Even prominent skeptics now agree, the earth is warming, and the effect is man-made.

[FA_Q2]

But more than anything -- we need to CUT SUBSIDIES and increase plain R&D for "renewables" because they have not proven to be Alternatives.. Emphasize Hydrogen generation and infrastructure in the mix and IMMEDIATELY act to plan and propose to replace and INCREASE our nuclear generation..

you are more knowledgeable than I in this arena but I would like to emphasize this. As others have pointed out, conservatives have nothing against green energy, the problem is that green energy is not ready and the government is ENSURING at it never will be ready by making the technology of today artificially cheaper and forcing its use. That money should go directly to r&d to come up with the technology of tomorrow that can actually compete with coal and other non renewables.


I would also like to see widespread use wof nuclear. The disaster in Japan was unfortunate not only because of what happened but also because it crated unfounded fears here of nuclear power and basically made nuclear politically untenable. Verry unfortunate.

 

[FA_Q2]

But I see you're a diehard believer in the opinions. I'm holding out for scientific evidence.

Enjoy the opinions!

Ahh, yes, "scientific evidence"...

You mean like massive computer-generated models based on exhaustive historical data gathering?

Because no-one has done that at all, have they?

No, obviously there's no "scientific evidence" of global warming at all.

Oh wait, that was the old argument: That there's no global warming.

I forgot, you guys are using the new argument now: That there is global warming, but it's not man-made.

What's going to happen when that's proven beyond the shadow of a doubt? What will the argument be switched to then?

"Well it's too late now, no use crying over spilled milk. Now stop whining about your house being underwater!"

Good greif, computer models dont *prove* a damned thing scientifically. They are only as good as the presumptions they are built on.

Your responses are text-book unscientific thought.

Actually it is quite the opposite. Computer models mean a TON. the problem is those models mean so much because scientific theories such as AGW hinge on their ability to accurately predict future outcomes. Tat is the elephant in the room that no one seems to want to talk about because there are no accurate predictions that I know of that the AGW crowd is producing. In essence, they know jack shit about what the real impacts are going to be and not very much about the process that is occurring. If they were so sure of the process then we would have some decent models making accurate predictions right now. Until They are capable of such predictions, I find it deplorable to actually make any policy changes. Way are we to base those changes on? Incomplete science of doomsaysrs without accurate depictions of what will happen or even what we need to do to change the unknown outcomes?


Now, conservation and green energy should also not be married to AGW. while they can be related, conserving resources and renewable energy are good ideas, completely indifferent to AGW. the real key is advancing technology and not making policy that is destructive in the process. Psssst, bankrupting coal, carbon taxes and almost all the current 'green energy' policies presented or passed have been distructive. This alone gives most of us extreme skepticism of the political side of AGW. The 'solutions' fix nothing and the costs for me are astronomical.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Good greif, computer models dont *prove* a damned thing scientifically. They are only as good as the presumptions they are built on.

Your responses are text-book unscientific thought.

Actually it is quite the opposite. Computer models mean a TON. the problem is those models mean so much because scientific theories such as AGW hinge on their ability to accurately predict future outcomes. Tat is the elephant in the room that no one seems to want to talk about because there are no accurate predictions that I know of that the AGW crowd is producing. In essence, they know jack shit about what the real impacts are going to be and not very much about the process that is occurring. If they were so sure of the process then we would have some decent models making accurate predictions right now. Until They are capable of such predictions, I find it deplorable to actually make any policy changes. Way are we to base those changes on? Incomplete science of doomsaysrs without accurate depictions of what will happen or even what we need to do to change the unknown outcomes?

But the models themselves do not constitute proof of anything. They do illustrate the fact that we do not understand our climate very well, that is true.

Now, conservation and green energy should also not be married to AGW. while they can be related, conserving resources and renewable energy are good ideas, completely indifferent to AGW. the real key is advancing technology and not making policy that is destructive in the process. Psssst, bankrupting coal, carbon taxes and almost all the current 'green energy' policies presented or passed have been distructive. This alone gives most of us extreme skepticism of the political side of AGW. The 'solutions' fix nothing and the costs for me are astronomical.

Agreed. I do believe that LENR is going to be the silver bullet that effectively lowers emmissions to pre-industrial revolution levels. But I dont think that that is what the watermellons want, and so they will partner up with Big Oil to try and stifle the implementation of LENR around the globe, in fact they have managed to do this quite well for twenty years already, IMO.

But by 2025 I think LENR will be global and CO2 emissions reduced to less than a third of what they are today, and the globe will STILL be warming or cooling or whatever because our CO2 emmissions have no significant impact when compared to other green house gasses like methane and water vapor and the sun itself.

 

[FA_Q2]

But the models themselves do not constitute proof of anything. They do illustrate the fact that we do not understand our climate very well, that is true.

That depends. IF the models accurately predict future outcomes then they prove a ton. Mostly that the theory is correct. That is generally how most scientific theories develop. A theory is constructed, basic tests are done and then predictions are made. The theory then exists as long as the predictions are consistent and correct. If they are shown false then the theory is refined or thrown out.

