Creationism and Climate Change

[BULLDOG]

And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.

Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?

Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?

So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.

At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.

So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.

Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.

Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:

peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

 

[RKMBrown]

His cure for cancer based on his extensive knowledge of geology is nothing short of groundbreaking.

Typical ad-hom attack from a person with no relevant argument. This is why no one can take any of you seriously anymore. When presented by actual facts your brain freezes and reverts to Neanderthal mode and you lash out with insults.
Typical.

Oh, you're still here? We thought you had cut and run after making such silly unsupported claims, and we were laughing at you. I'm sure everybody would be thrilled to hear anything you might want to add to the subject. Does being a geologist also qualify you to design a space shuttle, or do brain surgery, or just climatology?

Do you have nothing but ad-hom attacks? Is that truly the limits of your debate skills? I feel sorry that you are so poorly prepared to defend your position. It's typical of the brainless progs who are the only believers in AGW that are left.

It is funny to hear you whine and snivel about how the "deniers" are eveil (a religious term), or morally deficient (yet another religious term), or how deniers should be persecuted for their non-belief (yet another trait of religious fanaticism), and all the while claiming that you are followers of science. Science that you can't understand, articulate, or demonstrate.

Thanks for the laughs, because that's all you provide, some serious laughs....at your expense.

I never claimed to completely understand climate science. I can only articulate what credible sources have said. And I am neither equipped or inclined to demonstrate any of the findings of the vast majority of the experts in the field. Other than some silly claims that you can't backup about your superior expertise in the field, you can't either. You want me to accept the word of some anonymous person over overwhelming agreement by credible experts. That won't happen for me or any other sane person, but I'm sure crazy teabaggers will be happy to jump on your bandwagon. If you even know what a scientist is instead of just claiming to be one, you should understand how unreasonable your hope is. Convince credible people who have demonstrated knowledge above what people on discussion boards possess, and you might have something. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a nut on the street corner holding a sign that says "The End Is Near"

There is a cottage industry on the Internet of AGW deniers and supporters who distort every study, paper, or new set of data released in order to support their claims. You can choose to believe these radicals or you can choose to believe the statements from nearly all the major scientific academies and institutes. In the end, what you believe today may make absolutely no difference. The cost of converting from fossil fuels to alternative fuel sources are estimated at 50 trillion dollars which is about 3/4 of the Gross National Product of the whole world. The chances of that are about zero. The only way we're going to replace fossil fuels is to find a real cost effective alternative. Fusion power generation will probably be practical someday but who knows when that will happen.

I believe we will be wrestling with this problem long after the effects of AGW are apparent to everyone because people are not good at global cooperation nor long term planning, both of which are essential to stop AGW.

Take your global warming bullshit and shove it where the sun don't shine. Funny how you folks think exhaling is killing us all. Bunch of nimrods.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?

Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?

So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.

At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.

So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.

Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.

Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:

peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?

So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.

At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.

So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.

Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.

Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:

peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

Odd that you would hear something that I never said, but I guess that's a teabagger thing. Believe what you want. I have to go with what the experts say over some overblown idiot on a discussion board

 

[MaxGrit]

The wonderful and terrible thing about the Internet is a person can be anything they want to be, any persona they choose, a scientist, a lawyer, a government official, a devil or saint

Any time someone try's to establish anonymous credentials you can assume they're lying.

Good Point. Claiming anonymous credential does not improve your creditably. In fact, I think it does the opposite. You're judge by your knowledge of the issue and your responses.

I never said it did. What I did say was ignore EVERYONES supposed credentials and look at the data for yourself. Anyone who has a brain that they can actually use, will, upon careful consideration of the facts presented, have serious questions to ask the AGW supporters.

The fact that you blindly follow a group doesn't serve you well. It merely reinforces the determination that you are all religious fruitcakes with no interest in facts.

That's how I approached Global Warming when I didn't know anything about it. What I discovered is that AGW is bullshit.

Maybe if those scientists would stop with all those adjustments to the data.

It also helps if they can prove the AGW hypothesis is true. Models predicting wrong means AGW hypothesis fails.

 

[MaxGrit]

Also no one is able to show that CO2 is a significant factor and responsible for the observations.

