What energy do you see us using in 30 years?

[MoSurveyor]

On balance Mo I think I'll stick with the credibility his current and robustly non ecclesiastical employers have obviously had in him for the last 11 years rather than that which you would grant him. I think they probably know him a little better than you do doncha think ?! :lamo

I already said his facts were fine - it's his opinion I don't trust. There is a definite skill to correctly gathering data and he's a specialist in microwaves. Given your ignorance of science I wouldn't expect you to understand either of those concepts.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Are we still actually talking about our enery use in the future?

We should be but the Denier Crowd thinks every environmental thread is about them.

 

[EagleAye]

We should be but the Denier Crowd thinks every environmental thread is about them.

I think it's safe to say the Deniers would vote fossil fuels are the ONLY power source in 30 years. Their political platform deemed it true, so now that is their only available choice.

 

[flogger]

I already said his facts were fine - it's his opinion I don't trust

.

It really doesnt matter whether you trust his opinion or not. The fact that his long time employers clearly do is of far greater significance.

There is a definite skill to correctly gathering data and he's a specialist in microwaves. Given your ignorance of science I wouldn't expect you to understand either of those concepts

Having to the best of my knowlege never produced a shred of hard science backing up your position what would you know ? If you have evidence his data collations or research have been in error or been compromised in some way by all means dont let me stop you from sharing it with us. Failing that your smears of him really arent worth diddly otherwise are they ? :roll:

 

[MoSurveyor]

It really doesnt matter whether you trust his opinion or not. The fact that his long time employers clearly do is of far greater significance.

:lamo What makes you think they trust his scientific opinions on climate?!? :lamo


Like I said, correct data gathering is worth paying for.

Having to the best of my knowlege never produced a shred of hard science backing up your position what would you know ? If you have evidence his data collations or research have been in error or been compromised in some way by all means dont let me stop you from sharing it with us. Failing that your smears of him really arent worth diddly otherwise are they ? :roll:

A Denier defending a Creationist! Priceless! :lol:

 

[EagleAye]

If you have evidence his data collations or research have been in error or been compromised in some way by all means dont let me stop you from sharing it with us. Failing that your smears of him really arent worth diddly otherwise are they ? :roll:

Do you mean like when Spencer admitted to being in error here (starting from 5:45):



You saw this video in another thread, and you replied to it, so I KNOW you saw it. Yet here you are implying Spencer never been in error. You are not adjusting or accounting for this knowledge in your position. People other than myself might interpret that behavior as deliberately deceptive.

 

[flogger]

:lamo What makes you think they trust his scientific opinions on climate?!? :lamo

Have you evidence they dont ? :lol:

Like the people who's butts you sniff you have to manufacture items just so you have something to talk about

A simple 'no I cant produce any evidence' to back up my position' would have sufficed :roll:

 

[flogger]

Do you mean like when Spencer admitted to being in error here (starting from 5:45):



You saw this video in another thread, and you replied to it, so I KNOW you saw it. Yet here you are implying Spencer never been in error. You are not adjusting or accounting for this knowledge in your position. People other than myself might interpret that behavior as deliberately deceptive.

And I already responded to this. I most certainly didnt claim Spencer had never been in error. There isnt a scientist alive that could claim this about themselves ! If you are looking for error try most of James Hansens predictions for size :shock:

 

[MoSurveyor]

Have you evidence they dont ? :lol:

That's not on me. You asserted "his long time employers clearly do" [trust him] so it is up to you to show proof of that statement.


As for the other part and your half-assed assumptions:

A simple 'no I cant produce any evidence' to back up my position' would have sufficed :roll:

Yes or no: Have you quit physically abusing your girlfriend?

If you don't answer I can plainly show that you did not deny it. :lol:

 

[flogger]

Yes or no: Have you quit physically abusing your girlfriend?

If you don't answer I can plainly show that you did not deny it. :lol:

Sorry but lets say you accuse someone of murder then the burden of proof is on the accuser to substantiate the accusation before the police arrest the accused, That doesnt just go for Spencer but the whole AGW hypothesis

 

[EagleAye]

And I already responded to this. I most certainly didnt claim Spencer had never been in error. There isnt a scientist alive that could claim this about themselves ! If you are looking for error try most of James Hansens predictions for size :shock:

You asked this (bold is mine)...

.
If you have evidence his data collations or research have been in error or been compromised in some way by all means dont let me stop you from sharing it with us. :

...and I show that his research HAS been in error. :coffeepap

Hardly surprising from someone who finds good science in the junk science of Intelligent Design.

 

[code1211]

On balance Mo I think I'll stick with the credibility his current and robustly non ecclesiastical employers have obviously had in him for the last 11 years rather than that which you would grant him. I think they probably know him a little better than you do doncha think ?! :lamo

Don't bother him with facts. Facts can change. His opinion will never change.

 

[flogger]

You asked this (bold is mine)...


...and I show that his research HAS been in error. :coffeepap

Hardly surprising from someone who finds good science in the junk science of Intelligent Design.

Lets cut to the chase here Eagleye. You dont like this guy because his UAH temperature measurements collated from direct satellite observation are at odds with AGW computer constructs and Hansens GISS predicting impending doom. You cant attack the data so attack the man. This is not even research per se just recording and collating of observations.

