How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

This is not a battle won by quantity of papers.

What are you saying ? That every fringe idea that has been published has to be considered as anything beyond an idea ?

In any case, we have to rely on science to give us answers and there can't be unanimity on everything. Most of us can accept as 'fact' things that are widely agreed on, and that's a good thing.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

If you don't like the message you can always attack the messenger.

I didn't attack you, I just dismissed your viewpoint as fringe, and will move on.

Yes, it was - in your face - everywhere.

Not at all.

I'm surprised at how confident you are here - surely you can provide some evidence to show us that there were more papers supporting cooling than warming at that time.

Saipan · August 21, 2011

Most of us can accept as 'fact' things that are widely agreed on, and that's a good thing.

It was widely agreed on the fact that machines heavier than air cannot fly. Scientifically proven.

waldo · August 21, 2011

I do not assert that warming is not true. I do not assert that climate change is not true.

do you assert that warming and climate change are occurring... and, if so, what do you attribute your assertion to?

The “fluctuations in CO2 concentration” are not so “wild”, once one is aware of certain extra mechanisms which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Certain extra mechanisms, not yet described publicly, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere which results in the so-called “missing carbon sink”. These extra mechanisms, removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, need to be adequately explained and understood if the extent of human impact on the global carbon cycle is to be acceptably assessed and reliably predicted.

this... is a legitimate point. There is uncertainty as to where all the absorbed carbon... is going. Recent scientific papers are targeting a much greater influence in tropical forests. Of course, the significant ongoing tropical deforestation is simply compounding the existing imbalance... an imbalance that most certainly has been shown to result from atmospheric carbon remaining in the atmosphere, as attributed to emissions related to mankind's burning of fossil fuels.

The carbon dioxide measurements before 1958 are very local measurements, at various specific times, and not measurements that should necessarily be extrapolated to the entire biosphere.

if you're going to front the debunked Beck paper, as you did, you will need to advise on your multiple contradictions.

=> Contradiction 1 - your own words expressed a global attachment to those measurements.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries A.D., many direct measurements of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide were higher than present-day carbon dioxide measurements and there was no runaway greenhouse-gas

global

warming effect.

=> Contradiction 2 - more pointedly, if you're going to proffer the debunked Beck paper, as you did, you must explain your diversion from Beck's own words, as exist within that paper; specifically:

The historical data that I have considered to be reliable can, of course, be challenged on the grounds that they represent local measurements only, and are therefore not representative on a global scale. Strong evidence that this is not the case, and that the composite historical CO2 curve is globally meaningful, comes from the correspondence between the curve and other global phenomena, including both sunspot cycles and the moon phases, the latter presented here probably first time in literature and the average global temperature statistic. Furthermore, that the historical data are reliable in themselves is supported by the credible seasonal, monthly and daily variations that they display, the pattern of which corresponds with modern measurements.

It is indeed surprising that the quality and accuracy of these historic CO2 measurements has escaped the attention of other researchers.

(

bold emphasis added by... waldo

)

... surprising... indeed! So... which is it... local/regional or global impacting? Does your being a self-styled, self-described "skeptic", allow you to pick and choose from within your own offered source's conclusions?

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

It was widely agreed on the fact that machines heavier than air cannot fly. Scientifically proven.

Yes, science has been wrong before and will be again but that doesn't mean we ignore it.

I'll take your post as opportunity #1 to back up your claims on the 'Ice Age' papers... missed.

BC's Wiki entry had 1 paper listed that I could see.

If you don't have anything to back it up, let's just move on.

Saipan · August 21, 2011

Yes, science has been wrong before and will be again but that doesn't mean we ignore it.

Who's "we"?

If you don't have anything to back it up, let's just move on.

Good advice. Take it.

MiddleClassCentrist · August 21, 2011

1) WHY would they? Does OPEC?

2) Where are Gore's millions coming from?

uhhh, to protect their multi billion dollar industry?

They paid people to make "grass roots" organizations to combat and question the electric car.

Paying a few scientists is right up their league.

Why ANYONE would trust a corporation given their history of bribery, lieing and deceit to consumers is beyond me...

Saipan · August 21, 2011

uhhh, to protect their multi billion dollar industry?

