Energy...

[cipher6]

While it may be more efficient to pipe the gas around for centralized electricity generation, the infrastructure requirements are FAR steeper than just generating electricity on site.

Dairy farms aren't far removed from population centers anymore. Heck, There's farm across the street from my house. It's not like current power plants that are located long distances from populations.

I still disagree, I think having every dairy farm and landfill build and maintain a power plant is a waste of resources. How much do dairy farmers know about running a power plant? You really want the garbage man in charge of electricity generation?

Also, what infrastructure requirements are you talking about? Pipelines can be built rather cheaply, transport gas more efficiently, and can be piped to existing power plants (even coal plants converted to gas) that are dedicated to nothing but electricity generation.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Causation is still an assumption.



You remember all that came out in the Climate-Gate? Many "peer reviewed" publications have been compromised.

And the IPCC has lost all authority because of the crap they've been putting out.

Here we go again
this has been put to bed
less then 10 medium/small mistakes in s massive report
GTOI


this is a joke

I just hope your next president isn't Republican

 

[ElasticNinja]

Here is where political rhetoric has no place in science.

Some skeptics have been financed by "oil" companies.

Most have not been. Most have looked at the science and found it lacking.


If the fact that "oil" backed scientists have a financial stake in finding AGW science lacking means you dismiss their work, do you apply the same standard to those who support AGW science?

If their livelihood depends on AGW being real... then wouldn't you also dismiss THEIR claims?

Or is that just only a standard you apply to those you disagree with?



Political rhetoric has no place in science. The fact that you are using it shows just how much it has been used by AGW "scientists", and how shaky their science is.

as I said, climate scientists benifit from confusion
yet they reached concensus
quite a while back
if not for the hard right and gullible people, probably more would be oout of work

 

[byteware]

yet rural temps have increased in parralell

CO2 is an insulator
its increasing rapidly in the atmosphere
temperatures are increasing rapidly (relatively)

What role does CO2 play in cloud formation? (Hint: Increasing Cloud cover could counteract GW and even plunge us into an ice age.)

There are a million variables at work in our planetary climate. You can't look at just two and try to make the case that one causes the other (either solely or mostly).

being ignorant or believing what is convinient does not neccesserally make you evil

Are you talking about the AGW proponents who depend on AGW predictions for a pay check?

Or the "oil backed" opponents who depend on AGW denial for a pay check?

BTW peer review is a bitch, have your conspiracy theories being peer reviewed?
Because everytime someone checked them, they disproved them

The IPCC claim that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035 was peer reviewed.

Sadly, there was never one scrap of science behind that claim. Even though it DID pass peer review.

 

[ElasticNinja]

What role does CO2 play in cloud formation? (Hint: Increasing Cloud cover could counteract GW and even plunge us into an ice age.)

There are a million variables at work in our planetary climate. You can't look at just two and try to make the case that one causes the other (either solely or mostly).

yet, we have seen warming in coralation with emmissions
so you take a new track, forget you denied it was happening, move on to sure it'll be grand

Are you talking about the AGW proponents who depend on AGW predictions for a pay check?

Or the "oil backed" opponents who depend on AGW denial for a pay check?

dealt with

The IPCC claim that the Himalayan Glaciers would disappear by 2035 was peer reviewed.

Sadly, there was never one scrap of science behind that claim. Even though it DID pass peer review.

then peer reviewed again - FIXED

You will stake a lot of enviornmental damage on two or three mistakes... incredible

 

[cipher6]

as I said, climate scientists benifit from confusion

How so? If AGW maybe is maybe is not a problem, world governments would be less likely to throw billions their way to study it.

But if the future of the human race is threatened by it, their more likely to get more funding and job security... they have just as much financial stake as anyone.

yet they reached concensus
quite a while back

Contrary to what Al Gore says, even the many Pro AGW people will admit, the science IS NOT settled. Science never is, its a continuing on going process.

There used to be a scientific "consensus" the world was flat and space was filled with a mysterious Aether substance.