 

[JimBowie1958]

But the models themselves do not constitute proof of anything. They do illustrate the fact that we do not understand our climate very well, that is true.

That depends. IF the models accurately predict future outcomes then they prove a ton. Mostly that the theory is correct. That is generally how most scientific theories develop. A theory is constructed, basic tests are done and then predictions are made. The theory then exists as long as the predictions are consistent and correct. If they are shown false then the theory is refined or thrown out.

So short term correlation, you say, constitutes proof of a models accuracy?

Really?

What about coincidence? What about picking the wrong causation but one that merely has paralleled the true cause for a time?

Models can illustrate a theory but cannot in and of themselves prove or disprove anything. If the model is accurate, it could be short term coincidence. If itis inaccurate then it could be the model was flawed.

What is proven in the scientific sense of the term? Nothing that I can see.

 

[Bill Angel]

But the models themselves do not constitute proof of anything. They do illustrate the fact that we do not understand our climate very well, that is true.

That depends. IF the models accurately predict future outcomes then they prove a ton. Mostly that the theory is correct. That is generally how most scientific theories develop. A theory is constructed, basic tests are done and then predictions are made. The theory then exists as long as the predictions are consistent and correct. If they are shown false then the theory is refined or thrown out.

Geologists believe that they understand earthquakes and where they are likely to occur. But their record at earthquake prediction isn't very good, in the sense of predicting that an major earthquake will occur next month off the coast of Japan, for example. Does that imply that the purported "science" of earthquake prediction is dominated by a bunch of charlatans? I don't think so.

 

[flacaltenn]

But more than anything -- we need to CUT SUBSIDIES and increase plain R&D for "renewables" because they have not proven to be Alternatives.. Emphasize Hydrogen generation and infrastructure in the mix and IMMEDIATELY act to plan and propose to replace and INCREASE our nuclear generation..

you are more knowledgeable than I in this arena but I would like to emphasize this. As others have pointed out, conservatives have nothing against green energy, the problem is that green energy is not ready and the government is ENSURING at it never will be ready by making the technology of today artificially cheaper and forcing its use. That money should go directly to r&d to come up with the technology of tomorrow that can actually compete with coal and other non renewables.


I would also like to see widespread use wof nuclear. The disaster in Japan was unfortunate not only because of what happened but also because it crated unfounded fears here of nuclear power and basically made nuclear politically untenable. Verry unfortunate.

The Japanese were just STUNNED by the magnitude of the whole disaster. They STILL are not thinking straight about containing that disaster..

I cannot for the life of me understand why they haven't constructed a containment facility on site to store the contamination and pieces. Should have had massive efforts to build on-site storage or temporary mobile storage that can be moved safely above the tsunami line.

Siting of these plants in the 60s was not done well. They were treated as any other type of major power plant.. We can do better.

We have 50 YEARS of unused improvements to nuclear power over the design of the Daichi plants. Those plants don't have the equivalent computing power of today's mobile phone. China is building, planning or proposing 150 nuclear plants. Many other countries are still building out nuclear.

We should have a 4 year EVALUATION.. Have the DOE choose the 3 best designs and expedite the approvals and the testing. Test them to near failure. Then let construction based on the winning/surviving design(s) proceed without delay or further design approvals....

Finish Yucca Mtn as it was promised. We need it anyway for proper storage of MEDICAL and MILITARY nuclear waste. (Military/Medical contamination and improper storage is a bigger threat than the power industry)

 

[flacaltenn]

But the models themselves do not constitute proof of anything. They do illustrate the fact that we do not understand our climate very well, that is true.

That depends. IF the models accurately predict future outcomes then they prove a ton. Mostly that the theory is correct. That is generally how most scientific theories develop. A theory is constructed, basic tests are done and then predictions are made. The theory then exists as long as the predictions are consistent and correct. If they are shown false then the theory is refined or thrown out.

There are a LOT of unexplained "holes" in the CO2 part of the AGW theory that come from experiments and real world data and NOT from models..

One is the experiments done to find GW at night -- in the desert.. This removes the effects of direct solar radiance (brilliant) and water vapor which largely overlaps the absorption spectra of CO2. After controlling for variations in lower levels of water vapor, MULTIPLE studies cannot find a historical increase in NIGHTTIME LOWS in the desert that SHOULD pick up the warming..

Secondly -- the warmers are misreprenting solar effects. They avoid the LONG TERM increase in Solar Irradiance which is on the order of 1W/M2 since the 1700s. That number is almost 1/2 of the TSI increase we're looking for in the warming..

Instead -- whenever the sun is brought up -- they trot out the 11, 22, and other SHORT TERM solar cycles and claim (truthfully) that the sun "doesn't matter".. But the LONG TERM increase is undeniable.

In fact -- WATCH THIS FRAUD happen... Because in a few hours -- somebody's gonna tell me I'm FOS and post Short Term SunSpot data to refute the longer warming.

THAT is the long term Solar trend.. Multiple proxy studies confirm that. Who knows how long it take to heat the oceans with that kind of thermostat increase...