Barbarian
Member
Yeah, I was pretty surprised to find that they actually sell that to people with a kit to recharge auto AC.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[_ Old Earth _] Climate change
- Thread starter Corn Pop
- Start date
Yeah, I was pretty surprised to find that they actually sell that to people with a kit to recharge auto AC.
They didn't in 1992.it was repealed.it was also illegal to recharge r12 systems.conversion was mandated.it was changed.1994 was the year all cars were to be r134,r12 was banned in 1993.Dec 31,1993.which I think is strange given Mexico and other nations years later made and sold it.
Barbarian
Member
Offering scientists large sums to write papers favoring your agenda, yeah, that's wrong. On the other hand, funding them to investigate and report on whatever they find, that's not wrong. This is why so few scientists took those guys up on their offer of tens of thousands of dollars if they'd only criticize what climate scientists have found. It's one reason that scientists are ethically required to make clear who was funding the research. As you see, most research funding is done by businesses. It's true that they hope to learn something thereby that might make money for them. But unless they are crooked, they don't specify what results they want.
I thought that most municipalities require developers to put in the infrastructure for such things. Old areas would be a problem, I suppose.
Barbarian
Member
Some countries still manufacture CFCs. The world rarely works the way it should.
Barbarian
Member
And you are telling us this, only because you are utilizing a device that depends on hundreds of thousands of times that man did not fail.
Lots of data to see. If everyone actually checked the evidence. Senator Inhofe would be wasting his breath.
Good point. The correlation between CO2 and global temperatures, by itself, doesn't mean too much. You can find a pretty good correlation between the size of SD cards and global warming, too. The key is finding the mechanism. Would you like to see the evidence for that?
So if you live in a house that's 100 years old, and someone tells you that it's on fire, you're going to laugh because they only have a five minute temperature trend? Seriously?
Not one. Several over the Earth's history.
Because the warming trend is bucking the natural trend. If it wasn't for CO2, the Earth would be cooling off. (because of lower solar activity). Instead, we get two years of record high temperatures, at the very time, it's supposed to be getting colder. Hard to ignore facts like that. The natural cycles are still there; the issue is, that we're overriding them.
Not if said area is old.ie mcansch park built or laid out prior to ww1.the homes had 380 going to them.so does another section of homes built in the 50s.it depends where they build them.some communities are new with underground or aren't.
brewmama
Member
Hooray! I can post here now!
So much to say...
First, it's odd that some post a meaningless chart of R & D funding that does not show the financing of climate change, which is the topic. And the alarmists definitely get the lion's share of the money. And prestige. And purpose. And the skeptics get yanking of funding, harassment, and even fired.
It all began here:
"Scientific research is supported by private industry, governments, universities (largely government dependent) or some combination of the three. Before Gore’s tenure as vice president, the majority of scientists with some knowledge of the subject firmly rejected climate alarmism. During his two terms almost in the White House, Al Gore and the academic liberals executed a quiet purge. They packed the scientific establishment with environmentalists, defunded inconvenient research fields, removed distinguished scientists, and bullied others into silence or equivocation. Huge budgets allocated to climate studies (even before Gore) produced hordes of worthless PhDs, incapable of making a living outside of climate alarmism. But a large segment of scientists and professionals versed in science are independent in a free society, deriving their income from private business. Al Gore and other climate alarmists had a problem."...
" The idea that the oil industry has any interest in opposing “climate action” is preposterous. First, there is a circular argument: in the debate over whether CO2 emissions are harmful, beneficial, or inconsequential, it assumes a priori that they are harmful. Second, this assumption is wrong. Third, even accepting this assumption, and additionally presuming that the emissions should be sharply curtailed, the economic impact on the industry would be non-uniform and likely positive. Most electricity in the US is generated from coal. Natural gas power stations emit 3-4 times less CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” (in quotes because the term is misleading) per kilowatt of electrical energy. Thus, any bona fide effort to decrease CO2 emissions would start by replacing coal with natural gas -- just the opposite of what environmentalists and the Obama administration do in their war on fracking, pipeline laying, and other natgas activities. Since the oil industry is actually the oil and gas industry, it would benefit. "
So much to say...
