- Joined
- Dec 22, 2012
- Messages
- 79,766
- Reaction score
- 27,108
- Location
- Portlandia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Methane breaks down into CO2 and is harmless.
Methane breaks down into CO2 and is harmless.Huge amounts of methane are emitted during extraction. Natural gas is a dirty business.
yes it is. But read the wording carefully of studies and verify what the often lying pundits say.Modern Science IS Peer-review.
The modern AGW cult is like the science deniers of his time. If you do not worship at the alter of AGW, they do their best to destroy any heritic to their religion.It's the last and UNAVOIDABLE part of Science since Galileo! Galileo had not yet proven his statements at the time of the famous trials. He DID prove them in the course of the next 10 years. But as they were at the moment of his trials, many of them would not have been published today.
Science simply was not as refined then.This is one of the main reasons why Galileo is considered the shift from Classical Science to Modern Science.
The IPCCC et al would if they could.Peer-reviewers don't house-arrest scientists anymore.
I can only guess as to what you mean here. Major publishers refuse to accept some good science because they are not ready to poke the 800 gigaton gorrilla with heracy.They just don't get published. And if they do manage to circumvent the pre-publication safeguards, post-publication peer reviewers have a field day. any
Flaws can always be found in older science as science matures.Many science students and up and coming young scientists have built a name for themselves by pointing out flaws in published studies.
And you think you do? The climate sciences are far too politicized to work like science is supposed to. If it did, the IPCCC would ve dead.This is why if you attack peer-review, you attack Science. So if it's not your intention to attack Science, you need to understand how it works.
You have no idea what I have, what I paid, or how it works.Maybe. Solar however was largly paud for by others.... you know... subsidies to inclue net metering. You are subsidized ubless you also bought batteries to hold the night and seasonal needs. If that is the case, your piwer costs nore than natural gas still.
Not possible. The AWG will never ve intense enough. In the cities however where tge UHIE can cause city temperatures to be 18 degrees Fahrenhiet greater that the one natural terrain is where the heat is a problem.Which is true, but irrelevant to my point. The poster I responded to linked to an article that contains a graph showing how this is likely to flip.
Sorry. I don' buy into that verse if your Bible.I don't know how trustworthy or accurate that is. But the fact is (as you probably know), AGW causes more deadly cold events, as well as deadly heat events.
At what grade level is your reading comprehension? I said "and cheaper."So you're saying it's cleaner than solar? In that case, this is a MUST HAVE bill. We need to force industries to innovate and MAKE sources like solar, wind, hydropower.... cleaner and more afaffordable.
None of this should be forced. Do you like authoritarianism?NATURE is phasing out natural gas. Because it's not renewable. Governments are forcing industries to develop an alternative. One that will be cheaper and readily available to PEOPLE. You said something about the government "forcing PEOPLE", and you STILL haven't explained what it is they are being forced to DO.
Am I confusing you with someone else?You have no idea what I have, what I paid, or how it works.
Odd that real scientists dont agree.Methane breaks down into CO2 and is harmless.
Scientists do agree. It's some posters on here that do not.Odd that real scientists dont agree.
Prove your lie.Odd that real scientists dont agree.
I meant that they don’t agree with the reflexive libertarian poster trying to pass himself off as understanding science.Scientists do agree. It's some posters on here that do not.
It’s here. www.IPCC.chProve your lie.
VERY often. Even in this thread we've seen a lot of it.yes it is. But read the wording carefully of studies and verify what the often lying pundits say.
I can only guess what YOU mean. Through all the history of Modern Science some VERY good science has been rejected. Not because it's wrong. But because the proponent fails to prove what they intended. Again, a fine example is Galileo. Yes! "Eppur si muove" is right. But you failed to PROVE it, fella!I can only guess as to what you mean here. Major publishers refuse to accept some good science because they are not ready to poke the 800 gigaton gorrilla with heracy.
"Always"? I know that a math student found a flaw in Principia in the 1990s. But it didn't invalidate the conclusions. Science is not perfect. But if the flaw is so obvious that it doesn't take 300 years to spot, it's a good thing that it's removed.Flaws can always be found in older science as science matures.
Pretty much. I taught epistemology. And I was also in the Committee that approved scientific funding where I taught. As an epistemologist. That was a long time ago, but I still remember most of it.And you think you do?
Science is not politicized AT ALL.. Not one bit. Looks to me like you confuse policies with science. There are workgroups within the IPCC that deal with policies. They are political BY DEFINITION!The climate sciences are far too politicized to work like science is supposed to. If it did, the IPCCC would ve dead.
Please explain the science I am wrong about. No links about some bloggers lies, but your words. please explain it in a science way. If you are incapable of enunciating it, detailing how I am wrong, then consider that maybe you are making a fool of yourself.I meant that they don’t agree with the reflexive libertarian poster trying to pass himself off as understanding science.
Do you know what "authoritarianism" MEANS? Why are you constantly using words of which you obviously don't know the meaning? You keep doing that and then ask why I underestimate your knowledge. Please read my sig!None of this should be forced. Do you like authoritarianism?
Quote the part that in an assessment report, and link the paper they get their information from.It’s here. www.IPCC.ch
And don’t whine that I haven’t pulled out a paragraph for you. If you want to waste your time (I refuse to waste my time on you yet again), just search the document for methane.
If yuou understood the science as i do, you would not need me to quote what someone else says.VERY often. Even in this thread we've seen a lot of it.
But to debunk that, blanket statements are useless. I think a quote should be required.