 

[MaxGrit]

All you warmists need is to prove the hypothesis with a working model.

 

[westwall]

His cure for cancer based on his extensive knowledge of geology is nothing short of groundbreaking.

Typical ad-hom attack from a person with no relevant argument. This is why no one can take any of you seriously anymore. When presented by actual facts your brain freezes and reverts to Neanderthal mode and you lash out with insults.
Typical.

Oh, you're still here? We thought you had cut and run after making such silly unsupported claims, and we were laughing at you. I'm sure everybody would be thrilled to hear anything you might want to add to the subject. Does being a geologist also qualify you to design a space shuttle, or do brain surgery, or just climatology?

Do you have nothing but ad-hom attacks? Is that truly the limits of your debate skills? I feel sorry that you are so poorly prepared to defend your position. It's typical of the brainless progs who are the only believers in AGW that are left.

It is funny to hear you whine and snivel about how the "deniers" are eveil (a religious term), or morally deficient (yet another religious term), or how deniers should be persecuted for their non-belief (yet another trait of religious fanaticism), and all the while claiming that you are followers of science. Science that you can't understand, articulate, or demonstrate.

Thanks for the laughs, because that's all you provide, some serious laughs....at your expense.

I never claimed to completely understand climate science. I can only articulate what credible sources have said. And I am neither equipped or inclined to demonstrate any of the findings of the vast majority of the experts in the field. Other than some silly claims that you can't backup about your superior expertise in the field, you can't either. You want me to accept the word of some anonymous person over overwhelming agreement by credible experts. That won't happen for me or any other sane person, but I'm sure crazy teabaggers will be happy to jump on your bandwagon. If you even know what a scientist is instead of just claiming to be one, you should understand how unreasonable your hope is. Convince credible people who have demonstrated knowledge above what people on discussion boards possess, and you might have something. Otherwise, you are nothing more than a nut on the street corner holding a sign that says "The End Is Near"

There is a cottage industry on the Internet of AGW deniers and supporters who distort every study, paper, or new set of data released in order to support their claims. You can choose to believe these radicals or you can choose to believe the statements from nearly all the major scientific academies and institutes. In the end, what you believe today may make absolutely no difference. The cost of converting from fossil fuels to alternative fuel sources are estimated at 50 trillion dollars which is about 3/4 of the Gross National Product of the whole world. The chances of that are about zero. The only way we're going to replace fossil fuels is to find a real cost effective alternative. Fusion power generation will probably be practical someday but who knows when that will happen.

I believe we will be wrestling with this problem long after the effects of AGW are apparent to everyone because people are not good at global cooperation nor long term planning, both of which are essential to stop AGW.

No, the IPCC estimate is 76 trillion dollars. They are never correct so add at least another 20 trillion dollars to their estimate.

 

[Newby]

The problem is none of the alternatives are as efficient as the fossil fuels they wish to replace. Right now the absolute height of electrical vehicles is in racing. The Isle of Man TT is the worlds oldest motorcycle race. The riders make 6 trips around the island at speeds of 130 plus miles per hour. They race at full blast for two laps, then refuel and replace the rear tire. Then two more laps and repeat. The electric bikes can only manage one lap. That's it. And, they're 25 mph slower for the overall speed.

If a EV wanted to race in the 24 Hours of Le Mans, they would have to have multiple cars and multiple batteries. To the point where you could have 9 complete teams, and all the fuel they would need, to support a SINGLE EV race team. You really think that's efficient?

And here's the ultimate goal of the green Luddites....


"It's a message no one wants to hear: To slow down global warming, we'll either have to put the brakes on economic growth or transform the way the world's economies work. That's the implication of an innovative University of Michigan study examining the most likely causes of global warming."


Global warming New research blames economic growth -- ScienceDaily

Well, if most fossil fuels were used for racing then maybe you would have a point. The fact is the internal combustion engine is incredibly inefficient. Only 18% to 25% of the energy actually makes it to the wheels. Most of the energy, 58% to 62% is expended as heat.

Concern over pollution, global warming, and fuel cost has created a demand for more efficient cars. Hybrids boast an efficiency of about 40%. Electric motor efficiency is 75% to 99%. The Hydrogen Ion efficiency exceeds 75%, However a supporting infrastructure will have to be developed for electric cars and hydrogen ions cars..

