how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[Foxfyre]

You have to pay attention to somebody to be obsessed, Mamooth. So there are absolutely no worries about that.

Funny thing is he obviously forgets his character again.. Saigon was desperate to get your attention earlier now he comes playing she's obsessed with me attention seeking game..

LOL, he's brilliant..

Well it's tough work remembering who you are supposed to be from day to day.

 

[gslack]

Flac -

I have no problem with using natural gas; I just think it is wasted in electricity production. I would prefer to see western countries using natural gas as LPG or CNG in transport.

A mix of nuclear, tidal, solar and perhaps wind and waste incineration can provide enough elecrtricity.

Tidal a brilliant idea.. Kill lots of sea life.. Wait aren't you supposed to be pro-environment? Solar, 10% efficient? LOL sure.. Wind, kill birds make a big wind farm that will wreck a local ecosystem, brilliant.. Waste incineration? Sure, now explain how you get everybody to NOT throw things in the trash that could produce harmful chemicals, or how even burn enough waste to make it viable? How about the fact it will create even more CO2? If they could have made any of those thing truly safe enough, efficient enough, or actually viable they would have by now.

That's the whole "AGW cultist/lefty idealist" mentality in a nut shell isn't it. Oh don't harm a fish or a tree or put more naturally occurring trace gas in the atmosphere, unless it's got a "green" label on it.. Yes kill sea life if its "renewable" it's all good. Kill birds, mess up an eco-system if it is "sustainable"..

You're the kind of schmuck who supports GMO foods to "feed the world more economically" but go and buy "organic" for yourself because it's healthier. Or buy a hybrid knowing the amount of pollution created to make the batteries nullifies any positives.

With you people it'snot about how it is, it's about how it appears or how you think it absolves you of any responsibility. Like John Travolta having an Air strip and a 707 at his house, flying himself all over the place, but drives a Prius to an awards ceremony to appear "green"..

Freaking pipe dreams, all ideals no substance or realistic base. Go ahead kill fish along a coastline to generate electricity, so long as you can call yourself eco-conscious..Morons.

 

[Saigon]

Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.

Actually they have already put them on the market - but you oppose their use.

Even on this page you seem to oppose research by oil companies into areas like *algae-based biofuels, for instance.

I assume you have heard of tidal energy? Osmotic energy?

Can you explain why you claim to want new technologies in theory - but apparently oppose them in practice?

*Algal fuel:

Algae fuel or Algal biofuel is an alternative to fossil fuel that uses algae as its source of natural deposits. Several companies and government agencies are funding efforts to reduce capital and operating costs and make algae fuel production commercially viable. Harvested algae, like fossil fuel, releases CO2 when burnt but unlike fossil fuel the CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere by the growing of algae and other biofuel sources. The energy crisis and the world food crisis have ignited interest in algaculture (farming algae) for making vegetable oil, biodiesel, bioethanol, biogasoline, biomethanol, biobutanol and other biofuels, using land that is not suitable for agriculture. Among algal fuels' attractive characteristics: they can be grown with minimal impact on fresh water resources, can be produced using ocean and wastewater, and are biodegradable and relatively harmless to the environment if spilled. Algae cost more per unit mass (as of 2010, food grade algae costs ~$5000/tonne), due to high capital and operating costs, yet are claimed to yield between 10 and 100 times more fuel per unit area than other second-generation biofuel crops. The US Department of Energy estimates that if algae fuel replaced all the petroleum fuel in the United States, it would require 15,000 square miles (39,000 km2) which is only 0.42% of the U.S. map, or about half of the land area of Maine. This is less than 1⁄7 the area of corn harvested in the United States in 2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algae_fuel

As a technology this is very much a work in progress, but I think that is worth looking into myself rather than simply sneer at it because it is new.