First, it's odd that some post a meaningless chart of R & D funding that does not show the financing of climate change, which is the topic. And the alarmists definitely get the lion's share of the money. And prestige. And purpose. And the skeptics get yanking of funding, harassment, and even fired.
It all began here:
"Scientific research is supported by private industry, governments, universities (largely government dependent) or some combination of the three. Before Gore’s tenure as vice president, the majority of scientists with some knowledge of the subject firmly rejected climate alarmism. During his two terms almost in the White House, Al Gore and the academic liberals executed a quiet purge. They packed the scientific establishment with environmentalists, defunded inconvenient research fields, removed distinguished scientists, and bullied others into silence or equivocation. Huge budgets allocated to climate studies (even before Gore) produced hordes of worthless PhDs, incapable of making a living outside of climate alarmism. But a large segment of scientists and professionals versed in science are independent in a free society, deriving their income from private business. Al Gore and other climate alarmists had a problem."...
" The idea that the oil industry has any interest in opposing “climate action” is preposterous. First, there is a circular argument: in the debate over whether CO2 emissions are harmful, beneficial, or inconsequential, it assumes a priori that they are harmful. Second, this assumption is wrong. Third, even accepting this assumption, and additionally presuming that the emissions should be sharply curtailed, the economic impact on the industry would be non-uniform and likely positive. Most electricity in the US is generated from coal. Natural gas power stations emit 3-4 times less CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” (in quotes because the term is misleading) per kilowatt of electrical energy. Thus, any bona fide effort to decrease CO2 emissions would start by replacing coal with natural gas -- just the opposite of what environmentalists and the Obama administration do in their war on fracking, pipeline laying, and other natgas activities. Since the oil industry is actually the oil and gas industry, it would benefit. "
brewmama
Member
Alarmist accusations have been just a pretext for silencing scientists and other opponents.
Nevertheless, the alarmists succeeded in excluding from the climate debate most people with knowledge and experience in physics, geology, chemistry, biology, energy production, and other pertinent scientific fields. Their iron curtain cut off scientists, engineers, and executives from the manufacturing, energy, transportation, mining, oil and gas, and chemical industries, as well as independent researchers who made it through years of goring.
For example, the Global Climate Coalition, founded by the National Association of Manufacturers in 1989 and including millions of members from many industries, started collapsing in 1999 and finally folded in 2002. Many of its corporate members also moved to the opposite side, and even voiced support for alarmism. The green protection racket was booming."
Punishing businesses for funding researchers is simply a ban on independent science, imposed by the government through the corporations.
And so on. Good article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._and_the_muzzling_of_independent_science.html
Nevertheless, the alarmists succeeded in excluding from the climate debate most people with knowledge and experience in physics, geology, chemistry, biology, energy production, and other pertinent scientific fields. Their iron curtain cut off scientists, engineers, and executives from the manufacturing, energy, transportation, mining, oil and gas, and chemical industries, as well as independent researchers who made it through years of goring.
For example, the Global Climate Coalition, founded by the National Association of Manufacturers in 1989 and including millions of members from many industries, started collapsing in 1999 and finally folded in 2002. Many of its corporate members also moved to the opposite side, and even voiced support for alarmism. The green protection racket was booming."
Punishing businesses for funding researchers is simply a ban on independent science, imposed by the government through the corporations.
And so on. Good article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/arti..._and_the_muzzling_of_independent_science.html
brewmama
Member
More truth to the lie:
"Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...m-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#3e344e9548e9
per Judith Curry'
"There is much discussion and angst over industrial funding of climate research (see my post on the Grijalva inquisition), but there seems to have been little investigation of the potential for federal research funding to bias climate research – a source of funding that is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding of climate research."