Except in special applications, alternative fuel sources have a long ways to go. A number of potential energy sources such as fusion has not been developed for practical use. However, given time, one or more of these alternative fuels sources will replace fossil fuels as a primary fuel source. It may take a hundred years, but it will happen because the problems we have now with global warming, pollution, and geopolitical problems over petroleum are going to continue to increase along with development and improvement of the cost effectiveness of alternative energy sources.

We have no problem with "global warming" that is a fraud. Pollution IS a problem but none of the "solutions" to control CO2 emissions have the slightest provision to control pollution you just have to pay more to do it. A thinking person would wonder why it was OK to continue to pollute with all the terrible things that will supposedly happen.

So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?

Currently, yes. The combined pollution to produce the hybrids and EV's is greater than that to produce a F-150 pickup truck. That was actually one of the major selling points for Musk to choose Nevada for his gigafactory. There is a lithium mine in close proximity to the plant site. He realizes that to support the claims for being green he had to cut out the thousands and thousands of transport mileage that building the batteries entails.

That may be true as far as it goes, but the fact is the reduced emissions of electric vehicle over there life time more makes for any increased pollution due to manufacturing.
Electric Car Pollution Much Less Than Gas or Diesel Car Pollution

What about the pollution created when generating the electricity an electric car needs to run to begin with? You plug the thing in, it's consuming energy that was generated by coal fired plants. Just because you plug it in instead of filling it with unleaded doesn't mean it's not consuming energy, nor reducing pollution. It's all a scam.

 

[Flopper]

So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.

At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.

So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.

ble to over a billion people who use good or other search engines.
Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.

Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:

peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

Odd that you would hear something that I never said, but I guess that's a teabagger thing. Believe what you want. I have to go with what the experts say over some overblown idiot on a discussion board

Bulldog, people on this board with strong opinions hear what they want to hear and reply accordingly. You are not going to change their opinion but you may sway the opinions of some of the millions of people who can read your posts on this board and the Internet. .

 

[Flopper]

Well, if most fossil fuels were used for racing then maybe you would have a point. The fact is the internal combustion engine is incredibly inefficient. Only 18% to 25% of the energy actually makes it to the wheels. Most of the energy, 58% to 62% is expended as heat.

Concern over pollution, global warming, and fuel cost has created a demand for more efficient cars. Hybrids boast an efficiency of about 40%. Electric motor efficiency is 75% to 99%. The Hydrogen Ion efficiency exceeds 75%, However a supporting infrastructure will have to be developed for electric cars and hydrogen ions cars..

Except in special applications, alternative fuel sources have a long ways to go. A number of potential energy sources such as fusion has not been developed for practical use. However, given time, one or more of these alternative fuels sources will replace fossil fuels as a primary fuel source. It may take a hundred years, but it will happen because the problems we have now with global warming, pollution, and geopolitical problems over petroleum are going to continue to increase along with development and improvement of the cost effectiveness of alternative energy sources.

We have no problem with "global warming" that is a fraud. Pollution IS a problem but none of the "solutions" to control CO2 emissions have the slightest provision to control pollution you just have to pay more to do it. A thinking person would wonder why it was OK to continue to pollute with all the terrible things that will supposedly happen.

So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?

Currently, yes. The combined pollution to produce the hybrids and EV's is greater than that to produce a F-150 pickup truck. That was actually one of the major selling points for Musk to choose Nevada for his gigafactory. There is a lithium mine in close proximity to the plant site. He realizes that to support the claims for being green he had to cut out the thousands and thousands of transport mileage that building the batteries entails.

That may be true as far as it goes, but the fact is the reduced emissions of electric vehicle over there life time more makes for any increased pollution due to manufacturing.
Electric Car Pollution Much Less Than Gas or Diesel Car Pollution

What about the pollution created when generating the electricity an electric car needs to run to begin with? You plug the thing in, it's consuming energy that was generated by coal fired plants. Just because you plug it in instead of filling it with unleaded doesn't mean it's not consuming energy, nor reducing pollution. It's all a scam.