 

[westwall]

Some will say that we have to stop using fossil fuels because we'll run out. But if they are NOT creating dangerous global warming, why stop using them BEFORE they run out? I have full faith and confidence in human ingenuity that by the time we have to have different energy sources, the ambitious and greedy and opportunistic capitalists will have developed them and put them on the market. And it won't cost the tax payer a dime or take away a single freedom, choice, option, or opportunity from any of us.

Actually they have already put them on the market - but you oppose their use.

Even on this page you seem to oppose research by oil companies into areas like algae-based biofuels, for instance.

I assume you have heard of tidal energy? Osmotic energy?

Can you explain why you claim to want new technologies in theory - but apparently oppose them in practice?

Yes we oppose their use because they are ridiculously expensive. The biofuel that our navy must use costs 7 to 8 times as much as regular avgas. That's stupid. The corn used to produce ethanol for E85 would be far better used as food. Not to mention the fact that the fuel costs twice as much as what it wishes to replace.

You love CNG powered vehicles but they get half the mileage of a good gas powered vehicle and one eighth the range of the new turbo diesels.

We fully support any fuel that is as efficient as what we already have. Efficient translates to inexpensive as well.

 

[IanC]

LOL, very funny yet somehow your inability or just preference of NOT READING what people post has just shown again how utterly full of it you are..

You're claims that wire's math was wrong previously and your continued claims against me and everyone else and our "slow-witted-ness" gives at least the impression you somehow think yourself mentally or at least educationally above the rest of poor souls. So any mistake as to your credentials are due to your pretense clown.. Don't act like an expert if you don't want to be called on it...

Now as to your misconception of the double-slit experiment. It works in more ways then the hypothetical superposition, it also shows the concept of wave-particle duality..

My quote again..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment



Now you can play pretend dumbass now if you like but anybody with half the level of knowledge you pretend to have would know this and I wouldn't have to explain it over and over...The same type of experiment is accomplished in many different ways. Again someone with your claimed mathematical chops would know this.. Here read something...

Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? - MIT News Office



Now please play stupid and pretend you don't understand it again. We love seeing you dance..

I think you are the only one on this forum that I have called out for being mentally challenged, although I may have uncharitably compared konrad v to you once. I think I apologized to him afterwards.

that said, I would like to thank you for goading me into investigating the walking droplets.

video from a commercial program-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk]Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole] - YouTube[/ame]

from MIT-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE]The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets - YouTube[/ame]

PNAS article- Quantum mechanics writ large

Some two centuries before the quantum revolution, Newton (1) suggested that corpuscles of light generate waves in an aethereal medium like skipping stones generate waves in water, with their motion then being affected by these aether waves. Times have changed. Light corpuscles are now known as photons, and the majority of physicists have dispensed with the notion of aether. Nevertheless, certain features of Newton's metaphor live on in one particular version of quantum mechanics. According to pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie (2) and later developed by Bohm (3) with Einstein's encouragement, microscopic elements such as photons and electrons consist of both particle and wave, the former being guided by the latter. Although this physical picture has not been widely accepted, it has had some notable proponents, including Bell (4). Its principal appeal is that it restores realism and determinism to quantum mechanics, its weakness that the physical nature of the guiding wave field remains unclear. At the time that pilot wave theory was developed and then overtaken by the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard view of quantum mechanics, there was no macroscopic pilot wave analog to draw upon. Now there is.

while I think the similarities to QM are overblown and cherrypicked, there is no denying that droplet walkers are very cool to watch and give a strong visual image for waveform probabilities.

Wow Ian, you were that close to being humble.. SO close... But again ya blew it. Thank you Ian,yes I know I was correct, and I didn't expect you to be big enough to admit it anyway..

what exactly do you think you are correct about? I must admit it is a very cool phenomena, one of numerous examples dealing with harmonics, and I again thank you for exposing me to it. but if you think that just because some of the patterns have a passing similarity to QM waveforms (very early version) that there is some deep meaning to be gleaned, I think you are probably mistaken.

