GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-08-2013, 15:49   #241
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
First follow the money on scare-mongering man-made global warming research and you will find their bias as well. The bias is strong.

Who is denying the climate is changing?

No one I know thinks that. The question is whether man is having a statistically significant impact in causing global warming. Global warming was the bold prediction before that they started back pedaling. Before it was determined the data was selectively manipulated.

The predictive models produced so far are not predictive.

I am old enough to remember when the "climate scientists" were predicting the coming ice age. We were already supposed to be there by NOW. And then they were claiming we were going to irreversible man-made global warming any moment. Then they changed to man caused global climate change.

I will start giving credibility to the "climate scientists" when they stop manipulating data, stop changing their story every few years, admit how ignorant it is to use a few years of data when the climate cycles are thousands and thousands of years.................................
Game, set, match.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 15:50   #242
tenforme
Senior Member
 
tenforme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
First follow the money on scare-mongering man-made global warming research and you will find their bias as well. The bias is strong.

Who is denying the climate is changing?

No one I know thinks that. The question is whether man is having a statistically significant impact in causing global warming. Global warming was the bold prediction before that they started back pedaling. Before it was determined the data was selectively manipulated.

The predictive models produced so far are not predictive.

I am old enough to remember when the "climate scientists" were predicting the coming ice age. We were already supposed to be there by NOW. And then they were claiming we were going to irreversible man-made global warming any moment. Then they changed to man caused global climate change.

I will start giving credibility to the "climate scientists" when they stop manipulating data, stop changing their story every few years, admit how ignorant it is to use a few years of data when the climate cycles are thousands and thousands of years.

I will give them credence when they act on their beliefs and stop emitting greenhouse gases.

Do you have a fossil fueled car? Do you ride your bike to work? Do you work from you off-grid solar/wind/hydro powered home? Do you live in a home of less than 65 square feet per person? If not why not? Do it for the children.

When you live in the conditions that are really necessary to drive the CO2 level down to the level deemed necessary(what level is the right level? They level before man? 150PPM or 600PPM, it ha been both much higher and much lower without man) and in the time frame necessary to avert this irreversible disaster, then come back and preach to us. Tell us how wonderful it is. Tell us how that stops the two most populous and polluting countries in the world. I can assure you the earth will not care one iota about what you have done. The earth will either get colder or hotter, regardless.

Again, there are plenty of reasons to reduce our pollution and reduce the burning of HCs. Man-made global warming is not one of them.
Fatuous nonsense!

1) The myth that the data were manipulated has been totally debunked. Get your head out of Faux News and the ravings of the tin-foil hat brigade and you would see that.

2) Nobody is arguing that greenhouse gas levels don't go up and down naturally. However, the data show that the ADDITIVE effect on man's addiction to fossil fuels and his efficiency in deforestation have had a significant effect on current and future CO2 levels.

3) I have actually made changes to my lifestyle and am actively engaged in developing alternatives - see my post above.

I actually started out thinking it was all a bit of a joke. In 1990 I was brought in to help debug models and analyse data after the UK suffered three "1 in a 100 year" hurricanes in just 5 years (I have a Ph.D., in computer simulation). My experiences in that exercise convinced me that man made CO2 was indeed having a significant ADDITIVE impact.

However, the real point that I am making is to follow the real money. There are extremely powerful individuals who owe their wealth to the fossil fuel industry and who pump $ millions into bogus anti-climate research/obfuscation of the data to preserve the status quo for as long as possible. At the same time they are quietly preparing for major climate shifts based on predictions from the very data and models they deny in public.
tenforme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 16:03   #243
tenforme
Senior Member
 
tenforme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
Game, set, match.
not so much
tenforme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 16:08   #244
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
Fatuous nonsense!

1) The myth that the data were manipulated has been totally debunked. Get your head out of Faux News and the ravings of the tin-foil hat brigade and you would see that.

2) Nobody is arguing that greenhouse gas levels don't go up and down naturally. However, the data show that the ADDITIVE effect on man's addiction to fossil fuels and his efficiency in deforestation have had a significant effect on current and future CO2 levels.

