Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study
-
There are more people mixing things up today, harold didn't like me referencing your post.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate. In anycase, given how often doctors misdiagnose I would always validate their opinions with google. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate.
He's been there. He knows that arguing about scientific phenomena when your only qualification is that you've read a bunch of blogs on the Internet is basically futile. At least read this[^] first.
Woods and Trees Ravel. You dont need to go into that kind of depth, since as even the IPCC says, 4/5ths of it has a "very low level of scientific understanding" The basic facts speak for themselves. No feedbacks, 12 years of slight cooling, no increase in severe weather and insuficient troposphere warming all cast a great deal of doubt on the CO2 = catastrophe theory. I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists. (It is called empiricism) Oh, plus the fact the earth has been a lot warmer this interglacial, Vostock and Greenland ice core data. SO there are lots of reasons to doubt the meager warming caused by CO2 is any problem at all.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
Indeed, Fistedchuff is a symptom of his own superiority complex. No one can be as clever as him, no one can be as scientific, and yet he is an angry fool incapable of debate.
He's been there. He knows that arguing about scientific phenomena when your only qualification is that you've read a bunch of blogs on the Internet is basically futile. At least read this[^] first.
Exactly. I don't really think there's a point to arguing with people like this, but for me on here it's quite therapeutic as I wouldn't ever want to damage the relationship with a patient, despite how much I might disagree with them. It's very interesting - people just smart enough to do some basic research and take an interest in a subject, but not educated enough to understand the subtle nuances of what they're reading and ultimately arguing, yet SO ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED of their ability. It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it. These guys are a perfect example. Heck, most of the people heavily into pseudoscientific nonsense like alternative medicine, chiropractic, alternate vaccine schedules, etc, are generally well educated - arts or engineering degrees; it gives them a false sense of confidence when exploring other avenues of knowledge and it can be nail-bitingly frustrating when people like that are determined to drive themselves or their loved ones off the edge of a proverbial cliff based on what they read on the internet.
- F
-
Still dodging the facts while piling on the insults. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
What was insulting about that? You guys were the ones doing the piling on. The fact is that you're not a climate scientist and ultimately your opinion on any raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. Unfortunately, only one of us recognizes this. Toodles, champ!
- F
-
Woods and Trees Ravel. You dont need to go into that kind of depth, since as even the IPCC says, 4/5ths of it has a "very low level of scientific understanding" The basic facts speak for themselves. No feedbacks, 12 years of slight cooling, no increase in severe weather and insuficient troposphere warming all cast a great deal of doubt on the CO2 = catastrophe theory. I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists. (It is called empiricism) Oh, plus the fact the earth has been a lot warmer this interglacial, Vostock and Greenland ice core data. SO there are lots of reasons to doubt the meager warming caused by CO2 is any problem at all.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Erudite__Eric wrote:
I prefer to look at the basic facts, as do many scientists
No, actually, scientists are expected to (duh) really understand what they're talking about.
- F
IPCC 4/5ths of factors affecting climate have a "Very low level of scientific understanding" http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/2001syr/large/06.01.jpg[^] So that means none of them actually know what they are talking about either. In which case I agree with you entirely. :) Come back at me when you have something worth arguing against. That was too easy.
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Exactly. I don't really think there's a point to arguing with people like this, but for me on here it's quite therapeutic as I wouldn't ever want to damage the relationship with a patient, despite how much I might disagree with them. It's very interesting - people just smart enough to do some basic research and take an interest in a subject, but not educated enough to understand the subtle nuances of what they're reading and ultimately arguing, yet SO ABSOLUTELY CONVINCED of their ability. It's a broad psychological phenomenon - the less someone knows about something, the more people are likely to overestimate their knowledge of it. These guys are a perfect example. Heck, most of the people heavily into pseudoscientific nonsense like alternative medicine, chiropractic, alternate vaccine schedules, etc, are generally well educated - arts or engineering degrees; it gives them a false sense of confidence when exploring other avenues of knowledge and it can be nail-bitingly frustrating when people like that are determined to drive themselves or their loved ones off the edge of a proverbial cliff based on what they read on the internet.
- F
-
What was insulting about that? You guys were the ones doing the piling on. The fact is that you're not a climate scientist and ultimately your opinion on any raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. The fact is that I'm not a climate scientist and ultimately my opinion on the raw data or cherry-picked studies is worth nothing. Unfortunately, only one of us recognizes this. Toodles, champ!
- F
So you have no opinoins worth anything about anything other than what you have studied, or acchieved some kind of medal for? (Be it some publicaitons or so) Oh, and by the way, I am merely repeating the opinoins of climate scientists, so I gues you have to accept what I say then. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
Larger bill for customer = losing customers. Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
Plenty of choices here, of course they all use the same lines so it's actually kind of weird, but you can choose which company you get electricity from - obviously it's all the same electricity so it's more of a financial construct.
jschell wrote:
The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money.
It matters a lot where the money comes from; if it has to come form the govt then it's bad because that means they'll economize on health care and education, but if it comes directly from people there's really no change.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Larger bill for customer = losing customers.