I put up two short videos for a reason. in the first one Morgan Freeman sounds like he is expaining the universe, in the second the actual experimenters sound much less expansive with their claims.

anyone looking for short and clear answers to quantum mechanical questions is usually going to be disappointed. especially for 'how', 'how much' is easier.

 

[gslack]

I think you are the only one on this forum that I have called out for being mentally challenged, although I may have uncharitably compared konrad v to you once. I think I apologized to him afterwards.

that said, I would like to thank you for goading me into investigating the walking droplets.

video from a commercial program-
Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole] - YouTube

from MIT-
The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets - YouTube

PNAS article- Quantum mechanics writ large



while I think the similarities to QM are overblown and cherrypicked, there is no denying that droplet walkers are very cool to watch and give a strong visual image for waveform probabilities.

Wow Ian, you were that close to being humble.. SO close... But again ya blew it. Thank you Ian,yes I know I was correct, and I didn't expect you to be big enough to admit it anyway..

what exactly do you think you are correct about? I must admit it is a very cool phenomena, one of numerous examples dealing with harmonics, and I again thank you for exposing me to it. but if you think that just because some of the patterns have a passing similarity to QM waveforms (very early version) that there is some deep meaning to be gleaned, I think you are probably mistaken.

I put up two short videos for a reason. in the first one Morgan Freeman sounds like he is expaining the universe, in the second the actual experimenters sound much less expansive with their claims.

anyone looking for short and clear answers to quantum mechanical questions is usually going to be disappointed. especially for 'how', 'how much' is easier.

And here we see your usual BS and dance routine... How predictable...

Notice you completely ignore my links and what they say? yes focus on your videos.. Why? Because they aren't my links are they... Of course Ian, of course, you're an expert on all things mathematical when it suits you and when it doesn't you deny the implication...

So which is it now oh master BS mathematics? Are you an expert or not? You are right critiquing the validity of experiments listed on the MIT news page.. yes of course you can do that because you're an internet "expert"... Or are you not an expert now? Which is it fake?

BTW, now care to address the fact you have been shown again, in two separate threads lying and being completely dishonest? No thought not..

Remember you original claim here schmuck?

"Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media."

YOUR WORDS FRAUD...

The first underlined part, you try the fake humility act. Poorly I might add, because as we see here you feel authoritative enough to critique the entire study now... How completely expected..

The next underlined part you claimed my previous post in the other thread was about, and I quote you directly; "a mechanical wave study in oil" . Really IAN? You fraudualent little man, completely ignore the point it showed my post was accurate and the experiment I listed was as well..

The fact is my post then, as now was, is and will be correct. And you sir are a lair. You can't even admit when you screw up, how pathetic...

Please play dumb and confound this with BS again, your dancing is funny..

 

[IanC]

Wow Ian, you were that close to being humble.. SO close... But again ya blew it. Thank you Ian,yes I know I was correct, and I didn't expect you to be big enough to admit it anyway..

what exactly do you think you are correct about? I must admit it is a very cool phenomena, one of numerous examples dealing with harmonics, and I again thank you for exposing me to it. but if you think that just because some of the patterns have a passing similarity to QM waveforms (very early version) that there is some deep meaning to be gleaned, I think you are probably mistaken.

I put up two short videos for a reason. in the first one Morgan Freeman sounds like he is expaining the universe, in the second the actual experimenters sound much less expansive with their claims.

anyone looking for short and clear answers to quantum mechanical questions is usually going to be disappointed. especially for 'how', 'how much' is easier.

And here we see your usual BS and dance routine... How predictable...

Notice you completely ignore my links and what they say? yes focus on your videos.. Why? Because they aren't my links are they... Of course Ian, of course, you're an expert on all things mathematical when it suits you and when it doesn't you deny the implication...

So which is it now oh master BS mathematics? Are you an expert or not? You are right critiquing the validity of experiments listed on the MIT news page.. yes of course you can do that because you're an internet "expert"... Or are you not an expert now? Which is it fake?

BTW, now care to address the fact you have been shown again, in two separate threads lying and being completely dishonest? No thought not..