It depends on what the paper is trying to accomplish. Prove huh... If you have read climate papers, you would see they do not prove anything in tangible numbers with adequate error ranges to justify the scares generated by the pundits.I can only guess what YOU mean. Through all the history of Modern Science some VERY good science has been rejected. Not because it's wrong. But because the proponent fails to prove what they intended. Again, a fine example is Galileo. Yes! "Eppur si muove" is right. But you failed to PROVE it, fella!
Are you talking just to talk?It IS akin to "heresy" to publish a paper that does NOT conform to Scientific requirements. But that's the way it HAS to be. For every "good" science that is rejected, hundreds more "bad" science is also rejected. This is why the Method WORKS!
The climate sciences are very highly politicized. It is the pundits that appeal to the politicians, and the politicians in turn keep the scare scam alive.Science is not politicized AT ALL.. Not one bit. Looks to me like you confuse policies with science. There are workgroups within the IPCC that deal with policies. They are political BY DEFINITION!
LOL... the whole network of the AGW scam is authoritarian. they operate in a political manner and ostracize any scientists that disagree with them or challenge them.Do you know what "authoritarianism" MEANS? Why are you constantly using words of which you obviously don't know the meaning? You keep doing that and then ask why I underestimate your knowledge. Please read my sig!
You said methane is harmless. Im giving you the reference where the scientific consensus says its not.Please explain the science I am wrong about. No links about some bloggers lies, but your words. please explain it in a science way. If you are incapable of enunciating it, detailing how I am wrong, then consider that maybe you are making a fool of yourself.
Again, its pretty goddamn obvious what they say about methane. But you want me to waste even more of my time spoonfeeding you.Quote the part that in an assessment report, and link the paper they get their information from.
Just saying "IPCCC" shows you do not know squat. That you appeal to authority.
You love your goofy logical fallacies.
The IPCC material is shoddy. They cherry pick.You said methane is harmless. Im giving you the reference where the scientific consensus says its not.
Not my fault you dont understand the science, and you want me to walk you through the basics so you can dish out your usual bullshit.
Yet you are incapable of enunciating it in your own words.Again, its pretty goddamn obvious what they say about methane. But you want me to waste even more of my time spoonfeeding you.
And appealing to authority is what one does when discussing a complicated science that you are not an expert in. When you are diagnosed with cancer, you dont consider going to an oncologist an 'appeal to authority'.
You said "...what lying pundits say" Are you saying that what lying pundits say is science? It's not! And I WOULD require a quote to see if they're lying or not! I'm not interested in your vague generalizations.If yuou understood the science as i do, you would not need me to quote what someone else says.
Studies in Climate Science either prove what the conclusion claims they prove, or they don't get published. And, again, the "scares generated by the pundits" are not science. So I'm not interested... You dwell too much on the emotional and on vague generalizations (yet another one here) at the expense of REAL argumentsProve huh...If you have read climate papers, you would see they do not prove anything in tangible numbers with adequate error ranges to justify the scares generated by the pundits.
And they SHOULD be, if we want to avoid the worst consequences of AGW. But here is yet another vague generalization. If you're trying to say that the scientific PROCESS (from the formulation of a hypothesis to publication, for example), or something like that... then SAY it. But be aware that you wouldn't be attacking AGW but the scientific method ITSELF.The climate sciences are very highly politicized.
I've enunciated it in the past plenty of times.Yet you are incapable of enunciating it in your own words.
Ok. So you double down on using a term you don't understand.LOL... the whole network of the AGW scam is authoritarian. ...
Total ignorance of how science works. What scientists agree or disagree on is IRRELEVANT in Science. The ONLY relevant thing is what they can prove. And the ONLY way to prove ANYTHING in Science, is a study in a peer-reviewed publication.they operate in a political manner and ostracize any scientists that disagree with them or challenge them.
I don't know. Maybe you're not. But, like Galileo, you'll need to PROVE it! AGW has met its burden. You'll need to meet yours! Science is not going to stop and wait for YOU to catch up....Why am I wrong about the UHIE affecting meteorological stations?
Why am I wrong about the scientists attempt to take out the UHIE skew impossible to do with any usable accuracy?
Why am I wrong about a multiple decade lag that the changes in ASR take to equalize?
Almost everything you guys come up with is a lie, like the 99% of the climate scientists saying that we are the majority case of the AGW. That percentage that state that level of influence we have is well under 10%. The 99% includes any scientist agreeing that we have any effect, no matter how small out effect it.You said "...what lying pundits say" Are you saying that what lying pundits say is science? It's not! And I WOULD require a quote to see if they're lying or not! I'm not interested in your vague generalizations.
And all these papers that the pundits in blogs or the news are never what is claimed in papers. Papers often to an "if we assume" scenario and come up with a set of results, generally based on modelling which is still far from correct. then you have activists cvlaimy that a particular paper makes a claim, that was nothing more than a what if.Studies in Climate Science either prove what the conclusion claims they prove, or they don't get published.
I agree. it is not science, you the IPCCC is a chronic offender of just that. Being considered the Bible, other organizations follow suit.And, again, the "scares generated by the pundits" are not science. So I'm not interested...
Have yoiu read any of those climate related threads I started? i get rather specific.You dwell too much on the emotional and on vague generalizations (yet another one here) at the expense of REAL arguments
See, you have fallen for the scare scam as well.And they SHOULD be, if we want to avoid the worst consequences of AGW.
No, you still will not accept what my claims are. You are in denial of what my points represent. There are exceptionally few papers I disagree with as written, and what the papers can show in science. It is the misinterpretation of the papers that I am against.But here is yet another vague generalization. If you're trying to say that the scientific PROCESS (from the formulation of a hypothesis to publication, for example), or something like that... then SAY it. But be aware that you wouldn't be attacking AGW but the scientific method ITSELF.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?