Jump to content
PaulG.

The biggest scam in history

Recommended Posts

has the 'edit post' feature a minimal time on the new forums or has it always been like this?

I think you have about an hour to edit, unless you're a premium member. Yes, it's always been like that.

Who-hoo - I got 10/10!

A Conditionally-led Republic (USA) type of government as designed by the Framers is far better than anything out there... This is fact. Marxism, Socialism, Communism just don't work. Europe needs to return to its senses too...

Fundamental forms of any polticial (or relgious for that matter) system don't work - including capitalism. Also what is "far better" is a matter of perspective. ...but we're getting waaaay off topic unsure.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ice core data, cyclical temperature changes, who said what and when, graphs, politics... none of this is really relevant.

Uhh... well the thread was started specifically to address climate change data, so it is relevant to this thread. smile.gif

Regarding the other issue you raised, I happen to agree with you in principle. I'd like to see more alternative energy solutions. At the same time we have to remember there's no free lunch. Alternative energy advocates usually present these ideas as ideal solutions that lead to energy nirvana. I never see any discussion of potentially negative side effects.

Remember catalytic converters? They were supposed to solve our smog problem by changing toxic chemicals into "harmless" water and carbon dioxide. Oops... it turns out CO2 is destroying the planet. Nobody saw that one coming...

Every solution is going to have some sort of side effect. Biofuel crops displace food crops and drive up food prices. Opening new farms specifcally for biofuel crops puts more stress on the water supply and increases the cost and use of fertilizers and insecticides. Nuclear plants have that annoying radioactive waste to deal with. Geothermal is very localized and loses efficiency over time. Wind and solar both take energy that exists in a natural environment and convert it to electricity. On a small scale it's impact is undetectable. What happens when there are enough of them to supply the world's growing energy needs? How will all those windmill farms affect weather patterns? During the day, solar energy heats the ground like a thermal battery. Put down solar panels and those batteries no longer get charged. What impact will that have?

Oil is used because it is convenient, relatively cheap, and has a high energy content. (Since 2003 only ~18% of US oil has been imported from the Persian Gulf. Link) Suppose we do develop alternative energy sources and we no longer need oil? Big oil companies get broken and the world is free? Not likely. Big oil may be done but they'll be replaced by big wind, big sun, or big nuclear.

What happens to those countries that depend on oil exports? Will they sit by passively while the world slowly strangles their economic livelyhood? Will they switch over to farming and exporting opium? Will they invade neighboring countries for their resources? Do you expect them to happily return to being nomadic desert tribesmen?

The promises made by renewable energy are, IMO, largely pipe dreams. Extracting useful energy from nature for our own use will always have some impact on the system as a whole. There's no such thing as a "environmentally neutral." There are some forms of sustainable energy (hydropower comes to mind) but they cannot produce infinite power. Reducing energy use is the only route to long term survival, and frankly I doubt humanity will ever willingly go down that path.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great reply, Dak. Well thought-out, articulate, detailed, and respectful; just the kind of debate that I value on LAVA. Nonetheless, I still think we need to wean ourselves off of the oil tittie and move on to something more sustainable. Just my $0.02 worth.

Woo hoo! I just hit my 100th post! At this rate, it'll only take me about 120 years to catch up to crelf :lol:

Edited by BobHamburger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suppose we do develop alternative energy sources and we no longer need oil? Big oil companies get broken and the world is free? Not likely. Big oil may be done but they'll be replaced by big wind, big sun, or big nuclear.

A very large percentage of renewable energy companies are big oil companies (or, at least, heavily backed by them). That's capatislm right there - go where the money is - if ppl are going to trash oil then let's start investing in and seeing how we can make money off what they're not going to trash - renewable energy. Makes total sense to me.

Oil is used because it is convenient, relatively cheap, and has a high energy content.

Totally - and if using it wasn't harming the environment so much (if it is) then it'd be the capital thing to continue doing.

Since 2003 only ~18% of US oil has been imported from the Persian Gulf.

True - the largest exporter of crude 0il (see what I did there? :D ) to the US is Canada - link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woo hoo! I just hit my 100th post! At this rate, it'll only take me about 120 years to catch up to crelf laugh.gif

0163-mooning.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops... it turns out CO2 is destroying the planet. Nobody saw that one coming...