Remember you original claim here schmuck?

"Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media."

YOUR WORDS FRAUD...

The first underlined part, you try the fake humility act. Poorly I might add, because as we see here you feel authoritative enough to critique the entire study now... How completely expected..

The next underlined part you claimed my previous post in the other thread was about, and I quote you directly; "a mechanical wave study in oil" . Really IAN? You fraudualent little man, completely ignore the point it showed my post was accurate and the experiment I listed was as well..

The fact is my post then, as now was, is and will be correct. And you sir are a lair. You can't even admit when you screw up, how pathetic...

Please play dumb and confound this with BS again, your dancing is funny..

why dont you drop the whole 'liar and fraud' thing. I am obviously neither. your original link to this subject did not have enough info to attract my attention and you did not point out any of the highlights. this time you gave an MIT release which piqued my interest and led me to investigate more thoroughly. I then posted up easily accessible information on an interesting subject for others to enjoy. on the other hand, when I tried to talk to you about polarization with respect to the need of matter to be present, I pointed out the paradox and why it was interesting and you chose not to respond in any way.

but enough of that. we have an interesting topic to discuss if you want to. why do you think this experiment is more than an exercise in harmonics?

 

[bripat9643]

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

This is interesting.

So we know that oil companies funded fake 'research' in order to justify not acknolwedging climate change - so your argument here is that they are also funded fake 'research' in order to justify backing climate change.

That's a really logical argument, particularly given the oil companies have been forced into massive research into new fuels at their own expense as a result.

WE don't know that oil companies funded any "fake research." You simply label any research not funded by capitalism hating bureaucrats as "fake."

 

[Saigon]

Bripat -

Actually, yes, we DO know that.

Several oil companies and auto manufacturers funded by a "research insititute" that produced a half-dozen pieces of research that indicated that temperatures were not rising. First one, then another, and then all of the oil companies abandoned it with little secrecy about their reasoning. It was embarassing.

All of the details of this have been posted here before, by Oddball if I remember.

Either way it is a rock-solid, cast-iron fact.

 

[PMZ]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they? But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions, in production of biofuels made from animal fat. All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses. Chevron recently unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia. Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.

 

[PMZ]

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they? But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions, in production of biofuels made from animal fat. All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses. Chevron recently unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia. Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

 

[flacaltenn]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

Pretty much off topic self-projection there PMZ.. But since you ran this off into the weeds with no hint of where we go after the "Age of fossil fuels" is over--- where did you get this "control freak" gene you describe???

I mean the obvious one that makes leftists want to dictate what car we drive, how many sheets of T.P. to use, when to turn on our lights, how to design our toilets, what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and .... . imbues them with a sense of ENTITLEMENT to all of our stuff???

Funny how the advertisment always secretly hints at the weakness of the sponsor....

 

[ScienceRocks]

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they? But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions, in production of biofuels made from animal fat. All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses. Chevron recently unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia. Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

 

[PMZ]

Someday scientists will isolate the conservative gene that compels people to believe that they are entitled to the world of their dreams. Perhaps they should call it the control freak factor.

In the meantime those suffering from it will just have to live with their handicap. We can afford to be magnanimous with them thanks to democracy. It's tolerance for whacko minorities is its strength.

The century of the fossil fuel is over. Like most everything conservative we've found that the true cost of fossil fuels is completely unaffordable. The wars to maintain our supply.The recovery from extreme weather. The environmental damages. Plus the fact that we've used up all of the good stuff leaving only expensive to get low quality dregs behind. And burning what's left is the lowest value use of the resource.

So, step one is continuing the process of rendering conservatives impotent in politics. Fortunately they are helping Americans in that process.

Then, we build on the rapidly growing base of both private and publicly funded projects that each chip away at the problem.

We have good leadership today, good science, a recovering private sector with visionary capitalists. We have the majority of voters.

Let conservatism continue its raucous path to extinction and the recovery from America's own dark ages will continue.

