Why I don't believe "climate change" experts

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: amazing
My problem is this.

If we don't believe the vast majority of scientists and scientific organizations and associations on Climate change/Global Warming, then why should we believe them on vaccinations, evolution, gravity, Astronomy, general medical care, biology etc. Can we really cherry pick what we believe?

Because scientists and "experts" cherry pick the subjects and the results.

edit on Mar-05-2015 by xuenchen because: [__;;; ... --- ... ;;;__]

And those scientists are bribed by grant money by filthy whore politicians. For example Al Gore is set up to get rich off carbon credits. Al Gore has many huge homes. Carbon Dioxide is breathed by plants who make cooling oxygen. Their are some organisms that can survive without oxygen, none that can survive without carbon dioxide. Carbon Dioxide has miracle healing qualities according to Ray Peat.

Ray Peats master list of interviews

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Pollution does damage, damage is the basis of the suit.

And when damage can be attributed to a single company there can be, and have been, lawsuits.

But the real problem is the lack of motivation to produce better technology.

Regulation (including the potential for criminal penalties) is good motivation to produce better technology. And it worked.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Pollution does damage, damage is the basis of the suit.

And when damage can be attributed to a single company there can be a suit.

But the real problem is the lack of motivation to produce better technology.

Regulation (including the potential for criminal penalties) is good motivation to produce better technology. And it worked.

If they can live with fractional reserve banking and taxing your life, they could sue whomever they want. They want more laws, so they regulate instead of enforce.

It cost a lot of jobs, all of our heavy industry went to China. Did it stop Acid Rain there?

The solution to pollution is better equipment. Regulation has retarded the evolution of that.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It cost a lot of jobs, all of our heavy industry went to China.

That had more to do with the cost of labor than environmental regulation.

The solution to pollution is better equipment and regulation has retarded the evolution of that.

Then why is pollution so bad in China?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

It cost a lot of jobs, all of our heavy industry went to China.

That had more to do with the cost of labor than environmental regulation.

The solution to pollution is better equipment and regulation has retarded the evolution of that.

Then why is pollution so bad in China?

Like I wrote, the heavy industries took advantage of the regulation to leave the country, the amputation because the infection wasn't treated. Higher costs of everything as a result of collectivist policies was the reason they wanted to leave, the clean air act gave them the vehicle to move all their capital to China, without any protests.

Pollution is bad in China because they didn't build new equipment, they bought our old socialistically retarded stuff.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Like I wrote, the heavy industries took advantage of the regulation to leave the country. Higher costs of everything as a result of collectivist policies was the reason they wanted to leave, the clean air act gave them the vehicle to move all their capital to China, without any protests.

No, you didn't say that industry "took advantage" of the regulation. You said regulation "encouraged" them to move to China.

Industries left because it was much cheaper to make things overseas. Primarily because of labor costs. Without any protest? From whom? Unions protested...a lot. But protest can't stop a company from doing something that is perfectly legal. Especially when it will increase their margin.

Pollution is bad in China because they didn't build new equipment, they bought our old socialistically retarded stuff.

Pollution is bad in China because there is little regulation of emissions and less enforcement. Because there is no incentive for them to clean up.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Like I wrote, the heavy industries took advantage of the regulation to leave the country. Higher costs of everything as a result of collectivist policies was the reason they wanted to leave, the clean air act gave them the vehicle to move all their capital to China, without any protests.

No, you didn't say that industry "took advantage" of the regulation. You said regulation "encouraged" them to move to China.

Industries left because it was much cheaper to make things overseas. Primarily because of labor costs. Without any protest? From whom? Unions protested...a lot. But protest can't stop a company from doing something that is perfectly legal. Especially when it will increase their margin.

Pollution is bad in China because they didn't build new equipment, they bought our old socialistically retarded stuff.

Pollution is bad in China because there is little, if any, regulation of emissions.

The fact that they wanted to leave a country that lead the industrial revolution is very bad sign. Probably something to do with stifling regulation and crony capitalism. The two are always connected.

Pollution is bad in China because they were afflicted with central planning regulations to a nightmarish degree and so they don't have enough money to be picky about pollution.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The fact that they wanted to leave a country that lead the industrial revolution is very bad sign. Probably something to do with stifling regulation and crony capitalism.

They wanted to leave because China opened up it's vast labor pool to outside investors. Cheap labor means higher profits.


The US didn't really lead the industrial revolution. It started in Europe.
WWII gave the US a big boost though, really screwed up the environment in the process.

originally posted by: Prezbo369

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
The problem lies with science not having any imagination. Some of our greatest accomplishments thought out history were contrived by philosophers and lay people.