When did we all decide to forget our grade school biology?

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. We exhale it. Plants need CO2 to survive. And it does NOT cause the green house effect. In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 can cause an increase in the amount of global vegetation. That has happened in earth's past.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it does NOT cause the green house effect. In fact, higher concentrations of CO2 can cause an increase in the amount of global vegetation. That has happened in earth's past.

True, it's happened in the earth's past. The big difference between the carbonaceous era and now is that we've stripped the forests around the world and wood growth doesn't compensate for our increased "exhalations".

As a matter of fact, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of many. That you don't believe its increase to be a problem is something, but it definitely is a greenhouse gas. What do you think is the major difference between Mars, Venus and Earth? In the past (way past, before those ice cores measurements), each of these three planets could have evolved to be hospitable to life. It happens that, to the best of current knowledge in the planetary science community, Mars' surface being colder than its sister planets, it trapped larger quantities of CO2 in its rocks in a process analog to your laboratory cryogenic vacuum pumps. The CO2 atmosphere thinned out (6 mbar pressure as of today) and there was very little greenhouse effect that could compensate its greater distance to the sun. Venus was exactly the opposite, as it didn't trap the CO2, it amplified to produce a thick atmosphere with, nowadays, a very complex atmospheric structure involving acid rain, nitrous oxides and dense clouds, most of which contribute highly to the greenhouse effect. Of course, no point in stating the obvious for Earth...

So a higher CO2 content could be balanced by an increase in vegetation? Sure. Provided we let the vegetation grow. Provided also that those trees we cut are not replaced with millions of cows that exhale CO2 and produce methane in large quantities. Methane, by the way, is the third predominant greenhouse gas... but being equivalent to 21 times the greenhouse effect of CO2 by weight, we would indeed be wise to let more forests untouched. Methane is also very much present is permafrost, which is at risk of not staying permanent if we let the temperature rise too much. Would it be balanced by an increase in vegetation cover? Again, maybe... provided we don't cut the trees... Oh yeah, I said that already. Chicken and the egg: whichever came first.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant. We exhale it. Plants need CO2 to survive.

Is CO2 a pollutant. Yes and no. It's referred to as a "fund pollutant" when it's produced in greater quantity than the absorptive capacity of the environment. This means that it might not be a pollutant yet, depending on where you stand on this issue... I believe it is, but that's just me.

I believe the graphs came from this video I posted earlier.

I watched it and felt something was odd but couldn't put my finger on it. There is indeed a source with the graphs...

And then it occured to me...

post-10515-126153007622_thumb.png

The temperature scales depicted are wrong. Antarctica's average temperatures are never around the freezing point.

I guess they're simply mixed up. I'm not saying this is a scam or anything... but it does illustrate that you can't always believe the data you're presented at face value. This is true when you watch Al Gore's documentary... but it's even truer when you watch a video on Youtube. Cross-referencing with real scientific data and making sure we cite other people which are not related to us that have done similar work (and building on them or refuting them) is the true way to scientific inquiry.

When did we all decide to forget our grade school biology?

I don't know why you accuse people on LAVA of being such illiterate people. If you want to tease us, please use some emoticons... Otherwise we might think you're being serious! I've found that people hanging here, and it's been said many times by others, are quite knowledgeable in many fields of interest. The first trait of collective intelligence I value when people communicate, is their ability to express themselves with the right words (sycophant, calumniable, etc.) , without making too many grammatical or orthographic mistakes. The large majority or English-speaking people here can write a concise text without notable errors, as well as many foreigners... This is truly an amazing bunch we have here.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... This is truly an amazing bunch we have here.

Indeed. worshippy.gif

Mostly.

With the exception of a few off-topic juvenile "tickle party" posters and no-life zombie-watchers we have an exceptional collective here. I was hoping to tap into that collective.

That said, I will take what you said to heart. But I must respond later.

I'm leaving to be with my family for Christmas. But I will be back next week.