Pretty much off topic self-projection there PMZ.. But since you ran this off into the weeds with no hint of where we go after the "Age of fossil fuels" is over--- where did you get this "control freak" gene you describe???

I mean the obvious one that makes leftists want to dictate what car we drive, how many sheets of T.P. to use, when to turn on our lights, how to design our toilets, what to eat, when to eat, how much to eat, and .... . imbues them with a sense of ENTITLEMENT to all of our stuff???

Funny how the advertisment always secretly hints at the weakness of the sponsor....

It's one thing to believe that the government of, by, and for the people can participate in the solution of national problems, it's another to assume that we can bend science to our will. Science is not about pleasing the human race, it's about what is.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they? But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions, in production of biofuels made from animal fat. All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses. Chevron recently unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia. Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

But American conservatism is not an economic movement. Conservatism is a concept demanding liberty and exercise of what we believe are God given unalienable rights that of course include economics as well as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives are pretty darn gung ho about the right to their liberty, their choices, their options, and their opportunities without interference from climate religionists or anybody else who may be operating from a perspective of bogus or flawed science. Most especially any bogus or flawed science that is deliberately being imposed upon us in order to take away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities.

Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do. In fact I am pretty darn conservative and you won't find many people as interested or as passionate about environment, climate science, and other Earth sciences as I am.

 

[PMZ]

The Siamese triplets really pile on don't they? But why in the world would oil companies fund bogus research to discredit global warming when they are making out like bandits with green energy projects?

I think it was yesterday I posted the project of Conoco Phillips, in cooperation with Tyson Foods, that is investing mega milions, probably billions, in production of biofuels made from animal fat. All the oil companies manufacturing ethanol are being heavily subsidized and making huge profits even as they admit ethanol is not energy efficient nor cost effective nor does it significantly lower greenhouse gasses. Chevron recently unveiled the world’s largest carbon-sequestration project in Australia. Why would Exxon try to deliberately discredit global warming after making a huge mega million dollar investment in algae-based biofuels?

Admittedly oil companies are taking full advantage of tax payers money directed to green energy projects, but unlike so many of the so-called investments like Solyndra that go belly up after a fairly short time, the oil companies aren't going to do something they don't believe will result in a usable product and profit for them.

It is a pretty safe bet that oil company dollars going to research are not going to any effort to do bogus research or to discredit global warming.

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

 

[PMZ]

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

But American conservatism is not an economic movement. Conservatism is a concept demanding liberty and exercise of what we believe are God given unalienable rights that of course include economics as well as life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Conservatives are pretty darn gung ho about the right to their liberty, their choices, their options, and their opportunities without interference from climate religionists or anybody else who may be operating from a perspective of bogus or flawed science. Most especially any bogus or flawed science that is deliberately being imposed upon us in order to take away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities.

Conservatives care about climate, about the environment, about quality of life, about the prosperity and/or lack thereof of humans everywhere every bit as much as any othe people do. In fact I am pretty darn conservative and you won't find many people as interested or as passionate about environment, climate science, and other Earth sciences as I am.

"But American conservatism is not an economic movement."

We part company completely already. It is only about economics. Everything else is smoke and mirrors.

 

[gslack]

what exactly do you think you are correct about? I must admit it is a very cool phenomena, one of numerous examples dealing with harmonics, and I again thank you for exposing me to it. but if you think that just because some of the patterns have a passing similarity to QM waveforms (very early version) that there is some deep meaning to be gleaned, I think you are probably mistaken.

I put up two short videos for a reason. in the first one Morgan Freeman sounds like he is expaining the universe, in the second the actual experimenters sound much less expansive with their claims.

anyone looking for short and clear answers to quantum mechanical questions is usually going to be disappointed. especially for 'how', 'how much' is easier.

And here we see your usual BS and dance routine... How predictable...

Notice you completely ignore my links and what they say? yes focus on your videos.. Why? Because they aren't my links are they... Of course Ian, of course, you're an expert on all things mathematical when it suits you and when it doesn't you deny the implication...