 

[byteware]

yet, we have seen warming in coralation with emmissions
so you take a new track, forget you denied it was happening, move on to sure it'll be grand

We've seen warming. We believe it's in correlation with emissions. All we really know is that they are happening at the same time.

I'm sure you've heard that we're heading towards a ten thousand year maximum of solar activity.

I'm sure you've heard that we are coming due to lose our magnetic field, which will leave us completely vulnerable to solar radiation. (I think this is every 100,000 years or so... The North pole and South Pole with switch. We don't what causes this phenomenon and how that will/would/is/ affecting Earth's Climate.

The appearance of a correlation does not make it so.

dealt withthen peer reviewed again - FIXED

No. Revealed by skeptics, and admitted by the IPCC. This was NOT caught in Peer Review. Ever.

You will stake a lot of enviornmental damage on two or three mistakes... incredible

Two or three mistakes? There hasn't been one bit of science to connect Global Warming to "greenhouse" gases. Not one, other than a vague possible correlation between the two.

 

[byteware]

Here we go again
this has been put to bed
less then 10 medium/small mistakes in s massive report
GTOI

10 medium/small mistakes? I'm going to assume that you don't read much on Climate Science.

The only requirements for making it into the IPCC report are:

Climate change must be caused by greenhouse gases.

Climate change must be projected to have drastic consequences for the world.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

They've even allowed a Eco Fiction writer put exerts of his book into the report (without scientific backing) word for word.

this is a joke

Calling Climate Change science, science, is a joke and a bad one at that. The sad thing is that your average person doesn't know enough to be skeptical.

(On a side note: Your average skeptic doesn't know enough to be skeptical)

I just hope your next president isn't Republican

What does a Republican President (or politics in general) have to do with this farce they are attempting to pass off as legitimate science?

as I said, climate scientists benifit from confusion
yet they reached concensus
quite a while back

Stating this makes it clear that you haven't done any independent research on this, and have only believed what you've been told to believe.

if not for the hard right and gullible people, probably more would be oout of work

So, the hard right employs the skeptics, and the gullible people employ the AGW supporters?

Politics has no place in science. Your attempts to drag politics into a scientific debate shows that your framework for believing in AGW has more to do with your political leanings, and much much less to do with actual science.

 

[cipher6]

The appearance of a correlation does not make it so.

I think you mean the appearance of a correlation doesn't mean there is a causation.

CO2 and temps appear to be correlated (depending on what data you use to plot historical CO2 and temp levels) but that doesn't imply CO2 is causing temps to rise. It could very well be temps are causing CO2 to rise, or some other unknown variable (out of the millions that effect global climate) is casing both to rise, or a mixture of all the above.

It is an assumption (based on some limited evidence) that CO2 is the major factor controlling climate. Its an assumption the whole AGW argument is based on.

 

[ElasticNinja]

lol, its the Republicans who hate on science, how have you not noticed that by now? o.0

 

[cipher6]

lol, its the Republicans who hate on science, how have you not noticed that by now? o.0

Do you speak in anything other than stereo-types and generalities?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Do you speak in anything other than stereo-types and generalities?

blah blah blah
poor Abe must be rolling on his grave

 

[byteware]

blah blah blah
poor Abe must be rolling on his grave

I have to agree. Stereotypes just go to show that you care more about the politics than the science. Or worse. All you really know is the politics, and not the science.

 

[Homan13PSU]

Honestly I don't think ANYONE knows all the science behind global warming/climate change.

You have those on one side who like to blame the Earth's changing climate solely on mankind, while on the flip side you have those that want to ignore what effect we are having on the environment around us.

The fact of the matter is the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The Earth's climate was changing LONG before the industrial revolution, and its going to continue to change long after we stop putting less CO2 into the atmosphere. Until someone can nail down just how much can be attributed to either side this argument is going to be just like abortion.