Protect from what? OPEC?

They paid people to make "grass roots" organizations to combat and question the electric car.

Can you post ANY evidence? WHO combats electric cars?

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

...If you don't have anything to back it up, let's just move on.

Why are you in such a hurry to move everybody along? What is your agenda?

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

Who's "we"?

Everybody.

Good advice. Take it.

Done !

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

Why are you in such a hurry to move everybody along? What is your agenda?

I like that we can ask for a cite, not get it and move on without many boring posts about that cite.

MiddleClassCentrist · August 21, 2011

Protect from what? OPEC?

The future of course. Don't be so obtuse. Oil will become less important as we develop sustainable energies and more efficient ways to harvest and transport said energy. Having a market that demands it (Electric Cars) would lead to this innovation and technology.

Can you post ANY evidence? WHO combats electric cars?

Californians Against Utility Abuse

Maybe watch "Who Killed the Electric Car" as they expose the corporations there too.

Edited August 21, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

I like that we can ask for a cite, not get it and move on without many boring posts about that cite.

No, there is something more at play here. Unsupported posts and tangents are common here...you expressly like to shuffle things away from any discussion (supported or not) that contravenes your "climate change" perspective. This seems to be inconsistent with "open" anything as expressed earlier. "Facilitating" doesn't mean shutting people up.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

The future of course. Don't be so obtuse. Oil will become less important as we develop sustainable energies and more efficient ways to harvest and transport said energy. Having a market that demands it (Electric Cars) would lead to this innovation and technology.

Electric cars and delivery vans pre-date internal combustion vehicles and highways, and were made obsolete by "market demand" for same.

punked · August 21, 2011

I like that we can ask for a cite, not get it and move on without many boring posts about that cite.

I am in agreement. If you have nothing to back up facts then to me they are just things you made up out of your head. Which isn't really helpful.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

No, there is something more at play here. Unsupported posts and tangents are common here...you expressly like to shuffle things away from any discussion (supported or not) that contravenes your "climate change" perspective.

I haven't heard that before.

Ok, well... my request for a cite still stands so if you'd like to prod Saipan for it, go right ahead and we can continue discussion after we get it.

This seems to be inconsistent with "open" anything as expressed earlier. "Facilitating" doesn't mean shutting people up.

When I asked for a cite it was because I was taking part in the discussion, not because I was facilitating. I just don't like to waste my time arguing things that were settled long ago, on this board and elsewhere. There are better arguments to be had on here with better posters.

You still seem to want to step in and help the "little guy" on here. While it's an admirable trait in some respects, some of these little guys should be able to argue these things without your help. If they can't, well they will sink, swim or move on to other waters.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

I am in agreement. If you have nothing to back up facts then to me they are just things you made up out of your head. Which isn't really helpful.

This to me is on a par with the calling out of mainstream politicians as communist or fascist... just more plankton in the waters (to stick with that metaphor for one more post...) and nothing really for the big fish to care about.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

I am in agreement. If you have nothing to back up facts then to me they are just things you made up out of your head. Which isn't really helpful.

Ummm...yea...that's why it is called a "forum".

fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)

n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1. a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

b. A public meeting place for open discussion.

c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

3. A court of law; a tribunal.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

Ummm...yea...that's why it is called a "forum".

fo·rum (fôrm, fr-)

n. pl. fo·rums also fo·ra (fôr, fr)

1. a. The public square or marketplace of an ancient Roman city that was the assembly place for judicial activity and public business.

b. A public meeting place for open discussion.

c. A medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas, such as a newspaper, a radio or television program, or a website.

2. A public meeting or presentation involving a discussion usually among experts and often including audience participation.

3. A court of law; a tribunal.

Discussion is an interchange of ideas, not just two people talking at each other and not listening. It's reasonable to ask people WHY they hold their opinions. Not having an answer is, I suppose, a kind of answer but it stops discussion pretty quickly.

We want to have good discussions here, hence we have the section called RESEARCH YOUR POST from the Rules and Guidelines

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

Discussion is an interchange of ideas, not just two people talking at each other and not listening. It's reasonable to ask people WHY they hold their opinions. Not having an answer is, I suppose, a kind of answer but it stops discussion pretty quickly.

