
Basically argues that the MSM/ IPCC case is entirely PROPAGANDA.
Looks at "green energy" and claims:
"A two-megawatt wind turbine weighs about 250 tonnes, including the tower, nacelle, rotor and blades. Globally, it takes about half a tonne of coal to make a tonne of steel. Add another 25 tonnes of coal for making the cement and you’re talking 150 tonnes of coal per turbine. Now if we are to build 350,000 wind turbines a year (or a smaller number of bigger ones), just to keep up with increasing energy demand, that will require 50 million tonnes of coal a year. That’s about half the EU’s hard coal–mining output."
So we have a former EPA insider and environmentalist calling out the fraud in climate science.
Cheers