I have to agree. Stereotypes just go to show that you care more about the politics than the science. Or worse. All you really know is the politics, and not the science.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I have to agree. Stereotypes just go to show that you care more about the politics than the science. Or worse. All you really know is the politics, and not the science.

anyone can tell that, by and large, Republican representatives dont back science (with the exception of tech and military research..)

 

[ElasticNinja]

Honestly I don't think ANYONE knows all the science behind global warming/climate change.

agree

You have those on one side who like to blame the Earth's changing climate solely on mankind, while on the flip side you have those that want to ignore what effect we are having on the environment around us.

of course, certainly things like solar activity has been increasing over the last century, yet other contributors, such as sulfur, have actually been decreasing
The Earth warms and cools naturally, but this is unprecedented (certainly, since the 60s) and warming has been going hand in hand with increased emissions

The fact of the matter is the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The Earth's climate was changing LONG before the industrial revolution, and its going to continue to change long after we stop putting less CO2 into the atmosphere. Until someone can nail down just how much can be attributed to either side this argument is going to be just like abortion.

even if the amount of human contribution was as low as 30% (and its a lot higher as you know), why would we not take action?

 

[byteware]

anyone can tell that, by and large, Republican representatives dont back science (with the exception of tech and military research..)

Anyone can tell? Give me an example?

 

[byteware]

agreeof course, certainly things like solar activity has been increasing over the last century, yet other contributors, such as sulfur, have actually been decreasing

How does the increase in Solar activity affect our climate? We don't know.

How does the increase in CO2 affect our climate? We don't know.

We've become so entrenched in it must be greenhouse gases, that we are no longer looking to WHY it's happening.

We've never bothered to prove the hypothesis that Greenhouse gases are the cause of Global Warming.

The Earth warms and cools naturally, but this is unprecedented (certainly, since the 60s) and warming has been going hand in hand with increased emissions

It's also been going hand in hand with increased sun spot activity...

It's also been going hand in hand with decreased cosmic ray activity...

We don't know what's causing it... picking a topic and acting as if that's the answer, without actually PROVING IT, is about as idiotic as deciding the transmission is the problem with your car, and repeatedly tearing it apart unable to make the car work (problem could be the engine or alternator... etc...)

even if the amount of human contribution was as low as 30% (and its a lot higher as you know), why would we not take action?

We don't know how much we affect the climate AT ALL. It could be as low as 5%.

If CO2 plays an important part in cloud formation, than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't matter one bit. We don't know that either.

If you graph the amount of cosmic ray activity, and the amount of cloud cover, there appears to be a relationship between the two.

Good cloud cover can completely offset every bit of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's why volcanoes (which emit more greenhouse gases in one eruption than man has throughout our entire history) don't affect the climate. The Haze created by an eruption cools the earth in spite of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Anyone can tell? Give me an example?

stem cells, climate change, ozone depletion, creationism - feckit, Google it republican anti science - Google Search

 

[ElasticNinja]

How does the increase in Solar activity affect our climate? We don't know.

it seems we have a really good idea, actually

How does the increase in CO2 affect our climate? We don't know.

it seems we have a really good idea, actually

We've become so entrenched in it must be greenhouse gases, that we are no longer looking to WHY it's happening.

dude, science don't work that way, I assure you

We've never bothered to prove the hypothesis that Greenhouse gases are the cause of Global Warming.

eh no. just no

It's also been going hand in hand with increased sun spot activity...

sure... but not to such high levels as we see

We don't know what's causing it... picking a topic and acting as if that's the answer, without actually PROVING IT, is about as idiotic as deciding the transmission is the problem with your car, and repeatedly tearing it apart unable to make the car work (problem could be the engine or alternator... etc...)

scientists have been researching it for years
been well recognised since the 80s

We don't know how much we affect the climate AT ALL. It could be as low as 5%.

so it does effect it all of a sudden?

If CO2 plays an important part in cloud formation, than the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't matter one bit. We don't know that either.

If you graph the amount of cosmic ray activity, and the amount of cloud cover, there appears to be a relationship between the two.