Did lay folk and philosophists land a man on the moon? a probe on an asteroid?

Or were those scientific concepts debunked by someone with an imagination?

(did you mean to say contrived?)

Science fiction is any idea that occurs in the head and doesn't exist yet, but soon will, and will change everything for everybody, and nothing will ever be the same again. As soon as you have an idea that changes some small part of the world you are writing science fiction. It is always the art of the possible, never the impossible.
Ray Bradbury

Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.

Isaac Asimov

Nice quotes but they don't exactly reflect reality (some ideas inevitably become a reality, but the vast majority do not) and neither person is using nothing but their imagination and feelings to contradict current scientific findings are they?

Actually historically the do. Most of the greatest inventions man has seen, Rockets, Spaceships, Submarines, Helicopters, airplanes, cell phones, computers, bionic implants, robotics, space travel, faster than sound/light travel were all imagined by people who where neither scientists nor professionally trained, but authors, screen writers and philosophers, sometimes even decades before they could become theories or applicable.

So to be so arrogant as to say that ALL science comes from the imagination of Scientists is false. Asimov laid the framework for the modern robotics field with his imagination, because imagination inspires science to create. H.G. Wells combined work inspired hundreds of inventions, Tesla, Bradbury, shall I go on. I'm sure even some of these inspired the great Steven Hawking to formulate his theories. But modern science takes all this for granted because they have become faithless and without imagination.

However in the last 20 years (minus some small particle theory science and possibly some robotics) science has not progressed because the modern scientist stifles imagination and refuses inspiration or criticism. Sure we have faster computers and more advanced stealth technology, but name me one thing Science has created in the last 20 years that wasn't just an improvement of older technology or theory? just because we make it smaller and more efficient doesnt make it new technology, that's called refinement and improvement.

So tell me more about how science is responsible for everything again, because I think maybe you need to research more into how Ideas become reality, I'm fairly certain they start with inspiration, and a majority of that inspiration has been provided by non-scientists.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Asimov laid the framework for the modern robotics field with his imagination,

Not really. Not unless you think positronics are part of modern robotics. But he was, actually, a scientist.

but name me one thing Science has created in the last 20 years that wasn't just an improvement of older technology or theory

Let's back that up 100 years.
Name one thing created in the last 100 years that wasn't an improvement of older technology or theory.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Pollution is bad in China because they were afflicted with central planning regulations to a nightmarish degree and so they don't have enough money to be picky about pollution.

That's not even close to being true.

Pollution in China is bad from lack of enforcement. Why? Because J-O-B-S. When one steel factory can employ 10,000 people there isn't a bureaucrat anywhere that can shut that down. It's the exact same argument you hear from free-market capitalists, 'regulations cost jobs.' Regulations might cost jobs but pollution costs lives and health. You think the smog is China is from clean air regulations?

How do you explain modern day Pennsylvania? How do you explain modern day London? Do yourself a favor and look at some of the photographs from London's 'Great Smog' or look at Donora, Pennsylvania's smog in 1948. We've learned our lessons, we have regulations for a number of very, very good reasons.

I just realized who is to blame for global warming! remember in the 60's when Big Energy wanted to start building Nuclear Power Plants across the country? Which by the way produce no hydrocarbons and very little co2 because they are essentially huge steam turbines. The California had the "NO NUKES" campaign because of the fear that we would have a 3 mile island or chernobal event(which I may add that 100 operating nuclear reactors at 62 nuclear power plants in the United States have had ZERO incidents since their creation)?

So really where was Science and their high horse on this one? If they thought CLIMATE change was such a huge thing, then why not switch to nuclear energy?

and before you go on your RANT about nuclear waste..

Califonium

Reclaiming Nuclear fuel


OK so this next one is a mix of fear mongering (terrorism security natural resources) but still has some valid information once you weed through all the hippy communist propaganda
Pros and Cons


Oh and for you solar guys
Solar not as Green as you think

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Yeah. Well.
There was that 3 Mile Island thing.
And that Chernobyl thing.
And that Fukushima thing...

Nukes are pretty clean. Pretty damned scary too.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Yeah. Well.
There was that 3 Mile Island thing.
And that Chernobyl thing.
And that Fukushima thing...

Nukes are pretty clean. Pretty damned scary too.