You're correct; we will have air pollution and CO2 emissions regardless of the energy source used by the vehicle. However, it's the amount that's important.

In a gasoline powered vehicle about 70% of the energy from the fuel converts into heat and produces considerable emissions. The extraction, refining and delivery of the gasoline uses energy and produces additional emissions.

An electric vehicle converts 60% of it's fuel into useful work not heat, and produces almost zero emission. The delivery of the electricity to the vehicle is extremely efficient with loss of only .2 to .5% per 100 miles of transmission with essential zero emissions. At power generation plants, 30% of our electric is generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, or other sources that produce little or no emission with very high efficiency. Also, at a fossil fuel powered electric generating plant, the percent of pollutants and co2 that can be removed is much higher than in gas powered vehicles.

 

[westwall]

We have no problem with "global warming" that is a fraud. Pollution IS a problem but none of the "solutions" to control CO2 emissions have the slightest provision to control pollution you just have to pay more to do it. A thinking person would wonder why it was OK to continue to pollute with all the terrible things that will supposedly happen.

So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?

Currently, yes. The combined pollution to produce the hybrids and EV's is greater than that to produce a F-150 pickup truck. That was actually one of the major selling points for Musk to choose Nevada for his gigafactory. There is a lithium mine in close proximity to the plant site. He realizes that to support the claims for being green he had to cut out the thousands and thousands of transport mileage that building the batteries entails.

That may be true as far as it goes, but the fact is the reduced emissions of electric vehicle over there life time more makes for any increased pollution due to manufacturing.
Electric Car Pollution Much Less Than Gas or Diesel Car Pollution

What about the pollution created when generating the electricity an electric car needs to run to begin with? You plug the thing in, it's consuming energy that was generated by coal fired plants. Just because you plug it in instead of filling it with unleaded doesn't mean it's not consuming energy, nor reducing pollution. It's all a scam.

You're correct; we will have air pollution and CO2 emissions regardless of the energy source used by the vehicle. However, it's the amount that's important.

In a gasoline powered vehicle about 70% of the energy from the fuel converts into heat and produces considerable emissions. The extraction, refining and delivery of the gasoline uses energy and produces additional emissions.

An electric vehicle converts 60% of it's fuel into useful work not heat, and produces almost zero emission. The delivery of the electricity to the vehicle is extremely efficient with loss of only .2 to .5% per 100 miles of transmission with essential zero emissions. At power generation plants, 30% of our electric is generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, or other sources that produce little or no emission with very high efficiency. Also, at a fossil fuel powered electric generating plant, the percent of pollutants and co2 that can be removed is much higher than in gas powered vehicles.

Fixed source CO2 emitters (in other words power plants) produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than all the vehicles of the world combined.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.

ble to over a billion people who use good or other search engines.
Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.

Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:

peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

Odd that you would hear something that I never said, but I guess that's a teabagger thing. Believe what you want. I have to go with what the experts say over some overblown idiot on a discussion board

Bulldog, people on this board with strong opinions hear what they want to hear and reply accordingly. You are not going to change their opinion but you may sway the opinions of some of the millions of people who can read your posts on this board and the Internet. .

I agree about the part of them hearing what they want to hear, But I'm not so sure about the millions reading. If I felt I was doing something that big and important, I would have to polish my shoes and wear a suit instead of sitting at my desk with my shoes off and the button of my pants popped open.

 

[onefour1]

A good video on youtube to watch is "100 Reasons Why Evolution Is STUPID! - Kent Hovind Christian Creationist". Evolution is still nothing but a theory that they are trying to pass off as truth.

 

[Flopper]

ble to over a billion people who use good or other search engines.
Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.

Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:

peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted

Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

Odd that you would hear something that I never said, but I guess that's a teabagger thing. Believe what you want. I have to go with what the experts say over some overblown idiot on a discussion board

Bulldog, people on this board with strong opinions hear what they want to hear and reply accordingly. You are not going to change their opinion but you may sway the opinions of some of the millions of people who can read your posts on this board and the Internet. .

I agree about the part of them hearing what they want to hear, But I'm not so sure about the millions reading. If I felt I was doing something that big and important, I would have to polish my shoes and wear a suit instead of sitting at my desk with my shoes off and the button of my pants popped open.

