Stroke vs. Aiming

[Dan White]

That's not what my physics professor girlfriend said. Her research was not climate related but she said that climate is affected by industrial output and that even if some projects had fudged numbers the overwhelming body of work is good and peer reviewed.

But that's a debate for another place.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

With all due respect to your physics professor girlfriend, she doesn't know what she's talking about. You are using an argument called "appeal to authority." You just said she has no knowledge of climate related research, yet you use her as an authority because she is an expert in a different field. She basically just said that a lot of people say it is true, so it must be. I'd be glad to have a debate with her as I've been studying this issue since 1998. It's bogus.

How about this argument: I've been learning and playing pool for most of my life. My expertise is not in CTE, but the overwhelming number of experts who look into CTE say it doesn't work.

 

[GoldenFlash]

With all due respect to your physics professor girlfriend, she doesn't know what she's talking about. You are using an argument called "appeal to authority." You just said she has no knowledge of climate related research, yet you use her as an authority because she is an expert in a different field. She basically just said that a lot of people say it is true, so it must be. I'd be glad to have a debate with her as I've been studying this issue since 1998. It's bogus.[/QUOTE]<===of course it's bogus


Well now.......this is the only thing I've seen you post that I completely agree with.
You must be wiser than your posts about pool shooting indicate.
Good for you.

 

[Dan White]

With all due respect to your physics professor girlfriend, she doesn't know what she's talking about. You are using an argument called "appeal to authority." You just said she has no knowledge of climate related research, yet you use her as an authority because she is an expert in a different field. She basically just said that a lot of people say it is true, so it must be. I'd be glad to have a debate with her as I've been studying this issue since 1998. It's bogus.[/QUOTE]<===of course it's bogus


Well now.......this is the only thing I've seen you post that I completely agree with.
You must be wiser than your posts about pool shooting indicate.
Good for you.

Otherwise normal people turn into pretzels when it comes time to explaining how CTE works. The reason for that is simple, but I'm not engaging in those discussions anymore.

 

[cookie man]

Otherwise normal people turn into pretzels when it comes time to explaining how CTE works. The reason for that is simple, but I'm not engaging in those discussions anymore.

Still trolling CTE i see.

 

[Dan White]

Still trolling CTE i see.

My point wasn't about CTE, it was about global warming. I was trying to put into perspective for John how baseless his argument is in a format he is familiar with.

I agree this isn't the right thread for that discussion, so if he wants to learn more facts I can direct him to some good sources through pm.

 

[JB Cases]

With all due respect to your physics professor girlfriend, she doesn't know what she's talking about. You are using an argument called "appeal to authority." You just said she has no knowledge of climate related research, yet you use her as an authority because she is an expert in a different field. She basically just said that a lot of people say it is true, so it must be. I'd be glad to have a debate with her as I've been studying this issue since 1998. It's bogus.

How about this argument: I've been learning and playing pool for most of my life. My expertise is not in CTE, but the overwhelming number of experts who look into CTE say it doesn't work.

Actually I didn't say that she doesn't know anything about climate science. I simply said she doesn't agree with your assessment. I said that climate science isn't her area of research.

But again it's a debate for another time. I happen to have done quite a bit of reading about it as well and I go with the idea that man is influencing the planet to warm faster than any other time in history.

But moreover I go with the hedge your bet concept where we can certainly act like it's a real danger and transform into better stewards of the planet. The benefits would still be fantastic for humanity even if climate change isn't real. But if it is real and we don't act then hundreds of millions of people will be displaced in our lifetime.

I certainly like getting 500 miles for $18 because of my hybrid. As opposed to spending $20 every 100 miles when I drive the van. Would be great for the world and the global economy if we could all reduce our carbon footprint.

My friend just put a solar array on his warehouse. His electricity bill went to less than I spend per month for my house. Some months he sells electricity to the utility.

He did all the calculations, sourced the panels and parts and built it in-house. Whether or not global warming is man-made or not his warehouse no longer needs to rely on coal being mined, transported and burnt to run his business. He now has all the power he needs as long as the sun continues to send heat towards earth.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[louieatienza]

I certainly like getting 500 miles for $18 because of my hybrid. As opposed to spending $20 every 100 miles when I drive the van. Would be great for the world and the global economy if we could all reduce our carbon footprint.

I think the amount of savings are regional. I thought about a hybrid or electric vehicle up here in the metro NYC suburbs. The rate per kW/h was high enough that charging an electric vehicle would cost as much in terms of dollars electricity as pumping gas. And this was before gas came down a little. Had this discussion with a friend in another forum, from Texas. Their rates were like half or a third what we pay up here, so down there, it would seem worthwhile.

