Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:07am PT
|
Where was MMGW here
Well, lessee... 75 years ago coal was the principal source of energy for industries. Cities were covered in black soot. Do you think some of that got into the air? Do you think perhaps the process of global warming might start with a few incidents then, as we continue to treat our atmosphere as one big garbage dump, these events become more frequent?
You should really abandon this thread. You have absolutely zero credibility on this subject. The only thing you contribute is more cerebral flatulence.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:18am PT
|
Regardless ,It is warming.
How will we deal with it economically? Kick the can down the road,Regulate to slow it all down,Search for alternatives or take personal responsibility to battle it?
No one in my camp wants to destroy the economy with taxes ,credits or burdensome regs. There is a compromise.Believe what you want ,but I personally am closer to the middle on this than you may believe. I have been operating a business since 1982.
Sensible solutions can not be exercised without compromise on this issue.
Regardless ,It is warming.
Are we the ones to pay for the industrial revolution's consequences? I believe we should do our part.
When one takes the side of the huge machine that the FF industry is,[They are filthy rich and are desperate to stay that way] does this help create a true compromise? Disregard,denigrate,and discredit science and fact. Support an ideology that is bought and paid for by the largest industry in the world. Is that the free market way?
How ,in this world, does that equate to self reliance?
Myself ,i did not just jump on some socialist,green bandwagon. In 1985,FF's ate up 15 to 20% of my income ,by 2000 ,it was feeding on 30%. I made some changes,so I am down to around 15%,even after some bad number years paying off solar and diesel investment. Those who say you cant,should do a little math.
Alternatives are not band aids.
Nonetheless ,they will be treated as band aids until they are not a compromise. Spoiled americans would not consider anything else.
Regardless ,It is warming.
I digress,johnny rig,I think you should read up on diesel facts.A tdi vw jetta is capable of 50mpg+,using regular diesel and easily capable of 45mpg burning biodiesel. Biodiesel jettas/golfs have the lowest CFP of any vehicle commercially available today,including electric vehicles. Yes you have to do some mods.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:35am PT
|
The current ones aren't cus they ain't viable for ALL humans nor are they working/affordable economically for most. Even Craig Fry whined that he can't afford to put 12 panels up on his roof to be part of the mitigation process.
Well ,SON OF A BITCH ,I can finally agree with you.You crusty ole Chef.
My only point in contention with this is that if we are going to subsidize FF's ,and cement their addiction into our society,then I would like to see alternatives get the same foothold . So the Craig Fry's of this nation may have an opportunity.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 09:40am PT
|
Yes Wilbeer there could be compromise. As I mentioned before the U.S. has reduced plant food emissions more than any other country simply by using more of the cleaner burning NG which is so plentiful and in close proximity to its end use markets. If we could just get on the same policy page NG use could be expanded even more. If you combine this with the newest generation nuclear fission plants, that are much safer than old, and throw in sensible renewables like hydro and geothermal, while doing R&D on the storage problems of wind and solar you could have a working system more efficient and cost effective as the old while satisfying everyone and eliminating need of most energy imports. You got to ask yourself Wilbeer- why do the radicals reject such a reasonable solution?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:04am PT
|
Chef,bullet trains mean jobs. Nothing more.
Is it more a political sham than a lobbying sham?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:12am PT
|
Where did he say it was the end of the world?
Where did i say ,i want to tax,or impose financial restrictions on the the FF industry?
Equal Foothold.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:32am PT
|
Doesn't square with the principles practiced by the climbers of old, now does it Bruce. All I can say is look at threads like the bolt wars slab. The principles have changed and many of us are the soon to be extinct dinosaurs. Looks like you have belatedly adopted the new realities, good for you for being a 21st century doom and gloomer. Look, their are two states of the general human condition- climbing upwards and outwards in advancement or dynamic retreat downwards into the void in defeat. I see no example of any "sustainable" civilization in human history. Why do you think we could accomplish this impossible feat now?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 10:52am PT
|
Their are exceptions, as you note. The general principle of the current climbing masses are going the opposite way to nanny state recreationally safe climbing as is our society as a whole. Given the general acceptance of the principle of leveling the playing field to the lowest common denominator, where is the atmosphere that promotes innovation and advancement and how long will those lone practitioners of the old ways be allowed to practice their craft without interference?
Sustainability in a constantly evolving world is a dangerous illusion.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:05am PT
|
DMT- Bruce was asking of our interpretation and/or acceptance of Chuffian Darwinism. I'm just providing my interpretation and affirming my acceptance of it's finer points.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 11:57am PT
|
So you subscribe to the notion of environmentally forced limitation of the individual as described by Ed et al when they blazonly decloseted their "principles", eh Bruce? Ed et al should recuse themselves from this discussion because it is obvious their presentation of science is biased by principles- hardly scientific purity.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:23pm PT
|
Nice try pulling that one outta yur ass
What is this preternatural obsession you have with the anus and feces? Very disturbing.
Do you have any clue what a rhetorical question is?
You try to frame the issue as being black & white and only accept absolutes as evidence. That's why you have no credibility in this issue. You should abandon this thread.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 12:38pm PT
|
The principles have changed and many of us are the soon to be extinct dinosaurs.
soon to be...?
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 01:08pm PT
|
Well there you have it. Greed. You dont want to spend your money on science you dont like.
By the same token, its been said that money motivates the science... when you disagree with the conclusion, follow the funding and you'll discover the source of the money dictates the conclusion.