Good cloud cover can completely offset every bit of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's why volcanoes (which emit more greenhouse gases in one eruption than man has throughout our entire history) don't affect the climate. The Haze created by an eruption cools the earth in spite of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere.

yet temps have increased despite extra cloud cover

BTW, like acid rain?

 

[byteware]

stem cells

well, this is deceptive. They aren't against stem cell research. They are against gathering stem cells in a procedure that is the same as abortion in their minds.

That's not anti-science in the slightest, but it is inconvenient to scientists who wish to use Embryonic stem cells.

climate change

They aren't being presented with science that proves climate change is caused by green house gases. Why should they pass laws based on supposition?

ozone depletion

Ozone depletion? Seriously? Republicans are aware of what causes ozone depletion and it is illegal. I don't even think this topic has come up in any way that was controversial in the last 20 years.

creationism

This is a religious issue, not a conservative issue. It isn't a Republican party issue.

There are Republicans for whom this is an issue though.

 

[byteware]

it seems we have a really good idea, actually
it seems we have a really good idea, actually

Really? Source please.

dude, science don't work that way, I assure you

Correction. Science SHOULDN'T work that way. Which is why I have such a huge problem with Client Change "science".

eh no. just no

Prove it.
Show me the study that definitively proves CO2 released into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the Earth?

sure... but not to such high levels as we see

You've done no research into this on your own. You've done no research into the science of climate change at all.

And yet you definitively say that it cannot be because of increased sun spot activity. Prove it.

Provide your source the details the effects of Sun Spot activity on Cosmic rays in the Solar System.

Provide your source for studies on how cosmic rays affect cloud cover.

Provide your source for studies on how the combination of less cloud cover, and more solar activity affect the earth's climate.

scientists have been researching it for years

Scientists have been dismissing this for years. If they've been researching it for years, then you should have no problem providing the link.

been well recognised since the 80sso it does effect it all of a sudden? yet temps have increased despite extra cloud cover

We don't know. That's the problem. We don't know how this system works. We can't predict how this system will work tomorrow. We can't predict how the climate system will work period. Yet, you believe them unquestioningly when they tell you that they understand it enough to know what the cause of an action is... they are guessing. Period.

BTW, like acid rain?

?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Really? Source please.



Correction. Science SHOULDN'T work that way. Which is why I have such a huge problem with Client Change "science".




Prove it.
Show me the study that definitively proves CO2 released into the atmosphere increases the temperature of the Earth?



You've done no research into this on your own. You've done no research into the science of climate change at all.

And yet you definitively say that it cannot be because of increased sun spot activity. Prove it.

Provide your source the details the effects of Sun Spot activity on Cosmic rays in the Solar System.

Provide your source for studies on how cosmic rays affect cloud cover.

Provide your source for studies on how the combination of less cloud cover, and more solar activity affect the earth's climate.



Scientists have been dismissing this for years. If they've been researching it for years, then you should have no problem providing the link.



We don't know. That's the problem. We don't know how this system works. We can't predict how this system will work tomorrow. We can't predict how the climate system will work period. Yet, you believe them unquestioningly when they tell you that they understand it enough to know what the cause of an action is... they are guessing. Period.

ipcc.ch

?

increasing CO2 in the atmosphere makes rain water more acidic.
Shit for asthmatics like you or me, also bad for trees (it could be argued this could contribute to a vicious circle of global warming, I'd disagree as it mainly ooccurs in Northern countries where trees are replaced with more, however if China and India don't get there nuclear programs up to speed Asia may have huge issues with it), and bad for soil quality, thus further affecting food supplies

if only CO2 was a base and wasn't an insulator.. if only

 

[Bob Maxey]

lol, its the Republicans who hate on science, how have you not noticed that by now? o.0

And I suppose you can cite a few examples, right?

 

[Homan13PSU]

And I suppose you can cite a few examples, right?

The IRA?

Low blow?