They are not scary at all. and the 3 you mentioned were due to:

1 Chernobly had inferior construction, they had no redundancy systems, no outer retaining structure and were made by communists.
Problems with Chernobyl

2. 3 mile isalnd: The accident at Three Mile Island 2 (TMI 2) in 1979 was caused by a combination of equipment failure and the inability of plant operators to understand the reactor’s condition at certain times during the event. A gradual loss of cooling water to the reactor’s heat-producing core led to partial melting of the fuel rod cladding and the uranium fuel, and the release of a small amount of radioactive material.
The TMI 2 accident caused no injuries or deaths. In addition, experts concluded that the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere was too small to result in discernible direct health effects to the population in the vicinity of the plant. At least a dozen epidemiological studies conducted since 1981 have borne this out.

What caused 3 mile island

3. And japan really? its an island, there was i tidal wave..nuff said don't build your house on the sand lest it be swept away by the sea, thats a no brainer.

So if your this uninformed about nuclear energy how uninformed are you about how "Green Energies" work? But please keep spouting the party line because why would you really need to research anything before you presented an opinion (I would have said your opinion, but it's clear you don;t have one of your own).

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I am aware of the circumstances of the disasters. I am not uninformed, being new here you may not be aware of what I have had to say about them. It is far from a blanket condemnation of nuclear power. The point is that the consequences of accidents at nuclear plants are immediate and long lasting, if rare. This does create a large political problem.

1) "Made by communists." Ok, I guess capitalist ones are ok then.
2) Anyone living in the vicinity of the plant now?
3) They figured they had their bases all covered.

BTW, in the 60's global warming was not on the public's radar.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

I am aware of the circumstances of the disasters. I am not uninformed, being new here you may not be aware of what I have had to say about them. It is far from a blanket condemnation of nuclear power. The point is that the consequences of accidents at nuclear plants are immediate and long lasting, if rare. This does create a large political problem.

1) "Made by communists." Ok, I guess capitalist ones are ok then.
2) Anyone living in the vicinity of the plant?
3) They figured they had their bases all covered.

BTW, in the 60's global warming was not on the public's radar.

Regardless of time spent on forums, which by no means makes anyone an expert, the end result is healthy debate which I'm all for.

Historically however fewer lives have been taken and less pollution has been created by nuclear power. Don't misread my intentions here, my point is that solar and wind don't have the capacity to replace coal at this point in time, and nuclear does. The NRC has done a hell of a job keeping accidents at a minimum of one in the US, what other power generation process can clam that? Coal mining is destructive to people and the environment, solar cell production polutes water and land with the biproducts of the silicate processing and take up large areas of land infringing on natural habitats, wind generation takes up Kore land than solar does and the carbon composition manufacturing process creates plenty of waste(and the lubricants used are oil based). So for the most part 5,500 Mw nuclear plant that produces fewer CO2 should be the answer...especially with the newer recycling process that reduces waste by reusing its waste.

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Regardless of time spent on forums, which by no means makes anyone an expert, the end result is healthy debate which I'm all for.

I agree. However, time spent was not my point.

The NRC has done a hell of a job keeping accidents at a minimum of one in the US, what other power generation process can clam that?

It could be thought of as a numbers game. Fewer plants means, just by basic probabilities, that accidents would be fewer. The fewer times you roll the dice, the fewer times you crap out. And there is that consequences thing.

So for the most part 5,500 Mw nuclear plant that produces fewer CO2 should be the answer...especially with the newer recycling process that reduces waste by reusing its waste.

While the "recycling" of nuclear waste reduces the volume, it really just sort of concentrates it. The nature of nuclear fission dictates that, hot atoms don't just go away. Nuclear power is, and should be an option. One which, because of the accidents which have occurred, faces a good deal of political opposition (not the least of it coming from the fossil fuel contingent).

In any case, you don't seem to be arguing that AGW is not occurring.

a reply to: Phage

In so much as I agree that climates change through out the history of the planet occurs...as far as man made GW, still not sold, and I think there is room for doubt and speculation in any science that says anything definitively. I suppose my real point in all of this is don't settle for the status quo, even when the data points in one direction attempt to disprove the data by changing the parameters. Data can be manipulated to agenda, so nothing should be heralded as fact.

BTW as far as disasters go, yes the capitalist ones are better

a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

What about the observed 40%+ increase of CO2 over the past half century?

Do you think the 'science is still not conclusive' to attribute the CO2 increase to human activity?

originally posted by: jrod

What about the observed 40%+ increase of CO2 over the past half century?

Do you think the 'science is still not conclusive' to attribute the CO2 increase to human activity?

What about extremes in climate change prior to the past half century?

CO2 isn't the problem.