I guess nobody really gives a damn what's really going on so long as it's not on your dime.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 01:16pm PT
|
jonny, I hope I read that correctly as sarcasm. Otherwise I'd be compelled to say you don't know jack sh#t about science or funding for scientific studies.
|
|
jonnyrig
Trad climber
formerly known as hillrat
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 02:06pm PT
|
Yeah, lots of sarcasm. Im getting pessimistic again in my old age.
Seems there's a kernel of truth in some of it though. But it's the truth that gets flushed like yesterday's corn when you don't like the flavor anymore.
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 02:32pm PT
|
It is called reality
No, that's called immaturity and ignorance. There is not one issue on any subject you could come up with that is only black & white. That you can't discriminate that is further evidence of your lack of credibilty. You should abandon this thread to the people who can actually think rationally and understand the scientific literature. You have zero credibility on this issue.
BTW- I have never attacked your boobs. Your ignorance & puerile rants are another matter.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 02:33pm PT
|
If it's from a blog surreptitiously funded by a large corporation, it's likely BS
I would modify that slightly. Any study made under the auspices of a group or institution that has a pre-existing agenda usually isn't worth reading if the study purports to support that agenda. This would hold for a climate study by, for example, either Greenpeace or the Heartland Institute. It would be important news, however, if a Heartland study confirmed significant anthropogenic climate change, or a Greenpeace study cast doubt on anthropogenic climate change.
Otherwise, I guess we need to evaluate studies the old fashioned way -- by reading them and verifying their results independently.
Bruce,
I just now saw your question about statisticians and models from yesterday. Answering that question requires me to go a little deeper into my very brief exchange with El Cap, and involves a wee bit of technical discussion, and some matrix algebra. I seek forgiveness in advance.
My own view of modeling is strongly Bayesian, through frequent, bitter, experience. In addition to the chaotic system problem to which El Cap alluded, the lack of experimental data creates a second bit of uncertainty over the exact specification of the model. In classical statistics, we know the specification of the models, we just don't know their numerical values.
Suppose we have a model that says y= b X, where y is the vector of dependent variables (i.e. the values we want our model to predict), X is the matrix of independent variables (i.e. the variables whose values we know, and based upon that knowledge, think we can predict the values of y). We want to estimate b, being the vector of the coefficients (e.g., how much does a rise in CO2 concentration raise global temperature, etc.) If I use classical statistical estimation, I will not only get values for b, but I will generate statistics of fit that tell me the statistical significance of each of the rows (i.e. independent variables) making up the matrix X.
Re-translated into English, if I know that global temperature depends on concentrations of various greenhouse gases, volcanic activity and solar activity, say, I can use classical statistical methods to tell me how much the climate depends on each of these factors. Of equal importance, I can use those same methods to tell me how much confidence I have in each of the relationships.
In reality, though, if we cannot determine the full mechanism of what we model ahead of time, we are not only estimating coefficients, we're also searching for the correct model in the first place. Bayesian statistical inference can deal with measuring this additional uncertainty. Classical inference cannot.
So What? Well, it means that when I see models used to try to determine what factors belong in the model in the first place, the historical statistics of fit overstate how much confidence we should place in the models. In climate science, we frankly have much better models than those I work with for macroeconomic forecasting, but the problem is the same.
Before those who denigrate the current models get too happy, however, they need to think about the implications of broad confidence intervals. They mean, in the case of anthropogenic climate change, that we are uncertain of the precise relationship in both directions. We may be overstating the effect, but we are just as likely to be understating it.
To anyone willing to wade through this, I hope I've helped. To the others, I'm sorry.
John
|
|
Skeptimistic
Mountain climber
La Mancha
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:02pm PT
|
Kissing ass and going along with the consensus cus it's cool, brings a pay check etc, aint.
Which shows just how little you know about the cutthroat world of science. Just about every other researcher in a given field is competing for the same dollars, especially when the gov't reduces science funding, so everyone is your enemy and they will find any reason to give you a low score on a grant.
You have less than zero credibility in this subject; you should abandon this thread now.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:32pm PT
|
I see that ideology as completely skewed and absolutely contrary to any premise and ideals in which this country was founded upon.
Again an ideology promoting full on socialism is a small fraction of the US. Far less than the fraction of the people who would like to see a national religion. Both are fringe and in no real danger of taking hold.
BUT some of the most important ideals of this country are those of balance and compromise. There were liberals, conservatives, and centrists all fighting for their ideals when the country was founded and they were wise enough to figure out a system that helped balance their ideals and lead to compromise so everyone could be happy with the outcome. Contrast that with the current crop of republicans in congress, not willing to compromise, not willing to see the other side, not willing to admit that there are legitimate differences and you should respect the other side and try to compromise. Again they are willing to risk default on our debts and risk our credit rating because they won't compromise. Yeah that's ideals but it's a bigoted, selfish way to stick to you ideals, and screw over the ideal of compromise that is so important to this country. Yes the democrats are just as corrupt and dishonest, but the republicans have gone way more extreme in the last 20 years.
Wow. I dint realize it was a choice between being a liberal socialist or a christian conservative.
It's an echo chamber out of the right wing press, websites,and chain emails promoting that view. I can't believe that people I have known for years see things as a choice between liberal socialist and conservative. I hear them parroting bullshit from the right and correct them on it and they immediately think I'm liberal, and even when I say no I'm a radical centrist, I can tell it doesn't compute for them. I have to be one or the other.
Can't I believe (based on scientific evidence) that humans are changing the climate, that it will be cheaper to deal with lowering CO2 emissions that dealing with it's consequences, that we can deal with it by improving efficiency, using alternative energy, and other things that won't impact our freedoms or lead to socialism?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 20, 2013 - 03:48pm PT
|
Cheef..Your expertise is needed on the Datura Thread.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!