Happy Holidays to you and yours, Francois. thumbup1.gif

Edited by PaulG.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All,

I agree with Bob Hamburger that we need to get away from using oil via safer energy sources via Manhattan like Project effort. Not only to have clean energy, but also as a National soveriegn security measure to remove relliance on folks who devise daily to remove us from the planet. I've was involved in a project some 7-8 years ago that was a LabVIEW solar panel testing system (Control & DAQ) but the plugged was pulled due to other funding priorities at our large Aerospace company.

This topic is not tied to (good) science, its all about re-distibution of wealth. Before Al Gore pushed his own scare button in the mid 1990's, there has always been via the "very moral" UN an effort by certain countries to redistribute wealth around the world. This is just another effort in that vain. None of these countries I am speaking about here and have since my mid 20's or mid 1980's are true free market capitalists (note much different that a corporatist). The pre GW alarmists were / are all from non or very limited Free Market, Socialist countries. The ironic truth is that 80% + of the source money will come from of US and other capitalist countries. Hmmm, sounds like a race condition in the code...

Before the hacked e-mails were made public (note the huge lack of press coverage) 95% of the nails were put into closing the coffin on this hoax. I have debated many on what forms of government is best (I received a minor in Poly Science in '84) in an analog measurement fashion, and have shown free-market capitalism has done more for the world than has anything else. Beginning way back in Greece, but I see Greece has lost its historical past and is having some fiscal problems. Not a coincidence of course. I never have said in that amount of time that Capitalism is perfect, but its far better than the rest (Churchill, bless his soul). Those who have tried to bring up other forms always fail in their proof. Proof must come with facts via reason and rational thinking. Please get me right, I do see some great ideas from various European countries, but overall the USA has the best design. There is a movement here to follow Europe but businesses will begin to vansh and/or prices and inflation will go through the roof! Retirees on fixed income are just loving inflation about the 4-6% we've had since the mid 1980's when the personal wealth grew at the quickest rate ever. Now that free-market wealth is being sucked away to the Obama government and to overseas. We must have been bad free-market wireworkers !?!

In summary, a lack of freedom (read increased government control) means less innovation. The National Instruments company grew from Free-Market Capitalism. We can't change this historical fact. And yes, CRelf, since re-distribution of wealth is the real topic here (not sane science), the types of government and their perspective productive outputs (fiscal nature and level of freedom being the criteria) are within the scope of this topic.

Now my wife and I are off to celebrate Christmas with our families. We are expecting the usual conversations, some topics like this one are sure to surface with the most vocal folks being the ... ones who have forgotten history. Funny how that works. We are forced to become more vocal with facts in hand. I am now about pack the gifts in the car along with some books and other info (in case of fire) such as the US Constitution and a handy pocket book of Federalist Papers.

Good topic Paul G !!!

Back to wireworks and Merry Christmas to All !!!

Karl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Bob Hamburger that we need to get away from using oil via safer energy sources via Manhattan like Project effort. Not only to have clean energy, but also as a National soveriegn security measure to remove relliance on folks who devise daily to remove us from the planet.

I agree, but I think you're overstating it - as some ppl have already said in this thread, not as much crude oil comes from the countries I think you're talking about as we commonly think. The largest exporter of crude oil to the US is Canada, and I'm not sure the Canadians devise daily to remove he USA from the planet. (or do they? ph34r.gifbiggrin.gif )

I've was involved in a project some 7-8 years ago that was a LabVIEW solar panel testing system (Control & DAQ) but the plugged was pulled due to other funding priorities at our large Aerospace company.

Is that becuase your aerospace company didn't see a good enough financial return from it? If so, that's good ol' capitalism at work. Don't get me wrong: I think capatilism is great, but I don't think it should be helf up as a shining bastian of all that is good in the world. It has its flaws like all other systems of government, and that's why, if we are to continue to be a society, we need to not be fundamental capatilists.

I never have said in that amount of time that Capitalism is perfect, but its far better than the rest (Churchill, bless his soul).

Indeed - couldn't agree more.

...I do see some great ideas from various European countries, but overall the USA has the best design. There is a movement here to follow Europe...

