Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

[Maui]

2016 was the year solar panels finally became cheaper than fossil fuels.

As prices for solar and wind power continue their precipitous fall, two-thirds of all nations will reach the point known as “grid parity” within a few years, even without subsidies.

In August, energy firm Solarpack contracted to sell solar electricity in Chile at just $29.1 per megwatt hour, 58% below prices from a new natural gas plant.

[Diogenes]

Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.

Exactly right. I figured the more intelligent among us would get it immediately.


"Global Warming" is a religious cult that pretends to be scientific. They use science Jargon and they pretend to use scientific methods, but their claims and methodology are fundamentally religious in nature.


The only argument I have yet seen from Happy Jack is that we must believe in Global Warming because his high priests and prophets tell us so. If he has made a single argument based on his own understanding of the issue, I must have missed it.

[happyjack27]

Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.

Exactly right. I figured the more intelligent among us would get it immediately.


"Global Warming" is a religious cult that pretends to be scientific. They use science Jargon and they pretend to use scientific methods, but their claims and methodology are fundamentally religious in nature.


The only argument I have yet seen from Happy Jack is that we must believe in Global Warming because his high priests and prophets tell us so. If he has made a single argument based on his own understanding of the issue, I must have missed it.

copying my response in full because apparently Diogenes didn't read a word of it:

Happyjack, Diogenes is saying that you're citing religious texts. And I agree with him on that.

i don't recall citing any religious texts. can you show me where i did?

i've been citing scientific studies well-backed by research and evidence. All which are reproducible and falsifiable.

To better understand how science differs from religion (and more generally, non-science), you can read up on what's called "the demarcation problem".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcation_problem

See for example Popper's demarcation criterion:

Falsifiability is the demarcation criterion proposed by Karl Popper as opposed to verificationism: "statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".[14] Popper saw demarcation as a central problem in the philosophy of science. Unlike the Vienna Circle, Popper stated that his proposal was not a criterion of "meaningfulness".

Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science… and for giving some pseudosciences the status of being scientific… According to Larry Laudan (1983, 121), it "has the untoward consequence of countenancing as 'scientific' every crank claim which makes ascertainably false assertions". Astrology, rightly taken by Popper as an unusually clear example of a pseudoscience, has in fact been tested and thoroughly refuted… Similarly, the major threats to the scientific status of psychoanalysis, another of his major targets, do not come from claims that it is untestable but from claims that it has been tested and failed the tests.[14]

— Sven Ove Hansson, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Science and Pseudo-Science"
In Popper's later work, he stated that falsifiability is both a necessary and a sufficient criterion for demarcation. He described falsifiability as a property of "the logical structure of sentences and classes of sentences," so that a statement's scientific or non-scientific status does not change over time. This has been summarized as a statement being falsifiable "if and only if it logically contradicts some (empirical) sentence that describes a logically possible event that it would be logically possible to observe."[14]/quote]

--From wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarcati ... ifiability


here's an excerpt from karl popper's "conjectures and refutations", read out loud: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztmvtKLuR7I


As I said, the images are visual representations of data collected by various instruments around the globe. As such, they clearly are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".


For more on what differentiates science from religion, if you enjoy short videos (i do!), i highly recommend Feynamn explaining the scientific method:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw

(EDIT: here's an excerpt if the video is too much information to digest at once:

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process. First, we guess it (audience laughter), no, don’t laugh, that’s really true. Then we compute the consequences of the guess, to see what, if this is right, if this law we guess is right, to see what it would imply and then we compare the computation results to nature, or we say compare to experiment or experience, compare it directly with observations to see if it works.

If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… (audience laughter) If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” -- Richard Feynman

END EDIT)


As i've mentioned many times now, if you think any of the research or data is wrong, you are welcome to do your own empirical research and submit it for review. (The research and data that these images summarize are "capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations".)

i'd give you some papers but like i said there are millions, and new studies and measurements and what not are constantly being done. the articles i've linked to provide a decent starting point, though.

[happyjack27]

The only argument I have yet seen from Happy Jack is that we must believe in Global Warming because his high priests and prophets tell us so.

Strange then, that I don't recall making that argument even once!

On the contrary, I've found myself constantly repeating the importance of data and evidence, which if i'm not mistaken is precisely the opposite of what you describe. Apparently it needs repeating yet again! Maybe you can help me out here: How many times do I have to repeat it until you understand it?

If you could show me where i say "we must believe in Global Warming because [my] high priests and prophets tell us so"...

we seem to be living in entirely different universes here. (is the parallel universe interpretation of quantum physics literally true?)

Also curious who my high priests and prophets are. Strange that I don't know. Even stranger that I'm atheist.

If he has made a single argument based on his own understanding of the issue, I must have missed it.

If you missed it, you have missed EVERYTHING I WROTE.

So it looks like there is no overlap at all between what i write and what you read; nothing i write do you read, and nothing you read do i write!

which begs the question - why am i even writing this? oh bother...

Also, "[my] own understanding of the issue"?!?



You seem to think that opining from an armchair and a position of ignorance is somehow noble or intelligent.

Why do you even care what I think? Do you think that highly of me that you value my opinion over all of the data and research?

If so, you're an idiot.

Science is not about people. It's about research, experiment, evidence, reproducability, etc.

I don't know how many times I need to explain this...