What kind of place do you live in? Where I live you have exactly TWO choices. 1. You get your electricity from the company all of your neighbors do. 2. You generate your own electricity. And option 2 only works for those that are willing to do with very little power or for those with a lot of money. Far as I know that is the situation in most of the world where electricity is available in some 'normal' fashion.
harold aptroot wrote:
Besides if they have any brains at all over there they have been saving up for the upgrade ever since the previous upgrade.
You really don't understand economics. I don't care where you get your power - it still costs money. If that wasn't the case there everyone would have all the power they could use. To do an "upgrade" it costs money. To do maintenance it costs money. To pay people to monitor it is costs money. To generate it is costs money. This is true for every single type of power (including ones that do not realistically exist like solar panel and fusion.) The fact that you don't understand where that money comes from in your situation doesn't change the fact that it still costs money. And when you attempt a major change in an economic system it WILL have ramifications far beyone what is visible from just the initial change.
-
jschell wrote:
If an alternative comes along that is 'better' then the market will drive that conversion. Could be electric, could be hydrogen, could be fusion. Could be a cultural change the removes the need for powered transportation.
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win. Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change? Just because I and everyone else wants a 'better' car does not make it magically appear. It is a step and repeat process. And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win.
Nonsense. As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist. The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change?
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them. Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car. The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Which only proves exactly what I said. If there was something better then the demand would drive the sales. They would make money because they would have something better to sell. The problem is that, as I already said, the current product offerings are NOT better. In all likelyhood they are worse overall based on all characteristics that market looks at. The fact that a small segment of the market is looking at one single characteristic of the electric car does NOT in any way make it overall better.
-
jschell wrote:
Because, in the the US, the power grid is running at close to max capacity almost everywhere.
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it. Which it does so anyways. Arguing against putting something on the electrical grid because it will overload it is like saying we should have 2 different internets because it will help bandwidth.
jschell wrote:
What?
First it is a matter of adding not switching. Adding costs more.
Second, and again, if the cars were substantially 'better' then the need would drive politics. They are not 'better' in almost all ways. Thus politics is only relevant in that a solution that isn't better is being pushed.'Better'. Now thats an interesting word. Better by what? Better because it produces more power? Nope that dont' matter. Better because it is cleaner? Nope... Hmmm so what gets a new power plant up and running. Some Politician says its 'better' to his followers and it is voted in because of that. Then pushes the agenda through. If that politician claims that sacrificing chickens to the Thunder god Thor is a better means to produce electricity, and his voters buy into it, we will soon have thousands of chicken sacrificing power plants. Wether they produce electricity or not... Well that is actually irelevant. The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
jschell wrote:
Not even close.
Not even close. Most people base their decisions on factors like initial cost, power, brand name, previous experience, recommendations, maintenace costs etc. And for most 'normal' people the first factor, initial cost, is going to be the most significant factor.
The fact that some people buy green and some people avoid green is no more satistically relevant than that some people only buy motorcycles.Did you read what I wrote? Because you just re-itterated it with out my 'outliers' remark. The range of people we are talking about is the extremes (the outliers). All those imbetween care about other markers, of which the most important is cost. Which as I pointed out is why the tax subsidies work. I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer (that is why Hyrbid took the market share they did.. Full e
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it.
That makes no sense. You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern world. Consumer demand - pure and simple. And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market. Niche != All.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer
Operating cost is not the same as purchase price for most people. Not even close.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you are already comming out ahead with an electric car.
You represent a market of one. Nothing you said suggests you understand the concerns of the overall market.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
A) Millions of inefficient gas generators (Also known as "Internal Combustion Engines"), each designed to minimize weight and noise, and only checked once a year when the owner brings their vehicle in for an inspection.
You know less about cars than GW. The car is checked for road worthyness ever year, in some coutries two, but its engine is checked at every service as specified by the manufaturer, you know them, they are those dedicated engineers who actually design them for maximum efficiency and output as well as weight and noise (noise which is controled by the government by the way). The car worthyness check is government controled, the equpment to carry out the test is government regulated, and the individual doing the test government licensed. So sorry, what was that you were sayinog about the benefits of power stations as opposed to car engines? :laugh:
============================== Nothing to say.
Erudite__Eric wrote:
government ... government ... government
The answer to life the universe and everything. ;P
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
That would mean the US does not build a 'new' distribution grid but actually extends it.
That makes no sense. You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
The point is politics alone gets the prize here.
Conspiracy theory nonsense. A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern world. Consumer demand - pure and simple. And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market. Niche != All.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
I may be out 8K this year, but if I get it back in April and my car costs $200 less to drive a month its a no brainer
Operating cost is not the same as purchase price for most people. Not even close.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
you are already comming out ahead with an electric car.
You represent a market of one. Nothing you said suggests you understand the concerns of the overall market.
You are really bad at debate aren't you. The only thing you have done is say that makes no sence and claim conspiracy theory.
jschell wrote:
That makes no sense.