So which is it now oh master BS mathematics? Are you an expert or not? You are right critiquing the validity of experiments listed on the MIT news page.. yes of course you can do that because you're an internet "expert"... Or are you not an expert now? Which is it fake?

BTW, now care to address the fact you have been shown again, in two separate threads lying and being completely dishonest? No thought not..

Remember you original claim here schmuck?

"Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media."

YOUR WORDS FRAUD...

The first underlined part, you try the fake humility act. Poorly I might add, because as we see here you feel authoritative enough to critique the entire study now... How completely expected..

The next underlined part you claimed my previous post in the other thread was about, and I quote you directly; "a mechanical wave study in oil" . Really IAN? You fraudualent little man, completely ignore the point it showed my post was accurate and the experiment I listed was as well..

The fact is my post then, as now was, is and will be correct. And you sir are a lair. You can't even admit when you screw up, how pathetic...

Please play dumb and confound this with BS again, your dancing is funny..

why dont you drop the whole 'liar and fraud' thing. I am obviously neither. your original link to this subject did not have enough info to attract my attention and you did not point out any of the highlights. this time you gave an MIT release which piqued my interest and led me to investigate more thoroughly. I then posted up easily accessible information on an interesting subject for others to enjoy. on the other hand, when I tried to talk to you about polarization with respect to the need of matter to be present, I pointed out the paradox and why it was interesting and you chose not to respond in any way.

but enough of that. we have an interesting topic to discuss if you want to. why do you think this experiment is more than an exercise in harmonics?

No I won't drop it, because it's true.. You are a liar and a fraud. One minute you claim the mathematical chops to criticize and diminish work from MIT. And the next you claim you're no expert and didn't claim to be. Obviously you think you are, but so far when tested you are found lacking.

My original post on the issue was indeed correct, and this again confirms it. You assume to know everything about something without even reading it, and instead of admitting your mistake you try this same old tired song and dance..

Again, you're a liar and a fraud. You lied about my previous posts, you lied about the relevancy of the experiment on both that and this discussion, and now when it's shown true again, you blame me for it..

Worthless...Completely lacking of any ethical backbone..

 

[gslack]

What do you think is driving the conservative denial of science?

Simply the fact that the science isn't complete and politics grabs on anything to attack a issue. You can see even people like Hansen admitting that maybe we didn't understand it like we once thought with this Aerosol debate or the ocean one....

This is a opening for people to attack the issue very hard. Science evolves within a way that invites this.

We should just admit that co2 is a driver within the climate system that helps bring on a positive within it. No more or less should state the issue. We should then point it out clearly to the public that there's many negative ones too. Educating them on why the temperature chart looks like it does is very important within context is where we're lacking. Only then can we bring up the bads of this positive.

The conservative movement doesn't give a damn about the science as it is a economic movement.

Two bodies in a vacuum. One radiates energy. The other is passive. When the passive body reflects as much as it absorbs, it remains at constant temperature. If its reflectance lowers, it must, must, must move to a higher temperature in order to achieve and maintain energy balance.

There are simply no other possibilities. Everything else is about the details of the process to restore balance.

Greenhouse gas concentration in our atmosphere have the affect of lowering our reflectance.

I bolded the part you pulled out of your butt socko...

First there is no "passive" body involved. Everything radiates some amount of energy. Absolute zero is the idealized temperature in which all entropy stops. Well so far we can't get to that temperature. So your "passive" claim is ignorant...

It seems like you were trying to describe equilibrium or black body radiation but doing so like an idiot who knows nothing of either one..

Now where in any of that nonsense did you state anything real or true? Not a single sentence was either fundamentally,or generally factual or correct to any degree.

You just wasted everyone's time and my patience...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtNHuqHWefU]Billy Madison - Insanely Idiotic (Academic Decathlon) - YouTube[/ame]

Thanks, we needed another internet scientist... Moron..