parados
 
  5  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 12:49 pm
@layman,
Hmm.. you are quoting about a paper from almost 5 years ago that was flawed and the editor resigned after printing it.

Quote:
The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase.

It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.

"Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science," he writes in a resignation note published in Remote Sensing.

"Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-14768574

By the way among other things, Spencer ignored other science and failed to include any of the science that had been published that was critical of his spurious findings.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 02:12 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
global warming is being impacted by manmade CO2 release into the atmosphere.
Still waiting for any of you alarmed people to suggest meaningful steps to address the problem. IF you are right, what do we do about it?

Hint- Blaming the people who are not as alarmed as you will not fix the problem.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 02:33 pm
@layman,
This article is little more than a fraud, though.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 02:48 pm
@Leadfoot,
Who said I was alarmed? We in California have one of the strictest anti-smog laws in the country.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 08:53 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Well, problem solved, party on!
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 09:14 pm
@Leadfoot,
Simple mind; simple solutions.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  2  
Reply Sun 3 Jan, 2016 10:15 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
global warming is being impacted by manmade CO2 release into the atmosphere.
Still waiting for any of you alarmed people to suggest meaningful steps to address the problem. IF you are right, what do we do about it?


Well, Australia has sufficient sun, wind and geothermal energy to power the entire nation 500 times over. But according to our recently deposed far right wing Prime Minister "Coal is good for humanity"!
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 02:06 am
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
Still waiting for any of you alarmed people to suggest meaningful steps to address the problem. IF you are right, what do we do about it?

Tax fossil fuels to pay for the transition to other forms of energy.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 02:13 am
That's not a bad idea. Additionally, serious study should be applied to defeating the ways in which the energy sector blocks efforts to employ alternative forms of energy generation.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 01:44 pm
@Wilso,
He must need the coal industry to win the election.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 01:57 pm
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Tax fossil fuels to pay for the transition to other forms of energy.
Several reasons why that isn't very effective.

It's a very regressive tax (hardest on the poor).

The government sucks when it comes to choosing where to throw money at technical problems.

There are lots of people and companies that are much better at targeting technology solutions and willing to spend the money. (Gates, Musk, etc)

Breakthroughs in tech solutions are very often dependent on one brilliant idea that comes in its own time and can't be speeded up with money. It often like trying to make a baby in 1 month using 9 women instead of 1.

I wouldn't even think of giving more tax to government when they are doing bone headed things like restricting imports of low cost solar panels from China.

Both my houses have solar panels that provide all or most of my energy requirements BTW. I don't know where Set gets the 'holy roller that don't give a ****' stuff about me.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 03:35 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
I don't know where Set gets the 'holy roller that don't give a ****' stuff about me.


Listen clown, if you've got a problem with something i've said, quote the post in which i said it. Don't just make sh*t up, attribute it to me and then expect me to defend it. In short, you're a liar.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 04:35 pm
@Setanta,
Why Set, I don't expect anything from you.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 05:06 pm
@Leadfoot,
Of course not . . . when you just lie to attempt to make a point, why would you have expectations of those about whom you lie.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 08:16 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Of course not . . . when you just lie to attempt to make a point, why would you have expectations of those about whom you lie.


VICTIMIZED, yet again, sho nuff.
layman
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 4 Jan, 2016 08:17 pm
@layman,
Go on ahead and quote his ass, eh, Leddy?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 01:27 am
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:

Quote:
Tax fossil fuels to pay for the transition to other forms of energy.

It's a very regressive tax (hardest on the poor).

No it isn't. The rich have bigger houses and cars.

Quote:
The government sucks when it comes to choosing where to throw money at technical problems.

Tell that to Youri Gagarine or Neil Armstrong.

Quote:
There are lots of people and companies that are much better at targeting technology solutions and willing to spend the money. (Gates, Musk, etc)

They are most welcome to chip in.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 02:19 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
@Leadfoot,


Olivier Quote:
"Tax fossil fuels to pay for the transition to other forms of energy."

Leadfoot replied:
It's a very regressive tax (hardest on the poor).

Olivier responded:
No it isn't. The rich have bigger houses and cars.
Nice try, but bad economics. Energy costs are a MUCH larger percentage of budget for the poor than the rich. Do the math.

As far as your astronaut example, compare the cost of what NASA spent to put the first man in space to what Burt Rutan's company spent for their first. NASA's space shuttle was the worst ever system in history on a dollar/pound delivered to orbit basis. Killed more people too. Government made a rare good call to move to private companies like SpaceX to make ISS deliveries. Not to mention the embarasment of our having to rely on the Russians.

I can't believe you even mentioned the space program as an example of government efficiency or technical prowess.
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 03:58 am
@Leadfoot,
You do the math, Led, if you want to have a point.

You're welcome to add to my proposal some more taxes on the rich, if that helps make the proposal more pro-poor. But the bottom line is that people aren't going to reduce their consumpsion of fossil fuels if the price don't go up.

Last time I checked, the private sector did not send anyone on the moon yet, nor on orbit for that matter. The USSR did send Gagarine on orbit half a century ago, and less than 50 years after their revolution from a peasant society. What are Musk and Gates waiting for?

Governments can do big and good things. If you think they can't, go live in some place without a government for a while, e.g. Helmand or Nuristan, and see if you like it. :-)
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Tue 5 Jan, 2016 05:04 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
But the bottom line is that people aren't going to reduce their consumpsion of fossil fuels if the price don't go up.
You are simply wrong about that. For example, Fuel consumption per passenger mile has gone down due to the fuel economy standards which was a good idea. Homes have become more energy efficient for the same reason. That is a much better approach.

I Note that you were not able to refute anything I said about the space program BTW.

The America - love it or leave it approach is pathetic as well.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2021 at 04:14:58