Even the Pope sides with Futurecurrents

TooOldForThis said:
Wind, hydro, solar and nuclear make electricity. From electricity you can get all sorts of things including imitation fossil fuels. The problem is that the conversion is not very efficient. Hydrogen is easy and fairly efficient to make but difficult to store and move around.

Here's your buddy's comment on it; he prefers batteries:

Why a Hydogen Economy Doesn't Make Sense
Phys.org, 2006
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.
..
http://phys.org/news/2006-12-hydrogen-economy-doesnt.html
More...


I was talking about it's use for airplanes where the energy density is important.
 
How much money is say, 1/6 of all species worth? What about the value of someone from Bangladesh ?

I don't care as long as I can get cheap gas for my SUV that I take to church.
 
We can't ignore climate change skeptics -- even if we really, really want to
bearsindanger.jpg


http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/opinions/sutter-ignore-climate-skeptic-two-degrees/index.html
 
no one is climate change skeptic. the climate always changes, we have been warming since the last ice age. What we are missing and looking for you to produce is the science showing man made co2 causes warming.

lets break that down.

Using the best statistical methods we have we don't you tell us if you can even show that we are warming outside of natural variation..

then if you can do that...

show us the science showing man made co2 is causing all some or part of the warming.

Guess what... if you could Nitro... you would win the Nobel Prize.

for instance... here is what the Nobel Prize winner for quantum tunneling has to say..yeah... I think he can understand climatology...

http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/n...t-says-obama-is-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

In 2008, Dr. Ivar Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorsing Barack Obama for president, but seven years later the Nobel Prize winner now stands against the president on global warming.

“I would say that basically global warming is a non-problem,” Giaever, who won the Nobel for physics in 1973, told an audience at the Lindau Nobel Laureate meeting earlier this month.

Giaever ridiculed Obama for stating that “no challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” The physicist called it a “ridiculous statement” and that Obama “gets bad advice” when it comes to global warming.

“I say this to Obama: Excuse me, Mr. President, but you’re wrong. Dead wrong,” Giaever said.


Giaever was a professor at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute’s School of Engineering and School of Science and received the Nobel Prize for physics for his work on quantum tunneling. Giaever said he was “horrified” about the science surrounding global warming when he conducted research on the subject in 2012.

Ironically, just four years earlier he signed a letter with more than 70 other Nobel winners saying the “country urgently needs a visionary leader” and that “Senator Barack Obama is such a leader, and we urge you to join us in supporting him.”

But by 2011, Giaever left the American Physical Society because it officially stated that “the evidence is incontrovertible … [g]lobal warming is occurring.” The Society also pushed for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Global warming really has become a new religion,” Giaever said. “Because you cannot discuss it. It’s not proper. It is like the Catholic Church.”

Giaever argued that there’s been no global warming for the last 17 years or so (based on satellite records), weather hasn’t gotten more extreme and that global temperature has only slightly risen — and that’s based on data being “fiddled” with by scientists, he said.

“When you have a theory and the theory does not agree with the experiment then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” Giaever said.

[H/T Climate Depot]

Follow Michael on Twitter



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/07/n...s-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/#ixzz3fFpxqejP
 
Hey jem, you never did find even one publishing climate scientist that rejects man made global warming.

Come on, just one simple quote from one of them.

The consensus is really 100%. No expert denies it. None. Zero. Even your quantum tunnel dude who is not qualified to comment on the subject.
 
futurecurrents said:
Hey jem, you never did find even one publishing climate scientist that rejects man made global warming.
More...

Like I've said before, this is the politics and religion forum, not the "science" forum. But it's hard to argue that the best minds in science work in climate.

If you're going to put climate science up to a vote of course you need to prevent people with a vested interest from voting on it. That would be like letting the tobacco paid scientists vote on the connection between smoking and cancer. That's why we listen to independent scientists who are outside of climate science. If the climate scientists can't convince them, why should the public listen to them?

Assuming that climate science is correct because 97% of them believe it is correct is silly. That's like assuming that astrology works because a poll of professional astrologers showed that 97% of astrologers believe in it. Hey, 97% of marxists believe in marxism. And 97% of racists believe in racism. This kind of evidence proves absolutely nothing.

And of course in this case if the oft cited 97% figure, the poll was rigged. When other polls actually asks the political question "should we alter our behavior because of the danger of CO2?" the number of climate scientists agreeing drops sharply. The majority of them are not so worried. And of course that's why futurecurrents rejects the IPCC report; it's too close to the majority of climate scientists. But futurecurrents rejects even the 97% figure. Instead he makes up a 100% figure with absolutely no proof at all.
 
TooOldForThis said:
Like I've said before, this is the politics and religion forum, not the "science" forum. But it's hard to argue that the best minds in science work in climate.

If you're going to put climate science up to a vote of course you need to prevent people with a vested interest from voting on it. That would be like letting the tobacco paid scientists vote on the connection between smoking and cancer. That's why we listen to independent scientists who are outside of climate science. If the climate scientists can't convince them, why should the public listen to them?

Assuming that climate science is correct because 97% of them believe it is correct is silly. That's like assuming that astrology works because a poll of professional astrologers showed that 97% of astrologers believe in it. Hey, 97% of marxists believe in marxism. And 97% of racists believe in racism. This kind of evidence proves absolutely nothing.

And of course in this case if the oft cited 97% figure, the poll was rigged. When other polls actually asks the political question "should we alter our behavior because of the danger of CO2?" the number of climate scientists agreeing drops sharply. The majority of them are not so worried. And of course that's why futurecurrents rejects the IPCC report; it's too close to the majority of climate scientists. But futurecurrents rejects even the 97% figure. Instead he makes up a 100% figure with absolutely no proof at all.
More...


It's very simple for you to disprove that 100% agree that man made global warming is real. Just quote ONE publishing climatologist - you know, the experts - that denies it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top