The rest of this is just BS

 

[EagleAye]

Lets cut to the chase here Eagleye. You dont like this guy because his UAH temperature measurements collated from direct satellite observation are at odds with AGW computer constructs and Hansens GISS predicting impending doom. You cant attack the data so attack the man. This is not even research per se just recording and collating of observations.

The rest of this is just BS

He admits his data was wrong. I don't have to attack the data, when he already tells us that it's incorrect. This isn't someone else saying he was wrong, it's your source saying he was wrong.

 

[flogger]

He admits his data was wrong. I don't have to attack the data, when he already tells us that it's incorrect. This isn't someone else saying he was wrong, it's your source saying he was wrong.

He wasnt talking about his UAH data and you know it. If he was admitting he was wrong about that he would hardly still have the job at UAH doing it two years after your 2010 video now would he ? :roll:

 

[Aberration]

After peak oil and gas, I see us moving to much safer atomic sources.

Once the easy fuel is gone we will start using our brains.

 

[Dittohead not!]

After peak oil and gas, I see us moving to much safer atomic sources. Once the easy fuel is gone we will start using our brains.

Some people's brains will obviously burn better than others.

 

[flogger]

After peak oil and gas, I see us moving to much safer atomic sources.

Once the easy fuel is gone we will start using our brains.

I'd tend to agree with that. I also think theres a plentiful supply of coal that can be synthesised into oil production that will potentially last for centuries yet. This also has the added advantage of using existing infrastructure reducing costs. Once the carbon Nazis finally get cleared out of the way for this well proven technology then mankind will be just fine for the forseeable future. Here is info on the worlds largest company that is currently doing this.

Sasol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[UtahBill]

I have no doubt you believe Creationism is just a religious belief. As practiced in the US it is not. I have no problem with religious beliefs until they infringe on science fact, which Creationism and Intelligent Design, once described as "Creationism in a tuxedo", both do. There is no debate about evolution. I wouldn't trust a Creationist's scientific opinion as far as I could throw a Volkswagen.

I have no doubt he can collect facts correctly (unlike your view of scientists whose beliefs aren't the same as yours) but his scientific opinion has zero credibility.

I found nothing related to creationism in his book.....and I have read it twice.

 

[EagleAye]

He wasnt talking about his UAH data and you know it. If he was admitting he was wrong about that he would hardly still have the job at UAH doing it two years after your 2010 video now would he ? :roll:

News of Spencer's admission in 2005 while at UAH (bold is mine) :coffeepap

Published: August 12, 2005

Some scientists who question whether human-caused global warming poses a threat have long pointed to records that showed the atmosphere's lowest layer, the troposphere, had not warmed over the last two decades and had cooled in the tropics.

Now two independent studies have found errors in the complicated calculations used to generate the old temperature records, which involved stitching together data from thousands of weather balloons lofted around the world and a series of short-lived weather satellites.

A third study shows that when the errors are taken into account, the troposphere actually got warmer. Moreover, that warming trend largely agrees with the warmer surface temperatures that have been recorded and conforms to predictions in recent computer models.

The three papers were published yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science.

The scientists who developed the original troposphere temperature records from satellite data, John R. Christy and Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, conceded yesterday that they had made a mistake...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html?_r=1

 

[UtahBill]

I'd tend to agree with that. I also think theres a plentiful supply of coal that can be synthesised into oil production that will potentially last for centuries yet. This also has the added advantage of using existing infrastructure reducing costs. Once the carbon Nazis finally get cleared out of the way for this well proven technology then mankind will be just fine for the forseeable future. Here is info on the worlds largest company that is currently doing this.

Sasol - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

funny you should say carbon nazis, if I remember what I read correctly, it was the germans in WWII who were making fuel from coal.

 

[UtahBill]

After peak oil and gas, I see us moving to much safer atomic sources.

Once the easy fuel is gone we will start using our brains.

unless all our cars are converted to electricity, nuclear will not replace the need for oil...

 

[EagleAye]

After peak oil and gas, I see us moving to much safer atomic sources.

Once the easy fuel is gone we will start using our brains.

I think in 30 years, a production capable nuclear fusion reactor may be online, and efforts to build more will only be starting, but at least starting. Quite possibly, micro-reactors may be in widespread use.

 

[UtahBill]

You asked this (bold is mine)...


...and I show that his research HAS been in error. :coffeepap

Hardly surprising from someone who finds good science in the junk science of Intelligent Design.

unless you are a climatologist, you have shown nothing on your own. quoting others isn't research unless you quote a lot of credible research and mine it for data and then come up with your own opinions.
As for ID, creationism, big bang, all are theories, none are proven. LSS, we don't KNOW...but IMO, I like the idea of an ancient race who came into being spontaneously and then spent their lives seeding likely planets.
It was a John Chapman type effort, who spent his life spreading apple seeds...:2razz:

 

[EagleAye]

unless you are a climatologist, you have shown nothing on your own. quoting others isn't research unless you quote a lot of credible research and mine it for data and then come up with your own opinions.
As for ID, creationism, big bang, all are theories, none are proven. LSS, we don't KNOW...but IMO, I like the idea of an ancient race who came into being spontaneously and then spent their lives seeding likely planets.
It was a John Chapman type effort, who spent his life spreading apple seeds...:2razz:

Well, you got me there. My "source" has shown his research in error.

I'll bang out my views on ID with you in a more appropriate thread. I think we're drifting off track too much as it is.