Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Jim Cripwell

0
0

Certeri, you write “Do you really trust James Inhofe or Newt Gingrich or Al Gore or Barack Obama to know more about science than scientists?”

No I dont, but you are missing the point. Doctors, lawyers and professionsal engineers, are by laws passed by politicians, self-regulating bodies. Scientists has no equivalent legal self-reguilatory authority. But this does not mean that dont have an obligation to practice some sort of self-regulatory function. And if they fail to carry out a reasonable amount of self-regulation, then the politicians will step in, and do it for them.

That is the issue. The scientific authorities have been lax in self-regulation. The politicians dont like it. My suggestion is that the scientific authorities need to take notice of what the politicians are doing, and make a better job of self-regulation in the future.


Comment on Science is not about certainty by WebHubTelescope

0
0

The link is truncated. I assume that is in Energy Fuels journal?
It is probably behind a paywall anyways so what is the key point in your article?

I have a pragmatic view bases on material science.

Co2 is like any other dopant. The dopants that go into the silicon that makes your computers compute are added at elevated temperature. It’s not like the dopants like to stay in the silicon at that temperature, just that they have sufficient thermal energy to diffuse into the silicon substrate. Then when the silicon is quenched the dopants will stay put.

That’s what we are seeing with co2. Lots of the excess partial pressure is taken up by the ocean, yet the diffusional random walk of the molecules guarantees that a large fraction are staying in the atmosphere.

Edim the contrarian would argue about this on a computer that he would assert could not work.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by A fan of *MORE* discourse

0
0
John, for many skeptics there is exists an insurmountable cognitive obstruction to "defining ‘science’ as that which follows the scientific method as it was defined for hundreds of years?" Namely, per the <i>American Institute of Physics</i> (AIP) historical survey "<a href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm" rel="nofollow">The Discovery of Global Warming</a>", the traditional definition of science legitimizes the opinion of most climate scientists that AGW is real, serious, and accelerating. Which is a reality that committed denialists cannot accept … hence they seek to alter the very definition of science.

Comment on Science is not about certainty by vukcevic

0
0

Good luck, hope you do find something conflicting in the assumptions made or contrary to the basic laws of physics. Why not have a go, the N. pole’s magnetic data you can get from
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag-web/#igrfwmm
I estimated CO2 factor but you could calculate a more accurate value.
Let me know how you get on.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by kim

0
0

The Tuath be known,
Doccia like Mercy.
========

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by kim

0
0

I’ve asked Spencer Weart, repeatedly, when he is going to write ‘The Discovery of Global Cooling’.
=====================

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Wagathon

0
0

Clapper was not a government bureaucrat and what makes America different from India is not just geography. Your moralizing is not substitute for a society grounded in respect for individual liberty, economic freedom and personal responsibility. A cash for clunkers philosophy makes you feel good about yourself and that is OK with me but don’t think it brings more relief from misery, poverty and death that those who actually provide something of value to society — like Mr. Crapper.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Wagathon

0
0

The path to whirled peas is more freedom. Capitalism works — literally — and socialism doesn’t — litterally.


Comment on What separates science from non-science? by kim

0
0

My clunker went in the crapper and the rising tide floated all bots.
========================

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by David Springer

0
0

NW | June 1, 2012 at 2:03 am | Reply

” At any rate it would be damn strange and theoretically shattering to discover that all humans were exactly the same in some respect that matters for adaptation.”

Prepare to be shattered. We are all here through sexual reproduction. In hard times many organisms have the ability to reproduce asexually. None of us can regenerate lost limbs like a lizard. That would be handy in adapting to certain situations. We are all warm blooded which has adaptational disadvantages. None of us have gills which makes it difficult to survive extreme floods. The list goes on and on. We humans are more exactly alike than not and except for sharing a common genetic code and some basic cellular structures such as ribosomes and ATP we can be quite different from other living things.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Wagathon

0
0

Please close the lid before flushing Western civilization…

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Oliver K. Manuel

0
0

Mixing science with non-science begins when the US National Academy of Sciences, a private, self-sustaining group reviews budgets of NSA, DOE, NASA, EPA, DARPA, NOAA, etc. for Congress.

