| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
Fun fact on the German coal-to-oil program. One of the surviving FW-190's was restored at the Smithsonian some years back. Original fuel was found in the fuel tanks, tested, and run in a modern engine, just fine. Contrast that to the Gasahol in current use, with limited life times before turning to drek. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_fuel Quotes prices from large scale coal, $20 bbl, to small biomass $240 bbl. Hmm. I wonder if it would be economical or a useful test, to build a coal to oil plant to fill the National Strategic Reserves? | ||
| Ducbsa |
97% refresher: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/brea king-the-97-percent-climate-consensus-canard.php | ||
| Reepicheep |
Try and keep up Todd, we were complaining about the GM volt. We weren't upset that it advanced hybrid technology, we were upset that each one sold cost the Amererican taxpayer about the cost of about 5 zero full electric motorcycles, and at the end of the day the Volt was a fairly unremarkable hybrid. So we were complaining that it was done badly, not that it was done. (Message edited by reepicheep on September 30, 2015) | ||
| Sifo |
There was a discussion of Teslas that were turned into bricks when left to discharge the batteries too much. Those were some expensive bricks! | ||
| Ducbsa |
Climate Alarmists: the Journal of Record, the esteemed NY Times says the temperatures haven't increased: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/wh at-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1 Good to have them on the side of common sense! | ||
| Reepicheep |
At least they are acknowledging that maybe the science isn't settled. It reads like a baptist newsletter though, it's trying to defend AGW inspite of facts, not report news. For example:
No, it's the "man-made global warming science is settled" crowd doing that. When I look back for evidence, I don't stop until I've passed a few million years. | ||
| Sifo |
Ducbsa, did you read the entire article? I actually found it kind of entertaining. Not very good overall though. I have to laugh every time I hear about the "missing heat" somehow hiding in the deep ocean. Great theory for the warmists, given that there is no way to verify this. One huge hole in this theory though. The whole global warming thing is based on heat being trapped in the atmosphere. How exactly does all of this extra heat make it's way from the atmosphere, to the surface, then to the ocean surface, then to the deep ocean, all without being detected by our satellite measurements that measure the atmospheric temperature, surface temperature, and ocean surface temperature every single day? I've never even heard of a plausible theory to explain this magical transfer of all of this missing heat energy. We could be on the verge of new scientific theories on moving energy from one place to another. Very exciting! It's kind of funny pointing at the "deniers" for cherry picking data when they say it hasn't warmed since 1998. That was the beginning of the plateau. It's factually correct. Of course they ignore the fact that when they describe the warming in the record, they are talking about either the thermometer record, or the satellite record. Do they ever bother with the fact that the thermometer happened to be invented during the Little Ice Age, or that we put the first temperature recording satellite into space during the scare of the next impending ice age in 1978? Is that any less dishonest? The simple fact is that based on observation of out climate system in recent decades, it's becoming more and more apparent that the climate just isn't as sensitive to greenhouse warming as had been assumed. Anyone who tells you that that sensitivity was anything more than an assumption doesn't know what they are talking about either. It's an assumption backed by computer models that are filled with assumptions, that all get balanced out in an effort to get something close to resembling reality for a given period. Sadly for them, recent decades just haven't cooperated with their models. Time to update those failed assumptions! Of course that's how we got the assumption that heat is magically going directly to the deep ocean... As a result of greenhouse warming!  | ||
| Chauly |
"The First and Second Law" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnbiVw_1FNs | ||
| Ducbsa |
Sifo, I posted it so that the Warmists could see that a non-Koch source is telling them the temps aren't rising. | ||
| Sifo |
I know, but from there the article is all over the place, including trying to make the case that it's simply a matter of cherry picking the data to show the warming has stalled. It's entertaining, sort of, but it's pretty clear that the writer really has no clue. | ||
| Hootowl |
I thought it was interesting that they accuse the non hysterical people of only looking at a narrow window of time instead of the bigger picture, when it is the Believers who fail to zoom out on the graph. We're in a relatively stable warm period bracketed by civilization ending cold periods. Another one is coming. Soon. Geologically speaking. | ||
| Sifo |
They not only focus on a narrow window of temperature data, but also focus on a narrow window of atmospheric CO2 data. They don't even align those windows with each other most of the time. Of course when you look at temperature and CO2 data together, going back farther than about 1980, you find they don't really correlate that well. Oops! | ||
| Tod662 |
The mental capacity of the Bad Weather Brain Trust is simply astounding. I can't wait to see how you qualify your assertions in the future, as the science becomes more undeniable. Very soon your argument will be that climate change is inevitable and it is economically unfeasible to change it. Or whatever else the GOP pundits tell you to think. I can go back and correlate your positions with what the Heritage foundation and other right wing funded entities are feeding you. (do you still want to tell me 97% is BS, what about GOP Pres candidate's that admit it?) Show me any scientist who is against climate change who is not affiliated with money paying them for their view. Just one, that's all i ask. But Im probably wrong, the BWBT has much more knowledge then the 97% of scientists that say that climate change is being greatly exasperated (made worse) by human activity. | ||
| S2t_bama |
Tod662 is clearly getting exasperated! All the great Archie Bunker malapropisms are coming flooding back. LOL | ||
| Sifo |