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
"Global warming activists claim vast amounts of untraceable special interest money fund global warming skeptics and give skeptics an unfair advantage in the global warming debate. The undeniable truth is global warming alarmists raise and spend far more money – including far more untraceable special interest “dark money” – than global warming skeptics."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...m-dwarf-warming-denier-research/#3e344e9548e9
per Judith Curry'
"There is much discussion and angst over industrial funding of climate research (see my post on the Grijalva inquisition), but there seems to have been little investigation of the potential for federal research funding to bias climate research – a source of funding that is many orders of magnitude larger than industrial funding of climate research."
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/
In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414359/global-warming-follow-money-henry-payne
brewmama
Member
As for the idol of scientism, (while not climate change per se) the truth is out:
"The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t. Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.
...the problem isn’t just with psychology. There’s an unspoken rule in the pharmaceutical industry that half of all academic biomedical research will ultimately prove false, and in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate. These were not studies published in fly-by-night oncology journals, but blockbuster research featured in Science, Nature, Cell, and the like. The Bayer researchers were drowning in bad studies, and it was to this, in part, that they attributed the mysteriously declining yields of drug pipelines. Perhaps so many of these new drugs fail to have an effect because the basic research on which their development was based isn’t valid.
Since the majority of all investigated hypotheses are false, if positive and negative evidence were written up and accepted for publication in equal proportions, then the majority of articles in scientific journals should report no findings. When tallies are actually made, though, the precise opposite turns out to be true: Nearly every published scientific article reports the presence of an association. There must be massive bias at work."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
"The problem with science is that so much of it simply isn’t. Last summer, the Open Science Collaboration announced that it had tried to replicate one hundred published psychology experiments sampled from three of the most prestigious journals in the field. Scientific claims rest on the idea that experiments repeated under nearly identical conditions ought to yield approximately the same results, but until very recently, very few had bothered to check in a systematic way whether this was actually the case. The OSC was the biggest attempt yet to check a field’s results, and the most shocking. In many cases, they had used original experimental materials, and sometimes even performed the experiments under the guidance of the original researchers. Of the studies that had originally reported positive results, an astonishing 65 percent failed to show statistical significance on replication, and many of the remainder showed greatly reduced effect sizes.
...the problem isn’t just with psychology. There’s an unspoken rule in the pharmaceutical industry that half of all academic biomedical research will ultimately prove false, and in 2011 a group of researchers at Bayer decided to test it. Looking at sixty-seven recent drug discovery projects based on preclinical cancer biology research, they found that in more than 75 percent of cases the published data did not match up with their in-house attempts to replicate. These were not studies published in fly-by-night oncology journals, but blockbuster research featured in Science, Nature, Cell, and the like. The Bayer researchers were drowning in bad studies, and it was to this, in part, that they attributed the mysteriously declining yields of drug pipelines. Perhaps so many of these new drugs fail to have an effect because the basic research on which their development was based isn’t valid.
Since the majority of all investigated hypotheses are false, if positive and negative evidence were written up and accepted for publication in equal proportions, then the majority of articles in scientific journals should report no findings. When tallies are actually made, though, the precise opposite turns out to be true: Nearly every published scientific article reports the presence of an association. There must be massive bias at work."
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2016/05/scientific-regress
brewmama
Member
Climate science is much worse, since it is pretty much entirely based on models, which have been egregiously wrong. There is virtually no validation and replication going on, since the alarmists refuse to share their codes showing how they arrive at their "data" and predictions, to the point of ignoring FOI requests. Very nastily too.
Barbarian
Member
Most research of all kinds is financed by business, not government or other organizations. It's no different with climate, other than those examples you saw, where deniers rather blatantly offered large sums of money to scientists, if they were willing to say what the deniers wanted them to say. Notice, that very few scientists were willing to sell their integrity. And those that were, make every effort to hide it. (because researchers are ethically bound to disclose such connections)
As you learned, the big dollars come from denier organizations, looking for scientists who could be paid off to agree with them. Even worse, lobbyists spent millions in an attempt to buy public officials who might put pressure on government scientists or worse, alter their findings tofit the denier agenda:
The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/groups-say-scientists-pressured-on-warming/
Look for the money. That's where the corruption is. Not too long ago, a Bush political appointee at NASA was caught trying to change scientific reports to fit political objectives:
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation.
"Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss.