There is? Firstly, there's more than one system of government active in Europe, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Secondly, I don't know where you are, so when you say "here" I don't know what you're referring to. Assuming you're in the USA, I can't see the USA going away from the current system of geovernment, irrespective of how flawed it may be percieved. Not that I'm saying that's it's right or wrong, but my perception is that there's too much "greatest country in the world" and "don't mess with the USA" and "the constitution is always right" bravdo for that to happen.

And yes, CRelf, since re-distribution of wealth is the real topic here (not sane science)...

I'm not sure Paul G. would agree with you smile.gif That said, so many different things have been discussed in this thread I can't imagine that anything's off topic anymore biggrin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonetheless, I still think we need to wean ourselves off of the oil tittie and move on to something more sustainable.

I agree that our economy is disproportionally sensitive to world oil supply and I'd like to see that dependence reduced. At the same time, it doesn't make economic sense to replace oil with more expensive energy while the oil is available. I really don't think there is an easy solution to this. Mostly I just want there to be honest discussion about the impacts of various alternatives.

Totally - and if using it wasn't harming the environment so much (if it is) then it'd be the capital thing to continue doing.

Even if it is harming the environment, it's still the (pure) capitalist thing to do as long as people are willing to buy it. Capitalism only cares about the environment when customers do.

When did we all decide to forget our grade school biology? CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

It was a tongue-in-cheek commentary on common perception and the influence CO2 has had in public discourse. We created an entire industry and added hundreds of dollars to the cost of cars to cure the smog problem and what did we get? Global warming. What crisis is going to grow out of alternative energy sources?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... The temperature scales depicted are wrong. Antarctica's average temperatures are never around the freezing point...

Can't see the scales. As you posted them they are too small. But from everything I've come to understand about these scales they are based upon a median and not actual temperature. I don't think we are talking about average temperatures from Antartica, but medians. I could be wrong. I would like to see the data on a readable scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see the data on a readable scale.

I took them from the video link you posted on Dec 21st:

I believe the graphs came from this video I posted earlier.

My point was not about the temperature being wrong, but the location on Earth. All I'm saying is that average (median?) temperature of Antarctica is around -30C while Greenland's is around -4C. These graphs in the video show an average of -4C in Antarctica and -30C in Greenland. If the author of the video swapped these bits of information (however unvoluntarily), what else has been misplaced or misinterpreted? Hence the importance of citing reliable sources, and preferably, multiple independant sources. That's the tough part (and similitude) between science & journalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The temperature scales depicted are wrong. Antarctica's average temperatures are never around the freezing point.

Forgive me but I don't have image editing software at home that allows me to crop an image so that I can illustrate this better.

I reviewed the video again.

Right around 1:47 is the bottom graph by itself and you can read the scale. The bottom graph (Antarctica) y scale is "temp difference from today in C" (emphasis mine) whereas the top graph is actual temp data from Greenland.

I don't know why the author of the video would use one graph using one kind of data from one part of the world and then use another graph from another kind of data from another part of the world, and attempt to compare the two without more clarification. ????

Edited by PaulG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climategate.com. Wish I had thought of this. sad.gif

I believe this whole global warming/"climate change" scam has already started to fade into the trash heap of history.

Earthlings are better for it. A healthy amount of skepticism - towards anything - is a Good Thing when the amount of skepticism is proportional to the claims being made.

But I'm afraid scientists (of any sort that might have global influence) and their sycophant "sheeple" have collectively taken a very painful, self-inflicted shot to the shorts. They have a way to go to clean up their collective reputations.

I'll be making some final comments here soon and allow this thread die.

Thanks to everyone who who had something encouraging, intelligent and/or challenging to contribute.thumbup1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that our economy is disproportionally sensitive to world oil supply and I'd like to see that dependence reduced. At the same time, it doesn't make economic sense to replace oil with more expensive energy while the oil is available. I really don't think there is an easy solution to this. Mostly I just want there to be honest discussion about the impacts of various alternatives.

Indeed. I hear the all this talk about Government Motors (GM) and the other auto manufacturers building electric/hybrid cars by next year but no real talk about how we are going to provide all of these cars with electricity.

I must be missing something, but I can't, for the life of me figure out why we are not talking about the fastest and best solution to cure our dependency on fossil fuels NOW: nuclear power.

