Global warming skeptics growing in numbers - Page 28

dstark · 07-03-2009, 01:51 PM

momofsophie, thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it.

Pizzagirl · 07-03-2009, 02:54 PM

Quote:

You should have capitalized scientists, instead, mini.. it would show the proper reverance

What a sad day for this country when grown adults consider the consensus of acknowledged experts to be worthless when compared to their personal "feelings." It's not reverence mini is showing. It's common sense.

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 04:16 PM

dstark,

What's wrong with ethanol? Seems to be the perfect example of the government and private enterprise working hand in hand to make an alternate energy source competitive?

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Ah, but there's only one of you...

Ah, a polyamorous radical communitarian.

I've long ceased to be surprised at the revelations, mini.

dstark · 07-03-2009, 06:52 PM

catahoula, I'm going from memory now.

Ethanol derived from corn- the amount of energy necessary to produce energy is too large. There isn't a lot of bang for the buck. Plus, it increases prices for foodstuffs.

Now methane gas from cows, companies have been working to make that viable. I don't know of any major successes however.

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

... the amount of energy necessary to produce energy is too large.

Why, no... not according to the ethanol industry and I believe they have "scientists" working for them, too.

And, not according to the politicians that defend this wonderful example of government choosing winners and losers in the energy game, no.

But, incorrigible denier that I am, I agree with what you recalled from memory. I'll also add that (working from memory, also)...

Generally can't be run through pipelines because of water affinity and corrosion problems, so it has to be trucked.

Heavy farm use of diesel, for grain production, helped cause the differential in gas/diesel prices.

dstark · 07-03-2009, 07:41 PM

Catahoula, there are scientists and there are scientists.

Scientists that work for specific businesses...........

I want to know who is paying the scientists.

In my field, I want to know who is paying the analysts. Once you know that, it becomes clear why the analysts are so bad.

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 09:18 PM

As to "there are scientists and there are scientists", I couldn't agree more.

Do you know who's paying for the bulk of the catastrophic AGW research?

CelticClan07 · 07-03-2009, 10:08 PM

Catahoula- You might enjoy this commentary. I think this is one of the few guys in the press who GETS it.

Commentary: Climate bill gives huge powers to government | detnews.com | The Detroit News

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 10:34 PM

Yep, makes me happy, CC.

Quote:

While the bill does not specify the impact of its carbon dioxide cap-and-trade elements on the earth's temperatures, John Christy -- a climate scientist who once led the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment -- told me the bill's effects would, at best, reduce our planet's average warmth by an undistinguishable two tenths of one degree.

Happy Independence Day. Enjoy it while the freedom lasts.

Imagine that.

(I haven't seen Hansen and Al screaming about the 9.8 degrees it's not going to address, lol.)

CelticClan07 · 07-03-2009, 10:38 PM

So Catahoula, If I'm reading this correctly, they passed a bill they didn't fully comprehend...............or even read. Hmmmm......sound familiar? Stimulus <Spending> bill, meet Cap and Trade.

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 10:40 PM

Quote:

What a sad day for this country when grown adults consider the consensus of acknowledged experts to be worthless when compared to their personal "feelings."

Being a "denier" means you're not an adult, PZ... you must not have read the thread.

Btw, since you're using the term "consensus", can you show that there is one?

MiamiDAP · 07-03-2009, 10:44 PM

how that bill reduce anything is completely unclear. Businesses will be moved to China, India, so forth. So they will be much less regulated than now. So how in a world it will reduce warmth or whatever, which has not been proven to have been created by human activities conclusively anyway. One person saw huge opportunity to enrich himself at the expense of the rest of the country and that was the whole foundation of that craziness that will create all kind of unfavorable conditions here in USA. Just look what happened in Spain. The bill basically amounts to delibarate destruction of economy.

catahoula · 07-03-2009, 10:45 PM

Why would they bother reading it, CC?

I imagine the lobbyists wrote the bulk of it and why would they want to argue with them?

Ka-ching.

zotan · 07-03-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Do you know who's paying for the bulk of the catastrophic AGW research?

Universities.

I just don't understand how someone can possibly think that a scientific phenomenon is a hoax when every single scientific institution in the field of study agrees that it is a serious problem. If it were so clearly a hoax, why has there not been a SINGLE peer-reviewed and published academic paper that disagrees with the consensus position?

BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change -- Oreskes 306 (5702): 1686 -- Science

Look at this article, and the links it provides:

‘Global warming is a hoax’—I wish James Inhofe were just a hoax ... | How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming | Grist

How could it possibly be that every single one of those highly regarded organizations is perpetuating some government myth?