3) I have actually made changes to my lifestyle and am actively engaged in developing alternatives - see my post above.

I actually started out thinking it was all a bit of a joke. In 1990 I was brought in to help debug models and analyse data after the UK suffered three "1 in a 100 year" hurricanes in just 5 years (I have a Ph.D., in computer simulation). My experiences in that exercise convinced me that man made CO2 was indeed having a significant ADDITIVE impact.

However, the real point that I am making is to follow the real money. There are extremely powerful individuals who owe their wealth to the fossil fuel industry and who pump $ millions into bogus anti-climate research/obfuscation of the data to preserve the status quo for as long as possible. At the same time they are quietly preparing for major climate shifts based on predictions from the very data and models they deny in public.


So, in other words,



Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
For the last 20 years I have developed and commercialized advanced energy storage technologies for EV's, HEV's and more recently for grid-scale energy storage. The latter to make wind and solar generation more effective and relevant.

I upgraded my property to reduce energy usage.

Recently, I stopped commuting in a gas guzzling sports car and switched to a motorcycle so I went from 17MPG to 50MPG for my daily commute.


You make your living of selling the "green" technology.

Isn't that a lot like Al Sharpton finding racists everywhere?

Any you talk about the "fossil fuel industry" Creating data to support THEIR jobs.

countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 16:09   #245
Hellraiser
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 351
Quote:
Originally Posted by racerford View Post
First follow the money on scare-mongering man-made global warming research and you will find their bias as well. The bias is strong.

Who is denying the climate is changing?

No one I know thinks that. The question is whether man is having a statistically significant impact in causing global warming. Global warming was the bold prediction before that they started back pedaling. Before it was determined the data was selectively manipulated.

The predictive models produced so far are not predictive.

I am old enough to remember when the "climate scientists" were predicting the coming ice age. We were already supposed to be there by NOW. And then they were claiming we were going to irreversible man-made global warming any moment. Then they changed to man caused global climate change.

I will start giving credibility to the "climate scientists" when they stop manipulating data, stop changing their story every few years, admit how ignorant it is to use a few years of data when the climate cycles are thousands and thousands of years.

I will give them credence when they act on their beliefs and stop emitting greenhouse gases.

Do you have a fossil fueled car? Do you ride your bike to work? Do you work from you off-grid solar/wind/hydro powered home? Do you live in a home of less than 65 square feet per person? If not why not? Do it for the children.

When you live in the conditions that are really necessary to drive the CO2 level down to the level deemed necessary(what level is the right level? They level before man? 150PPM or 600PPM, it ha been both much higher and much lower without man) and in the time frame necessary to avert this irreversible disaster, then come back and preach to us. Tell us how wonderful it is. Tell us how that stops the two most populous and polluting countries in the world. I can assure you the earth will not care one iota about what you have done. The earth will either get colder or hotter, regardless.

Again, there are plenty of reasons to reduce our pollution and reduce the burning of HCs. Man-made global warming is not one of them.
And the cause is Money... there are plenty of "Al Gore Money Mongers" out there... receiving Federally Subsidized Grants... that must-have the money train coming their way.

Somebody needs to stop this Federally Subsidized (unscientific) teat.

The Sun is 99% of global warming. Volcanos, and other natural phenomena account for the remainder.

^..^
Hellraiser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 16:21   #246
tenforme
Senior Member
 
tenforme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
So, in other words,

You make your living of selling the "green" technology.

Isn't that a lot like Al Sharpton finding racists everywhere?

Any you talk about the "fossil fuel industry" Creating data to support THEIR jobs.

So I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Here is the sequence in nice simple steps:

1) I didn't believe that man made CO2 was impacting the climate - and was doing quite well in the aerospace industry generating a lot of CO2 and high altitude aerosols;

2) I was asked to look at the data and models - in part because I was a skeptic. I concluded that my initial belief was wrong and that man made CO2 was impacting the climate;

3) I decided to get involved in looking for a solution and cut my own personal contribution to CO2 production. I don't have a problem in making a profit and generating jobs in the process.