We are so short-sighted. We have a nuclear plant in DETROIT, forcryinoutloud. And Detroit just got approval to put another reactor online.

It takes 10 years (minimum) to get approvals for a nuclear plant in the US. And the 0bama administration (or anyone in Washington for that matter) is saying nothing about it.

Where are the priorities? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climategate.com. Wish I had thought of this. sad.gif

I believe this whole global warming/"climate change" scam has already started to fade into the trash heap of history.

Earthlings are better for it. A healthy amount of skepticism - towards anything - is a Good Thing when the amount of skepticism is proportional to the claims being made.

But I'm afraid scientists (of any sort that might have global influence) and their sycophant "sheeple" have collectively taken a very painful, self-inflicted shot to the shorts. They have a way to go to clean up their collective reputations.

I'll be making some final comments here soon and allow this thread die.

Thanks to everyone who who had something encouraging, intelligent and/or challenging to contribute.thumbup1.gif

THank you Paul!

Paraphrasing something I think came from Jefferson "Truth can stand the test of debate." (Don't go trying to find the quote using any of those words).

It is when debate is stiffled that the truth becomes questionable.

Ben

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks to everyone who who had something encouraging, intelligent and/or challenging to contribute.

You're welcome :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like, Rolling Stone, like, is into, like global warming, like, uh, er, I mean "climate change"!!! FAR OUT, MAN!!

Just "don't Bogart that joint, my friend. Pass it over to me." cool.gif

FAR OUT, MAN!

Edited by PaulG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back from the holidays, Happy New Year All !!!

Seems a little cold around the world these days ... hmmm (checkmate .... again). Now back to the lecture ...

Crelf, you have proven that being a good LabVIEW programmer (not a fighter ...) does not carry over to having a rational debate about the GW scare, and the related real topic of re-distribution of wealth. Your probably love socialism as you are too young to have experienced anything else. A young socialist that has been nurtured to depend huge government for all of your needs.

One tip: Any country with a constant unemployment rate (over say 10-15 recent years time) of above 4-6% is a system that is not working. Hmmm, lets look at some European socialist countries like France & Germany for example .... do I see 7, 8, 9 10 and above ?

So to uncover your (un) consciouness some more, you also have sipped the coolaid into believing that the early 1910's style American Progressive movement, rooted from facism and what the globama folks want to see here is a good one. Most young and old progressives (read re-gressive & communist/facist) when I quiz them don't know the real roots of where it came from and that it has been around for about 100 years in the USA. But it fails each time because too many US cisitizens have read and understand what the Framers warned about that a degradation of freedom and increased gov control withs its associated tryanny will start in this type of form (like a bad fungus). I truly hope you haven't drank the progressive coolaid !!!

Hopefully your not this

Seond tip: look up Cloward & Pivan which is along the same lines "Rules for Radicals".. Yes, the big transformation that was announced by globama is this. See who he sourrounds himself. See what domestic & international (cap n tax) policies fit the design of the collaspe of the US.

How does this fit in with the Founding Framers designs? Answer: it doesn't - at ALL !!!

As for the Solar project being canceled, the reason was that this project was out of scope from division's main product line which is propulsion power. As for Capitalism and innovation among the private sector, many other companies in the US have and are pursuing this, like Boeing's owned sub which currently has the most efficient panels. Yes, Capitalism does work !!! But you already knew that ? I sure hope so .... if not, then I wonder about your other beliefs ...

Summary: The GW scare is badly broken scientific process. Just like several hundred years ago "The Earth is Flat" mantra of "now lets don't question us Elites" and lets move zillions of money around the globe so we can FEEL better.

Funny, during Moore's Law, at the same time common sense in the scientific community was 1/2 ing at the same rate. Which side of current history are you going to tell your children that you decided to be a part of. Relativsm (SF style even - yes I have relatives in the Bay area who are finally coming back from Planet Loon, but some aren't).

The 60's experiment has failed. It fails the Math (ask the State Legislature in California). This is just another related topic. Hopefully soon (like beginning November 2010), true Math will prevail as does common sense and good processes!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.