Source of electricity is another thing. We get a good portion of electricity from a nearby nuclear plant, which will be closing down in a couple years. But I wonder how much electricity we still get from coal up here...

 

[LAMas]

A new study shows that*lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles*could have negative health and environmental impacts, and offers suggestions on how to improve this technology.

The study, conducted by Abt Associates for*the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),*took a look at the materials and processes within a lithium-ion battery’s life cycle in hopes of discovering impacts on public health and the environment. It used*data directly from lithium-ion battery suppliers, manufacturers and recyclers for research.*

The study was led by Jay Smith (Abt senior analyst and co-lead of the life-cycle assessment) and*Shanika Amarakoon (Abt associate who co-led the life-cycle assessment).*

The researchers found that*batteries using cathodes with nickel and cobalt and solvent-based electrode processing are the highest risks for negative*health and environmental impacts.*These impacts are a result of the production, processing and use of cobalt and nickel metal compounds. The environmental impacts include resource depletion, global warming, and ecological toxicity while the health impacts are poor*respiratory, pulmonary and neurological effects. - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Lith...atively/article31678.htm#sthash.C2YxDFd5.dpuf

 

[JB Cases]

A new study shows that*lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles*could have negative health and environmental impacts, and offers suggestions on how to improve this technology.

The study, conducted by Abt Associates for*the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),*took a look at the materials and processes within a lithium-ion battery’s life cycle in hopes of discovering impacts on public health and the environment. It used*data directly from lithium-ion battery suppliers, manufacturers and recyclers for research.*

The study was led by Jay Smith (Abt senior analyst and co-lead of the life-cycle assessment) and*Shanika Amarakoon (Abt associate who co-led the life-cycle assessment).*

The researchers found that*batteries using cathodes with nickel and cobalt and solvent-based electrode processing are the highest risks for negative*health and environmental impacts.*These impacts are a result of the production, processing and use of cobalt and nickel metal compounds. The environmental impacts include resource depletion, global warming, and ecological toxicity while the health impacts are poor*respiratory, pulmonary and neurological effects. - See more at: http://www.dailytech.com/Study+Lith...atively/article31678.htm#sthash.C2YxDFd5.dpuf

Yes I have seen those assertions. Yin/Yang. It's hard not to have some impact when you're doing things at scale. The whole point of undertaking any endeavor is to go as far as you can go and adjust as needed. We didn't know at the beginning of the industrial revolution that factory farming animals would cause methane levels to rise dramatically and reduce the Earth's ability to deflect heat from the sun. Back then no one knew that an ozone layer existed or what importance it has.

We explore all the alternatives and sometimes we find consequences that were not foreseen and have to adjust accordingly.

For example I don't donate my electronics to recyclers who send them to China to be torn apart by hand to the detriment of the health of the people who do that work after it was uncovered that this is the practice.

Burn coal we kill coal miners. Burn oil we kill the environment. Build batteries we cause cancer. Fracking could be destroying the foundation our land sits on. Lots of issues that come with the production of energy. Enough to keep us busy for a long time figuring out how to balance it all out.

Still not a reason to make a declaration that man-caused climate change is not real and stop trying to figure out better ways to produce energy and how live with less destruction of the ecosystem we inhabit.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

Notice the first line and first paragraph.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[JB Cases]

I think the amount of savings are regional. I thought about a hybrid or electric vehicle up here in the metro NYC suburbs. The rate per kW/h was high enough that charging an electric vehicle would cost as much in terms of dollars electricity as pumping gas. And this was before gas came down a little. Had this discussion with a friend in another forum, from Texas. Their rates were like half or a third what we pay up here, so down there, it would seem worthwhile.

Source of electricity is another thing. We get a good portion of electricity from a nearby nuclear plant, which will be closing down in a couple years. But I wonder how much electricity we still get from coal up here...

Our hybrid doesn't plug in. Batteries are charged through the braking.

I think it's pretty clear that the savings are significant over purely combustion engines no matter where you are. Everything I have read indicates that and so far taking trips has shown it to me personally. My next new van will be a hybrid if it can handle the trailer.

I love it that my hybrid doesn't idle. It goes into a sleep state where it maintains the interior temp and wakes up instantly when it's time to move. Pretty "smart" car overall and it's a cheap one. I think that a big part of our future is going to be the computer assisted consumption of energy which will allow us to consume the amount we need but not to waste it when we shouldn't.