You are implying that I did this in the reverse order, which is incorrect and insulting.
tenforme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 17:13   #247
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
So I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

Here is the sequence in nice simple steps:

1) I didn't believe that man made CO2 was impacting the climate - and was doing quite well in the aerospace industry generating a lot of CO2 and high altitude aerosols;

2) I was asked to look at the data and models - in part because I was a skeptic. I concluded that my initial belief was wrong and that man made CO2 was impacting the climate;

3) I decided to get involved in looking for a solution and cut my own personal contribution to CO2 production. I don't have a problem in making a profit and generating jobs in the process.

You are implying that I did this in the reverse order, which is incorrect and insulting.
I guess forthrightness is not your strong suit.

You make your living from the perceived need. It is therefore in your benefit and the benefit of your "industry" if more people perceive that need.

Is that the truth or not?
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 17:21   #248
tenforme
Senior Member
 
tenforme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 777
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I guess forthrightness is not your strong suit.

You make your living from the perceived need. It is therefore in your benefit and the benefit of your "industry" if more people perceive that need.

Is that the truth or not?
Dude, believe what you want

Your mind is closed but your grandkids will be thankful for the work I am doing
tenforme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 17:23   #249
engineer151515
_______________
 
engineer151515's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 20,512


Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post

1) ............... Get your head out of Faux News and the ravings of the tin-foil hat brigade and you would see that.
Everytime I see a person use the term "Faux News" or "Neocon" or similar liberal talking point rhetoric, I immediately doubt their credibility for independent, objective thinking.

Totally debases an attempt at an objective argument and implies that the equal/opposite liberal extreme has had an prejudice on the conclusions being presented.
__________________
"We better get back, cause it'll be dark soon. And they mostly come at night - mostly." - Newt - Aliens

Last edited by engineer151515; 08-08-2013 at 17:24..
engineer151515 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 18:14   #250
Buck_Turgidson
Member
 
Buck_Turgidson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 35


Not as much as when the next asteroid hits the earth.
__________________
Gee, I wish we had one of them Doomsday Machines
Buck_Turgidson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 18:19   #251
RimfireMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 758
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer151515 View Post
Everytime I see a person use the term "Faux News" or "Neocon" or similar liberal talking point rhetoric, I immediately doubt their credibility for independent, objective thinking.

Totally debases an attempt at an objective argument and implies that the equal/opposite liberal extreme has had an prejudice on the conclusions being presented.
Fox News does not have a good record on reporting science.

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documen...ng-Science.pdf
RimfireMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 18:39   #252
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
Dude, believe what you want

Your mind is closed but your grandkids will be thankful for the work I am doing
I see, so your ego and your sense of self-worth are also tied into selling this product.

Personally, I would never believe someone who was fanatical and egotistical enough to say what you did.

That is the calling card of the liberal extremists who chain themselves to trees and throw paint balloons on people wearing furs. "It's for the children of the future".
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 18:48   #253
Fred Hansen
Liberal Bane
 
Fred Hansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 16,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
Dude, believe what you want

Your mind is closed but your grandkids will be thankful for the work I am doing
Ah yes, the ol' "It's for the chillllllddddren" liberal answer to everything.

How many Megawatts do you get out of those butterfly kisses?
__________________
When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. - George Santayana
Fred Hansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 18:56   #254
.264 magnum
CLM Number 121
Charter Lifetime Member
 
.264 magnum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 16,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post

It is taken so seriously that investments in mitigating infrastructure such as the Thames Barrier and other projects have already been made.
Sorry you either don't know what you are talking about or you expect people to listen to you blindly.

The Thames Barrier is about these things in no particular order.

1. The south "end" of England is sinking relative to the north.
2. Tides
3. Storm Surges

The barrier would do zero to stop any long term sea-level rise. It's a man-made tidal barrier not a dam.

One could make the argument that sea-level increases would make tidal and storm surges worse.
__________________
The Gonzales Flag - "Come and Take It!"
.264 magnum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 18:59   #255
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 5,020


Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
Fatuous nonsense!