“The Sacred Science” of the Church that that threatened Copernicus and Galileo in 1543 and 1633 differs only in name from the “The Sacred Science” of the US National Academy of Sciences, the UK’s Royal Society, and the UN’s IPCC, in ignoring the core ‘Sol’ (Sun) that Copernicus discovered and sketched: http://tinyurl.com/7qx7zxs

My conclusions as a researcher in space and nuclear sciences since 1960 dovetail with those in the book on “Sacred Science”:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-90-8686-752-3/?MUD=MP

and David Icke’s address at the Oxford Union Debating Society 3-4 years ago on the worldwide fascist Orwellian state:

010 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jgebieGXPk
112 min: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCwAcJ78a8A

The instinct of survival and fear of “nuclear fires” that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 convinced world leaders to

a.) Establish the United Nations in October 1945
b.) Obscure information on nuclear energy and
c.) Change the interior of stars in 1946** by
d.) Compromising almost every field of science
e.) Before surfacing as Climategate in 2009

**Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946); “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946)

Documentation of these events is available here:

http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/#comment-70

And in ten publications and five videos in my abbreviated profile

http://omanuel.wordpress.com/about/

Although racism, nationalism, the threat of nuclear war, and unequal access to medical care have been reduced as the result of these 1945-46 decisions, . . .

Constitutional limits on political leaders and constitutional protections of the rights of citizens have been seriously damaged as science became a tool of propaganda that denied citizens access to reliable information needed to make informed decisions.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear & Space Science
http://www.omatumr.com

PS – My research mentor, Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda [then Dr. Kazuo Kuroda of the Imperial University of Tokyo] was the first scientist to examine the ashes of Hiroshima in August 1945.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by David Springer

0
0

“What percentage of perverts have porn in their possession when arrested?”

Probably a slightly smaller percentage than bank robbers who have shoes on their feet. What’s your point?

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Latimer Alder

0
0

@eli

You do not catch cholera from people pissing in the river.

That is crap.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by ceteris non paribus

0
0

Well – the odds are pretty low.

One person’s evidence for believing in deceptive collusion on an international scale is another person’s evidence that the world is, in fact, warming.

BTW – BEST showed warming.
Are you suggesting that Dr Curry is in on the big hoax?


Comment on What separates science from non-science? by David Springer

0
0

DocMartyn | May 31, 2012 at 8:53 pm | Reply
“People cannot pay for sewage treatment themselves”

Bad example. Ever heard of private septic systems? If not I can show you mine. I not only paid for it I designed it, built it, use it, and maintain it. The only thing I didn’t do was give final approval to the engineering plans and then later inspect and certify it for operation. Approvals and certification were the task of the regional public water authority. Given the amount of property taxes I pay I can make an excellent case that I paid for the inspections too.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Wagathon

0
0

Why do Leftists continue to pretend that they have a lock on respect for a clean environment to begin with. Global warming alarmism is nothing but a distraction from serious truly are interested in the environment. The Medium is the Message: the EPA has did more to pollute the culture when it called CO2 than any Indian finding relief in the Ganges.

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by David Springer

0
0

I can’t believe how much time and money is wasted on climate research when there are far more important things deserving of our attention. One of those things is how much pop can a pop glass hold if a pop glass could pop ass (we love you Mayor Bloomberg, you’d be a cheap clown at twice the salary).

Comment on What separates science from non-science? by Latimer Alder

0
0

@joe

I’m going to regret this but would you care to give an example of

‘E=MC2 does not work with pressure and stored energy in a multi-velocity setting’

And did you finally get the ideas of Conservation of Angular Momentum sorted in your head? That was your stumbling block a while back.

Comment on Gamesmanship by gbaikie

0
0

“Let’s stop CO2 levels rising out of all control.”
Ok.
First, we do not have have control of CO2- in terms
of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Should it be a policy that we attempt to control Global CO2?

If we could control global CO2, what is a good level of CO2?

If we could control global CO2, would agree the higher levels of CO2
could be beneficial to most people and life in general on Earth?

How much is it worth to develop a system to control CO2?
Roughly: millions, billions, or trillions of dollars?

If we assume there will economic value in terms of crop production
from elevated CO2 levels, could this be a useful metric to assign
value?
Suppose at certain level above today’s level, there was a 10% increase
in production of crops worldwide.
One could calculate the total value of crops, and times this by 10%
to indicate the gross value of such a measure to have increased CO2 levels. One also assume if one increasing crop production, one would need less land grow these crops. And so using less land could also be regarded as a value.

So I am going not do a comprehensive analysis, but grab say US farm production, as example.
Cotton value per acre: 325.00
Corn (grain) 280.00
Wheat 110.00
Here:
“This food and fiber sector accounts for about one-eighth of the U.S. gross domestic product ($1.26 trillion in 2000) ”
So one could say a 10% increase would worth 126 billion per year.
Or $1.26 trillion over a period of 10 years

Therefore it seems reasonable that if one could find a way to control CO2 it would worth somewhere in excessive of 1 trillion dollars.
And therefore if something to learn how to control CO2 could worth
tens of billions dollar to develop.
It seems that a study and experiment that fertilized the ocean to test
the effective of such system could warranted, and should cost less than tens of billions of dollars over the lifetime of the study.
So purpose of program is not to lower global CO2, but to determine, if it could done, and the cost of doing it if this was desired.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images