To me this is along the lines of the aiming discussions. By breaking down the game into parts we can discover the nuance and where we can be more efficient in training and implementation. Over time this produces better players on average. Sharing of information allows everyone to use best practices no matter where they originated. Crowd sourcing allows us to refine those practices to distill them into the most efficient versions possible.

Then having those best practices it is up to individuals to adopt them and to community to promote them.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Vorpal Cue]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Tonto (disguised as a door) gets his knob shot off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNDe0kEKrqY

 

[Dan White]

Actually I didn't say that she doesn't know anything about climate science. I simply said she doesn't agree with your assessment. I said that climate science isn't her area of research.

Which means mentioning that she is in physics is irrelevant. She clearly doesn't know the actual science, particularly if her main reason for saying it is real is that most of the science is peer reviewed and therefore must be true.

But again it's a debate for another time. I happen to have done quite a bit of reading about it as well and I go with the idea that man is influencing the planet to warm faster than any other time in history.

You are "going with it" because it fits your political view. The rest of your discussion is about politics. You also want it both ways. You want to say it is real, but then you say if it isn't real then forcing a carbon market and billions upon billions of taxes upon people is good for progress somehow.

If you want to get back to the actual science (which I don't think you really want to do), I suggest you start by reading this post and follow the links. I wrote this to MuchoBurrito who was bullying other members and insulting their intelligence. It turns out he's a coward who disappears the moment anybody challenges him. My post in the link below is admittedly pissy because of how he was treating other people.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5726145&postcount=543

 

[JB Cases]

Which means mentioning that she is in physics is irrelevant. She clearly doesn't know the actual science, particularly if her main reason for saying it is real is that most of the science is peer reviewed and therefore must be true.



You are "going with it" because it fits your political view. The rest of your discussion is about politics. You also want it both ways. You want to say it is real, but then you say if it isn't real then forcing a carbon market and billions upon billions of taxes upon people is good for progress somehow.

If you want to get back to the actual science (which I don't think you really want to do), I suggest you start by reading this post and follow the links. I wrote this to MuchoBurrito who was bullying other members and insulting their intelligence. It turns out he's a coward who disappears the moment anybody challenges him. My post in the link below is admittedly pissy because of how he was treating other people.

http://forums.azbilliards.com/showpost.php?p=5726145&postcount=543

No I mentioned her profession to distinguish her from my waitress girlfriend who has no professional scientific background and to distinguish from myself who also has no professional scientific background. Nothing I said would have allowed you to assume what she knows or understands about the actual science disciplines involved in climate study.

Actually my political view is not relevant. Many prominent conservatives also believe that man-made climate change is real and dangerous to humanity.

There are many moving parts in this field Dan. You can post links to bolster your view and I can post links to support mine.

Again the most important point for me is if it's real there will be drastic consequences and if not then what will happen will happen anyway. So if we prepare for the worst and the worst doesn't happen then great. If we fail to prepare and it happens then we are screwed harder.

As for so called carbon taxes...The money will go into funding research, development and production of ways to deal with climate change. That provides tons of new jobs and a great amount of innovation.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Dan White]

No I mentioned her profession to distinguish her from my waitress girlfriend who has no professional scientific background and to distinguish from myself who also has no professional scientific background. Nothing I said would have allowed you to assume what she knows or understands about the actual science disciplines involved in climate study.

You are dodging. You mentioned your physicist girlfriend to make the claim that since she says it is real then it probably is because she's a physicist. You are like the guy who thinks all black people must know each other.

I understand perfectly well that, respectfully, she doesn't know anything about the actual science that has been done and whether it is sound science. To say that it is peer reviewed research means nothing if the peer review process has been corrupted, which in many cases it has. You don't seem to know the history of these scientists and the UEA document dump that exposed so much of the corruption.

But corrpution set aside, the science is bad.

Actually my political view is not relevant. Many prominent conservatives also believe that man-made climate change is real and dangerous to humanity.

Name five prominent conservatives who believe that. No, wait, name two.

There are many moving parts in this field Dan. You can post links to bolster your view and I can post links to support mine.

My sources, like Climataudit.org are science auditing sites. They look at the science in depth and contact the author of a paper for clarification and so on. It's like online peer review. I can't force you to investigate the science, but there is a way to do it even if you don't have a technical background. If you are unwilling to learn why the basic science is generally crap, then there's no arguing with you. You want to believe what you want to believe, and I'm pretty sure you think I'm a conspiracy theorist. One way to settle that score... look into the basic research and find out for yourself. Follow the links I provided and ask questions and eventually you'll see what I'm saying.

Again the most important point for me is if it's real there will be drastic consequences and if not then what will happen will happen anyway. So if we prepare for the worst and the worst doesn't happen then great. If we fail to prepare and it happens then we are screwed harder.