1) The myth that the data were manipulated has been totally debunked. Get your head out of Faux News and the ravings of the tin-foil hat brigade and you would see that.


I read the released emails they were damning. But please provide cite for said debunking of data bias.


2) Nobody is arguing that greenhouse gas levels don't go up and down naturally. However, the data show that the ADDITIVE effect on man's addiction to fossil fuels and his efficiency in deforestation have had a significant effect on current and future CO2 levels.


The US has more forest than when the industrial revolution began.


3) I have actually made changes to my lifestyle and am actively engaged in developing alternatives - see my post above.


Admirable, but not enough. You need to have zero foot print. Otherwise you still are having an additive effect. When you measure your footprint do you include all of the damage done to the environment to produce and dispose of your storage batteries. How does your CO2 production compare to a poor person in India? If you stopped producing any CO2 and methane, you would have no impact.

I actually started out thinking it was all a bit of a joke. In 1990 I was brought in to help debug models and analyse data after the UK suffered three "1 in a 100 year" hurricanes in just 5 years (I have a Ph.D., in computer simulation). My experiences in that exercise convinced me that man made CO2 was indeed having a significant ADDITIVE impact.

However, the real point that I am making is to follow the real money. There are extremely powerful individuals who owe their wealth to the fossil fuel industry and who pump $ millions into bogus anti-climate research/obfuscation of the data to preserve the status quo for as long as possible. At the same time they are quietly preparing for major climate shifts based on predictions from the very data and models they deny in public.
Again, I will say, there are plenty of reasons to reduce pollution, reduce energy use, etc.. Man made global warming is not one of them.

Please explain the shift in thought of impending ice age in the 70's to the impending scorched earth theory of today. Surely you don't believe we have had a complete reversal of the direction of the global climate in that short a period of time.

I am for solar, wind, hydro alternatives, where they make since, but not because I believe the scare mongering of the global warming zealots.
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 19:15   #256
canis latrans
Senior Member
 
canis latrans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
For the last 20 years I have developed and commercialized advanced energy storage technologies for EV's, HEV's and more recently for grid-scale energy storage. The latter to make wind and solar generation more effective and relevant.

sooooooo....you might say you have a vested interest in MMGW being accepted as fact. no?

edit: I should have read the rest of the page before posting...countrygun beat me to it! good job!

Last edited by canis latrans; 08-08-2013 at 19:20..
canis latrans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 19:40   #257
canis latrans
Senior Member
 
canis latrans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 3,501
countrygun,

your post # 207 was PRICELESS!!!
canis latrans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 19:58   #258
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by canis latrans View Post
countrygun,

your post # 207 was PRICELESS!!!

Well thank you, but I am afraid I am going to have to go back and add a couple of things,





Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
So I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenforme View Post
Dude, believe what you want

Your mind is closed but your grandkids will be thankful for the work I am doing
You see Musky, who I was replying to in # 207,
And his ilk think the behavior that they complain about in others is perfectly acceptable for them because they feel they are "right". Because of that those who don't agree are "wrong" and they are doing wrong by questioning "authorities" (sounds really odd coming from the left doesn't it? ) so therefore they MCCC supporters have a free hand to do what they condemn in others. (starting to sound like "Four legs good, two legs better" to anyone yet ?)

Last edited by countrygun; 08-08-2013 at 20:08..
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 20:04   #259
Herzeleid
Kein Mitleid
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by canis latrans View Post
countrygun,

your post # 207 was PRICELESS!!!
hah, went back and read it myself.

rimfireman reminds me of that dea agent.


"I'm the only one in this room professional enough to talk and handle global warming..."
Herzeleid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 20:18   #260
mikeflys1
Pastafarian
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer151515 View Post
Everytime I see a person use the term "Faux News" or "Neocon" or similar liberal talking point rhetoric, I immediately doubt their credibility for independent, objective thinking.

Totally debases an attempt at an objective argument and implies that the equal/opposite liberal extreme has had an prejudice on the conclusions being presented.
I'll go out on a limb and guess this doesn't apply to right-wing rhetoric, though.
mikeflys1 is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:59.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,052
275 Members
777 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 16:42