These are discussions, not attempts to change another's point of view. This is not a public trial.

We want to have good discussions here, hence we have the section called RESEARCH YOUR POST from the Rules and Guidelines

Define "good"....no elitism please.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

I haven't heard that before.

It's a trend I've noticed at least...new threads that want to move on with "settled science" with no more silly debate about the existence of warming or human contribution.

Ok, well... my request for a cite still stands so if you'd like to prod Saipan for it, go right ahead and we can continue discussion after we get it.

Request all you wish, and hope he responds if he/she wishes. Your requests are not mandatory demands.

When I asked for a cite it was because I was taking part in the discussion, not because I was facilitating. I just don't like to waste my time arguing things that were settled long ago, on this board and elsewhere. There are better arguments to be had on here with better posters.

Then don't read or respond to such posts or banter. You are not the final arbiter of "better".

You still seem to want to step in and help the "little guy" on here. While it's an admirable trait in some respects, some of these little guys should be able to argue these things without your help. If they can't, well they will sink, swim or move on to other waters.

And they will...on their terms, not yours. There is a member here who posts what some would regard as "Roseanne Roseannadanna" content without malice or nefarious purpose, all within forum rules. Although I may disagree with the assertion, I do not for one moment think his/her perspective should be silenced for lack of "research links". That's just another way to "bully" another's opinion, and we have seen this technique used particularly often on "climate change" threads.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

These are discussions, not attempts to change another's point of view. This is not a public trial.

Nonetheless, my points stand.

Define "good"....no elitism please.

I knows it when I sees it ! You must think the discussions here are somewhat good, or you wouldn't come here yourself would you ?

The rules have proven themselves to provide a great framework for interesting discussion to my mind. Trolls and one-way discussers don't really enjoy it here from what I've seen.

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

It's a trend I've noticed at least...new threads that want to move on with "settled science" with no more silly debate about the existence of warming or human contribution.

We used to have a lot of '011 truth threads' too... they died their natural death IMO, much as the anti-warming arguments should. Seriously, we don't need to explain the science over and over again to people who never listen, do we ?

Request all you wish, and hope he responds if he/she wishes. Your requests are not mandatory demands.

Oh, absolutely not ! I would never insist on a poster having a logical and well-supported point of view in order to open a discussion with me. However, I wouldn't want to engage with them for very long without one. Who would ?

Then don't read or respond to such posts or banter. You are not the final arbiter of "better".

Actually, I am - for myself. I will respond to such posts until they start to 'go south' (no offense !).

And, again, I don't see why you bother to wade into the pond to help with the plankton. You have plenty of allies on your side without having to prop up posters with no cites.

And they will...on their terms, not yours. There is a member here who posts what some would regard as "Roseanne Roseannadanna" content without malice or nefarious purpose, all within forum rules. Although I may disagree with the assertion, I do not for one moment think his/her perspective should be silenced for lack of "research links". That's just another way to "bully" another's opinion, and we have seen this technique used particularly often on "climate change" threads.

I'm not silencing them. This is my discussion with them - nothing to do with facilitating. If Saipan doesn't provide cites when asked (this appears to have happened twice in the last little while today) then is it bullying or is it just being discriminating on picking your debate partners?

I think it's the latter. I would rather have them back up their claims, and if they can't then their posts can hang out their in the wind. Of course they have 'free speech' rights, but just like the boorish dinner party guest nobody has to talk to them.

bush_cheney2004 · August 21, 2011

Nonetheless, my points stand.

Your point is applicable to you as well.

I knows it when I sees it ! You must think the discussions here are somewhat good, or you wouldn't come here yourself would you ?

Precisely, and don't like the idea of you trying to screw it up! More is better than less (in this case).

The rules have proven themselves to provide a great framework for interesting discussion to my mind. Trolls and one-way discussers don't really enjoy it here from what I've seen.

Then let nature take its course without your hurried (biased) euthanasia.

Edited August 21, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

Michael Hardner · August 21, 2011

Your point is applicable to you as well.

Sure. I have opinions that I can't back up, but I can't expect anybody to pay any attention either. Why would I bother spending energy to convince others that they're true.