The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming.
http://www.geo.utexas.edu/climate/archive/NEWS/Feb8_2006.htm
In this case the denier was doing the harassment. To be fair, he also did what many deniers do. He lied about his credentials. So it was more than his attempt to make science politically correct that got him, I think.
Let's take a look at your unsourced story:
Fact is, even in the 1970s, climate scientists were still overwhelmingly convinced that warming was a coming problem. Would you like to see that? Your guy seems to have bought into the scam perpetrated by Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon) who selectively cut and pasted some stories from news magazines, and ignored actual scientific papers.
So scientists were worried? Turns out...
They weren't. It's deniers doing what they do best. A study of climatology papers from the 1970s, shows the overwhelming majority of climate scientists even then were concerned about warming. Would you like me to show you that?
You've been had on that one, too. There is no doubt that CO2 is warming the planet. The reason why it's doing that so efficiently, is that CO2 absorbs infrared at wavelengths not absorbed by other greenhouse gases. It's very well-established, and even many deniers now admit the fact.
This has nothing to do with whether or not warming is occurring. Here's the conservative thinking, again. "If it has bad consequences for things I like, then it just can't be happening." Not a realistic way to think, in my opinion.
The real fear energy companies have is quite simple. No one has figured out how to put a meter the sun or on the wind. Iowa is currently getting about 29 percent of its electrical power from wind, and that will go to about 40 percent by 2020. And that comes right out of the pockets of you-know-who. So yes, there's a strong economic incentive to deny what's happening, for some corporations.
Barbarian
Member
Well, let's take a look....
Hanson's models.
About 30 years out, his model does remarkably well. Far more precise than anyone thought he could do.
Reality is a pretty solid indicator, for most things don't you think? But you've been misled about the supposed secrecy over the models.
Why not just look it up?
Models and References
The following is a list of benchmark publications for the several GISS global climate models in current or recent use.
GISS Model E
Schmidt, G.A., R. Ruedy, J.E. Hansen, I. Aleinov, N. Bell, M. Bauer, S. Bauer, B. Cairns, V. Canuto, Y. Cheng, A. Del Genio, G. Faluvegi, A.D. Friend, T.M. Hall, Y. Hu, M. Kelley, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, A.A. Lacis, J. Lerner, K.K. Lo, R.L. Miller, L. Nazarenko, V. Oinas, J.P. Perlwitz, Ju. Perlwitz, D. Rind, A. Romanou, G.L. Russell, Mki. Sato, D.T. Shindell, P.H. Stone, S. Sun, N. Tausnev, D. Thresher, and M.-S. Yao, 2006: Present day atmospheric simulations using GISS ModelE: Comparison to in-situ, satellite and reanalysis data. J. Climate, 19, 153-192, doi:10.1175/JCLI3612.1.
Schmidt, G.A., M. Kelley, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, G.L. Russell, I. Aleinov, M. Bauer, S.E. Bauer, M.K. Bhat, R. Bleck, V. Canuto, Y.-H. Chen, Y. Cheng, T.L. Clune, A. Del Genio, R. de Fainchtein, G. Faluvegi, J.E. Hansen, R.J. Healy, N.Y. Kiang, D. Koch, A.A. Lacis, A.N. LeGrande, J. Lerner, K.K. Lo, E.E. Matthews, S. Menon, R.L. Miller, V. Oinas, A.O. Oloso, J.P. Perlwitz, M.J. Puma, W.M. Putman, D. Rind, A. Romanou, M. Sato, D.T. Shindell, S. Sun, R.A. Syed, N. Tausnev, K. Tsigaridis, N. Unger, A. Voulgarakis, M.-S. Yao, and J. Zhang, 2014: Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 6, no. 1, 141-184, doi:10.1002/2013MS000265.
GISS Middle Atmosphere Model and Model 3
Rind, D., R. Suozzo, N.K. Balachandran, A. Lacis, and G. Russell, 1988: The GISS Global Climate-Middle Atmosphere Model. Part I: Model structure and climatology. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 329-370, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045<0329:TGGCMA>2.0.CO;2.