Better start polishing those shoes. Posts on USMB can be Googled which means your post can be accessed on the Internet by as many as 3 billion people. Try it. Google the first sentence of this thread in quotes, "Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution." It usually takes days before what you write can be googled but eventually it does appear.

I really don't care who reads what I write. However, search engines such as Google, that are so usefully in helping us find information, also create a problem. Google orders their pages based on what is the most popular, not the most reliable. So the casual viewer is often left with the most sensation and often incorrect information repeated over and over. All the crazy crap on USMB and thousands of other boards and blogs are out there sometimes intermixed with reliable sources but often appearing all by them selves.. People tend to believe what they read and the more they read it, the more lightly they are to believe. If you use Google to find information, you really have to evaluate the source carefully.

 

[BULLDOG]

I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

Odd that you would hear something that I never said, but I guess that's a teabagger thing. Believe what you want. I have to go with what the experts say over some overblown idiot on a discussion board

Bulldog, people on this board with strong opinions hear what they want to hear and reply accordingly. You are not going to change their opinion but you may sway the opinions of some of the millions of people who can read your posts on this board and the Internet. .

I agree about the part of them hearing what they want to hear, But I'm not so sure about the millions reading. If I felt I was doing something that big and important, I would have to polish my shoes and wear a suit instead of sitting at my desk with my shoes off and the button of my pants popped open.

Better start polishing those shoes. Posts on USMB can be Googled which means your post can be accessed on the Internet by as many as 3 billion people. Try it. Google the first sentence of this thread in quotes, "Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution." It usually takes days before what you write can be googled but eventually it does appear.

I really don't care who reads what I write. However, search engines such as Google, that are so usefully in helping us find information, also create a problem. Google orders their pages based on what is the most popular, not the most reliable. So the casual viewer is often left with the most sensation and often incorrect information repeated over and over. All the crazy crap on USMB and thousands of other boards and blogs are out there sometimes intermixed with reliable sources but often appearing all by them selves.. People tend to believe what they read and the more they read it, the more lightly they are to believe. If you use Google to find information, you really have to evaluate the source carefully.

Just because it's out there doesn't mean people will see it. They are all looking for a nip slip or Miley Syrus in her under ware. But on the off chance that all those bible thumpers are watching
"HEY STUPID.......QUIT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR EVERY TIME I SIT DOWN TO TAKE A DUMP.
I always wanted to say that to millions of people at once.

 

[Flopper]

What I just heard you tell me is that you've been triumphantly and ignorantly prattling buzzwords you were provided in your talking points memos without ever bothering to find out what they mean. I might as well try to have a serious debate in Spanish with someone who's sounding out words from a phrasebook.

Dismissed.

Odd that you would hear something that I never said, but I guess that's a teabagger thing. Believe what you want. I have to go with what the experts say over some overblown idiot on a discussion board

Bulldog, people on this board with strong opinions hear what they want to hear and reply accordingly. You are not going to change their opinion but you may sway the opinions of some of the millions of people who can read your posts on this board and the Internet. .

I agree about the part of them hearing what they want to hear, But I'm not so sure about the millions reading. If I felt I was doing something that big and important, I would have to polish my shoes and wear a suit instead of sitting at my desk with my shoes off and the button of my pants popped open.

Better start polishing those shoes. Posts on USMB can be Googled which means your post can be accessed on the Internet by as many as 3 billion people. Try it. Google the first sentence of this thread in quotes, "Polls show that an astounding 42% of Americans literally believe in the Biblical story of creation, rejecting the science of evolution." It usually takes days before what you write can be googled but eventually it does appear.

I really don't care who reads what I write. However, search engines such as Google, that are so usefully in helping us find information, also create a problem. Google orders their pages based on what is the most popular, not the most reliable. So the casual viewer is often left with the most sensation and often incorrect information repeated over and over. All the crazy crap on USMB and thousands of other boards and blogs are out there sometimes intermixed with reliable sources but often appearing all by them selves.. People tend to believe what they read and the more they read it, the more lightly they are to believe. If you use Google to find information, you really have to evaluate the source carefully.