Tod, you seem confused. Are there right wing leaders on your side of this or is it a vast right wing conspiracy? Your claim that the future will make it more undeniable is about 20 years out of date. That future, today's present has pretty well proven that the climates sensitivity to CO2 is not what was claimed. You cling to that theory, so where has the missing heat gone? Name just one? http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/0 3/climate_expert_john_christy_on.html BTW, climate change is inevitable. It takes a real fool to believe that they can actually prevent climate change. It always has changed. It always will change. | ||
| Aesquire |
Did you know 97% is a focus group tested most believable fake statistics number? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/02/15/new-nielse n-study-shows-75-6-of-all-statistics-are-fake/ | ||
| Hootowl |
"Very soon your argument will be that climate change is inevitable and it is economically unfeasible to change it." Very soon? Good Lord. We've been saying that for years. Climate change IS real. The climate changes. And we're contributing to it, though not to the degree the Believers would have the rest of us Believe. And no, it is not economically feasible to alter its rate of change. Destroy the modern world for a theoretical 0.1 degree reduction in warming over 100 years? No thanks. But Todd, feel free to stop driving a car, eating food grown using powered farming equipment, and all the other things that separate you from the animals. Let us know how that goes. But not here, because you won't be able to use a computer powered by coal to post your socialist drivel. | ||
| Aesquire |
Funny how some "deniers" keep pointing out workable carbon free energy alternatives, like Thorium Fission, but these are not acceptable by the "Greenies" because.... they actually work. The PURPOSE of the Green Movement is not to save the planet, it's to ruin western industrial civilization. I can show examples. Conservationists purpose is to save the environment. See Ducks Unlimited for one of the best functioning examples of successful conservation groups. Protest a new development? no. Buy the Swamp with donated money and make it a park for wildlife? Yes. Local group does just that. | ||
| Aesquire |
Repeat. What do Petra, the Anasazi, Greenland, and Blue Holes have in common? Your Opinion on "Cash for Clunkers"? | ||
| Hootowl |
"I can show examples." No need. The KGB admitted they started the green movement back in the 60s for this very purpose. | ||
| Sifo |
Very soon your argument will be that climate change is inevitable and it is economically unfeasible to change it. From that statement, I have to take it that you 1) believe that climate change is NOT inevitable, and 2) it is economically feasible to control it. Let's ignore part 2 for the moment. I'm just curious... In your opinion, what should the global thermostat be set to? Essentially, what year in history do you think had the optimal climate that we should select as the "normal" that we are going to hammer the climate into following. And now the dreaded part of the question I always hated to see in High School... WHY? I await enlightenment... | ||
| Aesquire |
No need. Thanks Hoot. You're correct. 1) believe that climate change is NOT inevitable, and 2) it is economically feasible to control it. 1. Sifo, so correct. Myself, since I live in the Great White North, would prefer the climate of 1000 years ago when the Vikings colonized Vinland. If I lived in Cairo, I might pick a different age. 2. Economical? No. Not a chance. For sake of argument, let's imagine that the current models are all wrong. ( true ) and that it really is a straight forward issue of CO2 emissions from humans, only, ( it is not ) and if we don't reduce emissions drastically, we get an Ice age. ( possible ) Or a Soylent Green future. ( not likely... never happened before ) Just for this post, let's assume the above. Then. Not EVEN if we go Full Greenie Solution and accept a much lower lifestyle for Europe and America and everywhere else, and simply condemn the third world to just die..... We COULD go full Tecno nerd and build a full breeder reactor economy, export it to the rest of the planet and completely displace coal and oil into chemical feedstocks and vehicle fuel. Solar Satellites and Asteroid mining, robotic factories and a Society of Abundance, Gene Roddenberry Star Trek NG style.... That would actually reduce CO2 emissions. The Greenie plan will not, it's just a recipe for tyranny. Even if the U.S. stopped using fossil fuels completely, China would more than continue the theoretical CO2 problem. Now, if we instead assume that AGW is a real but tiny blip in the natural climate cycles, not yet perfectly understood, then we need to study it a bit more. Before spending too much wealth on bad ideas to fix the emergency right now. That's my opinion. But there's also that inevitable fact. Climate Change Happens. So WHEN the climate goes sour on us, we'd better have a good idea of how it really works and be prepared for an engineering challenge of Biblical Proportions. We will at some point have to build giant mirrors in space to alter the amount of solar radiation the planet absorbs, and to feed our need for power. Millions of really big mirrors and solar panels. Because we eventually Will have to control the planet's climate to keep us alive. The Sun is a Variable star, and we do have these pesky Ice Ages. | ||
| Aesquire |
Just heard a great suggestion for a gearhead. Find a Fisker, put a LS V8 in it,and have a really awesome car. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-Yg3aeh138 @ 12:10 in. | ||
| Ducbsa |
This guy didn't take any money from the Kochs or Exxon, he took it from us (or our children & grandchildren)! http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/10/an-i nstance-of-warmist-corruption.php Why don't our warmist hoaxer friends address this and explain it? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/climate-m odel-developments-isis/ | ||
| Sifo |
 | ||
| Aesquire |
http://mobile.news.com.au/national/western-austral ia/miranda-devine-perth-electrical-engineers-disco very-will-change-climate-change-debate/story-fnii5 thn-1227555674611 | ||
| Hootowl |
Rut roh. The sun? Whoda thunk it? | ||
| Aesquire |
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/10/07/watch-cruz-hu miliates-sierra-club-prez-on-senate-floor/?singlep age=true That's right, Hoot. It's possible, just barely, mind you, that the temperature of the planet has something to do, however odd that sounds, with the Star it circles. |