As for so called carbon taxes...The money will go into funding research, development and production of ways to deal with climate change. That provides tons of new jobs and a great amount of innovation.

This is all politics. If taxing the world's economy on a boondoggle for politicians doesn't scare you, then I don't know what to say. There is a big purple unicorn heading for earth at light speed and is going to destroy the earth, so they say. You think it is a good thing to divert research money away from helping the millions who die in Africa on a non-existant problem? Technology moves when it is needed. When we run out of oil in 1000 years, then you'll see some kick ass alternative technology in a heartbeat.

 

[mohrt]

TIL pool aiming is a global climate emergency

 

[LAMas]

What has LAMas wrought?

 

[JB Cases]

What has LAMas wrought?

I didn't know your question was a continuation of something going on in NPR.

 

[JB Cases]

You are dodging. You mentioned your physicist girlfriend to make the claim that since she says it is real then it probably is because she's a physicist. You are like the guy who thinks all black people must know each other.

Nope, I said she doesn't agree with you. So I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know the science? And they don't understand the peer review process?

When exactly was the peer review process corrupted? Who has corrupted it? Are all the scientists doing the reviews of all the papers corrupt? Who is paying them?

Was global warming considered to be real BEFORE the alleged corruption of the peer review process? If so is it not real if some papers get through which might not be totally right? Sounds to me like you're more than willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this.

I understand perfectly well that, respectfully, she doesn't know anything about the actual science that has been done and whether it is sound science. To say that it is peer reviewed research means nothing if the peer review process has been corrupted, which in many cases it has. You don't seem to know the history of these scientists and the UEA document dump that exposed so much of the corruption.

Actually I did read about it. And?

http://www.livescience.com/17257-scientists-cope-personal-climate-debate.html

In 2009, an unknown hacker stole thousands of documents, including emails between climate researchers, from a UEA server and released a portion of them publicly. Climate-change skeptics pounced on the emails as evidence that the researchers were fudging data and suppressing debate in the climate field; however, multiple investigations, including by the researchers' universities, independent panels, and the U.K. House of Commons, found no evidence of scientific misconduct in the documents. The new document dump reportedly includes documents taken in 2009, but not released earlier.

But corrpution set aside, the science is bad.

Or maybe it's not good enough.

Name five prominent conservatives who believe that. No, wait, name two.

Here you go. https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change

My sources, like Climataudit.org are science auditing sites. They look at the science in depth and contact the author of a paper for clarification and so on. It's like online peer review. I can't force you to investigate the science, but there is a way to do it even if you don't have a technical background. If you are unwilling to learn why the basic science is generally crap, then there's no arguing with you. You want to believe what you want to believe, and I'm pretty sure you think I'm a conspiracy theorist. One way to settle that score... look into the basic research and find out for yourself. Follow the links I provided and ask questions and eventually you'll see what I'm saying.

Again, you're CHOOSING what to believe just as I am. You didn't do the research or publish the papers. Nor did you write the opposition papers. You are accepting whatever sounds the best to you and going with it.

I am not. I am of the position, again, that we humans can do far better in managing the environment to at least insure that we are not contributing to the climate changing for the worse. It's really a simple proposition.

We change all the time for the better which is why we don't have slavery and child labor and sweatshops and don't allow companies to pipe their waste into the river behind the factory.

There is no downside to going greener. If for no other reason than to stretch out the length of time we have until the fossil fuels we can extract from the earth runs out.

This is all politics. If taxing the world's economy on a boondoggle for politicians doesn't scare you, then I don't know what to say. There is a big purple unicorn heading for earth at light speed and is going to destroy the earth, so they say. You think it is a good thing to divert research money away from helping the millions who die in Africa on a non-existant problem? Technology moves when it is needed. When we run out of oil in 1000 years, then you'll see some kick ass alternative technology in a heartbeat.

A boondongle for politicians? Taxing the world's economy? What IS the world's economy made up of Dan? Diverting research money? Is there a finite pool of money on the planet Dan? Why can't we divert money away from building weapons of destruction and towards saving African kids if the amount is a problem?

Technology moves when it's needed? No Dan, it doesn't. Ask China how they got to the point of being 100 years behind the USA in the development of their tech. Nevermind I will answer it for you. The mandarins (government) took over in China and closed the borders and drove out all outside influence literally condemning China to several hundred years of virtual stagnation.