Rind, D., R. Suozzo, and N.K. Balachandran, 1988: The GISS Global Climate-Middle Atmosphere Model. Part II: Model variability due to interactions between planetary waves, the mean circulation and gravity wave drag. J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 371-386, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045<0371:TGGCMA>2.0.CO;2.
Rind, D., J. Lerner, J. Jonas, and C. McLinden, 2007: The effects of resolution and model physics on tracer transports in the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies general circulation models. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D09315, doi:10.1029/2006JD007476.
Rind, D., J. Lean, J. Lerner, P. Lonergan, and A. Leboissetier, 2008: Exploring the stratospheric/tropospheric response to solar forcing. J. Geophys. Res., 113, D24103, doi:10.1029/2008JD010114.
GISS Atmosphere-Ocean Model (GR)
Russell, G.L., J.R. Miller, and D. Rind, 1995: A coupled atmosphere-ocean model for transient climate change studies. Atmos.-Ocean, 33, 683-730.
Russell, G.L., 2007: Step-mountain technique applied to an atmospheric C-grid model, or how to improve precipitation near mountains. M. Weather Rev., 135, 4060-4076, doi:10.1175/2007MWR2048.1.
Russell, G.L., A.A. Lacis, D.H. Rind, C. Colose, and R.F. Opstbaum, 2013: Fast atmosphere-ocean model runs with large changes in CO2. Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 5787-5792, doi:10.1002/2013GL056755.
GISS Model II
Hansen, J., G. Russell, D. Rind, P. Stone, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, and L. Travis, 1983: Efficient three-dimensional global models for climate studies: Models I and II. M. Weather Rev., 111, 609-662, doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1983)111<0609:ETDGMF>2.0.CO;2.
Hansen, J., A. Lacis, D. Rind, G. Russell, P. Stone, I. Fung, R. Ruedy, and J. Lerner, 1984: Climate sensitivity: Analysis of feedback mechanisms. In Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, AGU Geophysical Monograph 29, Maurice Ewing Vol. 5. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi, Eds. American Geophysical Union, pp. 130-163.
What else would you like to know?
,
Last edited:
A lot of truth if you logically take to the extreme sugesstions.
Barbarian
Member
Don't confuse ecology (study of organisms and their interactions with biotic and abiotic factors) with enviornmentalism, which is something quite different. Ayn Rand was a bit of a cuckoo on so many things, this included. There are well-qualified ecologists who don't subscribe to environmentalism at all.
In my case, part of my graduate work was in learning how to do sustainable pest control programs using pesticides that might otherwise become a hazard in the environment. Using a mix of chemical and non-chemical controls, it actually works better than either alone. Who would have guessed that it would have a practical application in keeping Mrs. Barbarian's marigolds safe from snails?
Perhaps it would be useful for you to learn the difference. Rand clearly never bothered.
Like so many other things.
In my case, part of my graduate work was in learning how to do sustainable pest control programs using pesticides that might otherwise become a hazard in the environment. Using a mix of chemical and non-chemical controls, it actually works better than either alone. Who would have guessed that it would have a practical application in keeping Mrs. Barbarian's marigolds safe from snails?
Perhaps it would be useful for you to learn the difference. Rand clearly never bothered.
Like so many other things.
I'm sure she knew.ecology is the study of the environment. I can post a local water issue.food sources need soil. If fertilizer causes fish death then what about food for farming.never mind the issue with getting silica.drain sand from where do that and fish dies.see the problem?
Barbarian
Member
I don't think so. It seems she equated it with tree-hugging, which is quite another thing. People who are primarily political, on the left or on the right, have little understanding of what ecology actually means.
If that much fertilizer is running off from agricultural land, then the farmers are idiots. And few of them are idiots. Most of that fertilizer is really from yokels trying to make their lawns greener than the next guy. So they over-fertilize and cause all sorts of run-off problems.
But yes, I got the issue. In Asia, it's the reverse. Enclosures for shrimp and other seafood are often over-fertilized in the same sort of stupidity, and eventually this causes problems for the flora around the lagoon.