Just because it's out there doesn't mean people will see it. They are all looking for a nip slip or Miley Syrus in her under ware. But on the off chance that all those bible thumpers are watching
"HEY STUPID.......QUIT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR EVERY TIME I SIT DOWN TO TAKE A DUMP.
I always wanted to say that to millions of people at once.

Well, you just did. I don't now how many active members there are in USMB, maybe a few hundred or maybe a few thousand. However, the potential number of readers of posts by either googling or going to usmessageboard.com is as much as 3 billion. If only one in a million Internet users stumbled into USMB, that would be 3,000 people.

 

[Newby]

So you claim zero emission vehicles and hybrids pollute more than fossil fuel vehicles?

Currently, yes. The combined pollution to produce the hybrids and EV's is greater than that to produce a F-150 pickup truck. That was actually one of the major selling points for Musk to choose Nevada for his gigafactory. There is a lithium mine in close proximity to the plant site. He realizes that to support the claims for being green he had to cut out the thousands and thousands of transport mileage that building the batteries entails.

That may be true as far as it goes, but the fact is the reduced emissions of electric vehicle over there life time more makes for any increased pollution due to manufacturing.
Electric Car Pollution Much Less Than Gas or Diesel Car Pollution

What about the pollution created when generating the electricity an electric car needs to run to begin with? You plug the thing in, it's consuming energy that was generated by coal fired plants. Just because you plug it in instead of filling it with unleaded doesn't mean it's not consuming energy, nor reducing pollution. It's all a scam.

You're correct; we will have air pollution and CO2 emissions regardless of the energy source used by the vehicle. However, it's the amount that's important.

In a gasoline powered vehicle about 70% of the energy from the fuel converts into heat and produces considerable emissions. The extraction, refining and delivery of the gasoline uses energy and produces additional emissions.

An electric vehicle converts 60% of it's fuel into useful work not heat, and produces almost zero emission. The delivery of the electricity to the vehicle is extremely efficient with loss of only .2 to .5% per 100 miles of transmission with essential zero emissions. At power generation plants, 30% of our electric is generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, or other sources that produce little or no emission with very high efficiency. Also, at a fossil fuel powered electric generating plant, the percent of pollutants and co2 that can be removed is much higher than in gas powered vehicles.

Fixed source CO2 emitters (in other words power plants) produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than all the vehicles of the world combined.

And of course he ignored your post. lol

 

[westwall]

Currently, yes. The combined pollution to produce the hybrids and EV's is greater than that to produce a F-150 pickup truck. That was actually one of the major selling points for Musk to choose Nevada for his gigafactory. There is a lithium mine in close proximity to the plant site. He realizes that to support the claims for being green he had to cut out the thousands and thousands of transport mileage that building the batteries entails.

That may be true as far as it goes, but the fact is the reduced emissions of electric vehicle over there life time more makes for any increased pollution due to manufacturing.
Electric Car Pollution Much Less Than Gas or Diesel Car Pollution

What about the pollution created when generating the electricity an electric car needs to run to begin with? You plug the thing in, it's consuming energy that was generated by coal fired plants. Just because you plug it in instead of filling it with unleaded doesn't mean it's not consuming energy, nor reducing pollution. It's all a scam.

You're correct; we will have air pollution and CO2 emissions regardless of the energy source used by the vehicle. However, it's the amount that's important.

In a gasoline powered vehicle about 70% of the energy from the fuel converts into heat and produces considerable emissions. The extraction, refining and delivery of the gasoline uses energy and produces additional emissions.

An electric vehicle converts 60% of it's fuel into useful work not heat, and produces almost zero emission. The delivery of the electricity to the vehicle is extremely efficient with loss of only .2 to .5% per 100 miles of transmission with essential zero emissions. At power generation plants, 30% of our electric is generated by nuclear, hydroelectric, or other sources that produce little or no emission with very high efficiency. Also, at a fossil fuel powered electric generating plant, the percent of pollutants and co2 that can be removed is much higher than in gas powered vehicles.

Fixed source CO2 emitters (in other words power plants) produce orders of magnitude more CO2 than all the vehicles of the world combined.

And of course he ignored your post. lol

That's their way.