Now they are catching up and even surpassing the USA in some areas. Climate change and environmental pollution are quite real to them and they have committed to overhauling Chinese society to be greener and energy independent through renewable sources. Thus they are investing in tech now that will likely make them the global leaders in the next 20 years. (by the way one of your climate change denial sites says we only have 130 years of oil left, not 1000)

But if we can't even agree on aiming systems how would we ever agree on something as complicated as man's influence on the planet's biosphere. Yes I agree that some data has been fudged along the way...but I think that nevertheless climate change is real and has been accelerated through human activity. Therefore it doesn't hurt us to do all we can to reduce our negative impact. And there is zero reason why we can't save millions of live of starving children in Africa at the same time. In fact the two endeavors dovetail quite neatly.

 

[Dan White]

Nope, I said she doesn't agree with you. So I guess everyone who doesn't agree with you doesn't know the science? And they don't understand the peer review process?

When exactly was the peer review process corrupted? Who has corrupted it? Are all the scientists doing the reviews of all the papers corrupt? Who is paying them?

Was global warming considered to be real BEFORE the alleged corruption of the peer review process? If so is it not real if some papers get through which might not be totally right? Sounds to me like you're more than willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this.

John, you are hopelessly clueless on this subject. I realize saying that isn't exactly the best way to change someone's mind over to your side of the argument, but I don't think that is ever possible with you. You want to debate exactly what your girlfriend said and how she said it and where the commas are, yet you know extremely little about this subject. I'm not trying to be personally insulting, I'm really trying to get you to see that a casual reading of websites isn't going to teach you anything. You are what Rush would call a "low information voter." However, in this case, you are a low information AGW supporter.

Anyway, I know this will go in one ear and out the other, but for those interested, in a nutshell, I did not say that ALL peer review has been corrupted. Much of the peer review within the climate change clique of scientists HAS been corrupted, and it is all there in the UEA emails.

Actually I did read about it. And?

LOL. You read ABOUT it. You never read the actual emails and followed the chain of back and forth and what this scientist was saying to that about hiding information from FOIA requests, and the like.

http://www.livescience.com/17257-scientists-cope-personal-climate-debate.html

Complete BS. Read the actual communications for God's sake!

Here you go. https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change

This is a wacko organization putting the worst possible spin on their positions. Even so, the actual conservatives in that list dismissed AGW as minor, if anything at all. The others are at best RINO's and ones trying to get elected at that. None of them, except probably Cruz, has actually looked at the science.

Again, you're CHOOSING what to believe just as I am. You didn't do the research or publish the papers. Nor did you write the opposition papers. You are accepting whatever sounds the best to you and going with it.

Have you no critical thinking skills? I've read various research papers, and the critiques of those papers, and the critiques of the critiques, and the critiques of the critiques of the critiques, and the 500 comments from various people online with their own expertise. You very quickly begin to understand the scope of bad science that this whole thing is built on.

If you don't believe me, go ask the co-founder of Greenpeace. He has come out and agreed that global warming is a crock. He says it exists because everybody, government, scientists, media, wall street, all benefit from it being real.

But if we can't even agree on aiming systems how would we ever agree on something as complicated as man's influence on the planet's biosphere. Yes I agree that some data has been fudged along the way...but I think that nevertheless climate change is real and has been accelerated through human activity.

OK, so "some" data has been fudged. What percentage of data would you say is fudged? I'm assuming you think it is negligible since you "nevertheless" still think climate change is real. You believe this because you google the subject and find some advocacy groups that tell you it is real. You have no interest in doing the work of going to the source material and learning for yourself. If you did, you'd come back here and tell me you can't believe it, but I was right.

Start with this simple thing. Go to climateaudit.org and scroll down the left side to "Favorite Posts" then click on McKitrick: What is the hockey stick debate about?" It's a good basic start. Also look at the "Wegman and North Reports for Newbies." These articles all have to do with Michael Mann's hockey stick that shows temperatures rising dramatically in recent years. If the IPCC (which oversees climate change research) had a logo, it would definitely be the hockey stick graph. Spoiler alert: the graph is bogus, and is proven to be as such in about 10 different ways.

If you or anybody reading this has any interest in what's real about global warming, take a look at this information. Truthfully, it will take you probably a few weeks, spending your evenings reading thought this stuff, which I found fascinating. It's like an Ocean's 11 heist being perpetrated on the world.

For the record, even most skeptics (the word "denier" is incredibly offensive) do believe that human activity does increase temperatures, but that amount is very small, and the impact of carbon emissions peters out the higher the carbon levels in the atmosphere are.

The fact that nobody reading this is going to look at just the hockey stick debate is the main reason people like John believe all this stuff is real. What's real is guys like Al Gore making hundreds of millions of dollars off this scam.