You don't just add a new wire to existing towers to send more electricity.Power Grids For Dummies[^] Read it. Then come back here and tell me how I am wrong about they do not need a new distribution grid, they need to only expand it (which is done anyways because we are always consuming more power).
jschell wrote:
Conspiracy theory nonsense.
A substantial reason that the USSR collapsed was due to the inability for the political structure to keep up with the consumer demand for amentities for the modern worldFor one that is speculation. Another is that the USSR over extended themselves. Another is they played a game they were guarenteed to loose, the Arms Race[^]. All speculation and also irrelevant. The USSR was a socialist state and politics were ENTIRELY different. You can not compare politics of a Democracy to that of a socialist state.
jschell wrote:
Consumer demand - pure and simple.
Thats funny, cause I seem to remember consumers demanding cheaper more efficient vehicles decades ago... But then again I also remember seeing high demand for broadband access and mobile internet access both of which are tightly controlled by a few companies each of which shafts the consumer base, regardless of their demand. Supply and Demand only works if the industries are enterable. This type of industry is not enterable by other parties. You will not wake up tomorrow and here about a new vehicle start up. You will wake up and see how you are being raked over the oil fields by big oil.
jschell wrote:
And there is no evidence that electric cars are substantially overall better than gasoline cars versus the electric when one considers the entire domain of the consumer market.
Niche != All."Better". There you go
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
This is the basis of capitalsm however, industries were smaller then. When talking about the car industry it has literlly billions of lives and trillions of dollars at stake. No leader in the industry can afford (espeacially after the last few years) to venture out and find the 'better' tech. And even if they could 'better' tech does not necessarily win.
Nonsense. As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist. The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Not only that, the car industry is so coupled with the oil industry what makes you think they want anything to change?
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them. Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car. The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
And sometimes we have to force the industry to make the change because they are fat greedy ba$tard$.
Which only proves exactly what I said. If there was something better then the demand would drive the sales. They would make money because they would have something better to sell. The problem is that, as I already said, the current product offerings are NOT better. In all likelyhood they are worse overall based on all characteristics that market looks at. The fact that a small segment of the market is looking at one single characteristic of the electric car does NOT in any way make it overall better.
jschell wrote:
Nonsense.
As an example computers in a real sense didn't exist 40 years ago for most people. But there are countless business activitities that existed then and still exist.
The fact that it doesn't happen in one year doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
And things that are really are 'better' do win. When it is measurably better in the aspects that the majority of the market looks for then it does win. Marginal products fail because they are not winners overall.Do you live under a rock? Things that are 'better' have no guarentee of winning. Simple case Directory of Technology for some very large company is approached by 2 very smart engineers. The engineers both have a similar idea about media storage. The director recals that engineer 1 has a really hot wife and would like to have dinner with them. Aproves engineer 1 request and says "Lets talk about it over dinner with the wives shall we?" In this case no consumers were ever involved. There is no telling wether the first engineers idea is better than the second. Yes, very simple case but this case shows how some approvals have nothing to do with the raw idea. There is such a thing in the world as nepotism and favortism. Another simple example. Tiny garage start up company creates a new phone that has the ability turn lead into gold. Big super company catches wind of this and quickly makes a phone that can turn stinky crap into not so stinky crap and advertises the 'crap' out of it. In case you did not hear, the lead to gold phone just was not better... Right? This situation is of course just made up, but actually occurs quite often (no lead to gold, but still) in industries on the verge of merges/takeovers.
jschell wrote:
The market doesn't work like that. If a company that creates gasoline cars came up with a 'better' electric car, one that actually was better, then they would jump at the chance to start making them.
Which is EXACTLY what would happen if they came up with a 'better' gasoline powered car.
The problem is not that anyone is suppresing something. The problem is nothing that is actually better.Oh wise one you are so right... Wait, let me see. I do recall when I was growing up article about individuals that were making electric cars on their own. Didn't cost them much either. Granted very smart fel
-
So you have no opinoins worth anything about anything other than what you have studied, or acchieved some kind of medal for? (Be it some publicaitons or so) Oh, and by the way, I am merely repeating the opinoins of climate scientists, so I gues you have to accept what I say then. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
-
So you think Chiropractic is phoney do you? How about the number of patients referred to Chiropractors by MDs (in the UK I know of many cases of this)?
============================== Nothing to say.
Chiropractic is B.S. when they do things like 1) sell homeopathy, vitamins and other crap 2) perform cervical manipulations (especially without giving due informed consent for risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke) 3) advise on medical issues unrelated to their field, such as alternative vaccination schedules or eschewing vaccinations etc. 4) offer routine 'adjustments' and diagnose 'subluxations' 5) imply that 'disease is based in the spine' etc. Chiropractic is evidence based when they 6) perform spinal manipulation for lower back pain And that's about it. Pseudodoctors with 4 year pseudodegrees practicing pseudomedicine for gullible patients with big wallets. Spinal manipulation could just as easily be done by physiotherapists without all the hullaballoo.
- F