[hanelyp]

We apparently can't have a rational debate with a religious zealot, especially when he's in denial about his beliefs being a religion, and his authority being high priests.

Happyjack, study up on basic thermodynamics, with an emphasis on adiabatic lapse rate and how that relates to convection. When you understand that you'll find a process with similarities to the relationship between position and particle energy in a polywell. But maybe first you need to understand that radiation is a minor contributor to heat movement around the Earth's atmosphere.

[happyjack27]

We apparently can't have a rational debate with a religious zealot, especially when he's in denial about his beliefs being a religion, and his authority being high priests.

Happyjack, study up on basic thermodynamics, with an emphasis on adiabatic lapse rate and how that relates to convection. When you understand that you'll find a process with similarities to the relationship between position and particle energy in a polywell. But maybe first you need to understand that radiation is a minor contributor to heat movement around the Earth's atmosphere.

Maybe first you need to understand the principle of conservation of energy.

Not sure which you should start with; which is more fundamental - how equations work or the core concept of science.

I feel like I've already explained them both, at such a basic level that any fool could understand.

Apparently not.

[hanelyp]

Conservation of energy in this cases is simple:
- when gas, treated in bulk or as individual particles, descends a potential well it gains energy. Thus air at ground level is naturally warmer than air at altitude. Introduce gas dynamics and we get a natural adiabatic lapse rate between altitude/pressure and temperature.
- The atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with deep space at altitude, where the air is thin enough for radiation to dominate.
- If the temperature gradient is less than the adiabatic lapse rate, the air is stagnant until heat conduction restores the natural gradient.
- If the temperature gradient exceeds the lapse rate by even a minor amount, convection carries the excess surface heat to altitude. This is the normal state of Earth.

and the kicker Happyjack the religious fanatic refuses to account for: Radiative heat transfer in the lower atmosphere of Earth is insignificant, the radiative "greenhouse" effect having been saturated since the early history of the planet.

[happyjack27]

Conservation of energy in this cases is simple:
- when gas, treated in bulk or as individual particles, descends a potential well it gains energy. Thus air at ground level is naturally warmer than air at altitude. Introduce gas dynamics and we get a natural adiabatic lapse rate between altitude/pressure and temperature.
- The atmosphere is in thermal equilibrium with deep space at altitude, where the air is thin enough for radiation to dominate.
- If the temperature gradient is less than the adiabatic lapse rate, the air is stagnant until heat conduction restores the natural gradient.
- If the temperature gradient exceeds the lapse rate by even a minor amount, convection carries the excess surface heat to altitude. This is the normal state of Earth.

and the kicker Happyjack the religious fanatic refuses to account for: Radiative heat transfer in the lower atmosphere of Earth is insignificant, the radiative "greenhouse" effect having been saturated since the early history of the planet.

wow, that was all over the place, and had nothing to do with conservation of energy.

try reuminating on the pieces of the phrase: "energy" and "conserve". what does "energy" mean? what does "conserve" mean? what does putting these two words together mean?

take your time...

now hold that thought, and see if you can answer this question:

if a system does not have any energy inputs or outputs, does it's internal energy increase, decrease, or stay the same?

[hanelyp]

Carbon climatists religious fanatics will be unable to process this, http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

[hanelyp]

this has nothing to do with conservation of energy. try reuminating on the pieces of the phrase: "energy" and "conserve". what does "energy" mean? what does "conserve" mean? what does putting these two words together mean?

take your time...

now hold that thought, and see if you can answer this question:

if a system does not have any energy inputs or outputs, does it's internal energy increase, decrease, or stay the same?

You're clearly making ASSUMPTIONS, probably grossly wrong, that I'm unaware of.

[happyjack27]

this has nothing to do with conservation of energy. try reuminating on the pieces of the phrase: "energy" and "conserve". what does "energy" mean? what does "conserve" mean? what does putting these two words together mean?

take your time...

now hold that thought, and see if you can answer this question:

if a system does not have any energy inputs or outputs, does it's internal energy increase, decrease, or stay the same?

You're clearly making ASSUMPTIONS, probably grossly wrong, that I'm unaware of.

this is a very simple question, hanelyp.

if a system does not have any energy inputs or outputs, does it's internal energy increase, decrease, or stay the same?


Stated two other ways:

differential: If (nabla ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabla_symbol#Modern_uses )) (dot) E = 0, what is dE/dt?

multiple choice, pick one: dE/dt>0, dE/dt=0, dE/dt<0,


algebraic: If E_in = 0 and E_out = 0, what is (delta)E_sys?

multiple choice, pick one: (delta)E_sys>0, (delta)E_sys=0, (delta)E_sys<0

[pbelter]

AGW theory can never be conclusively disproved because it does not make any hard predictions. Even when the new Maunder minimum comes around they will just say it is all within predictions and just in case they are trying to rebrand it from AGW to Climate Change. The problem is that the only thing that constant about climate is that it changes.

Have you seen the movie "The Day after Tomorrow" where Global Warming causes the world to freeze over? This is a great example of the PR prep work to make sure that no matter what happens, people think AGW is the culprit.

There are other theories like that. Have you heard about "Expanding Earth Theory" which is an alternate to continental drift? It is largely discarded now, but there still have their conferences and write research papers. It is just discarded as unlikely.
Here is one of their papers I stumbled upon:

Teaching Earth Dynamics: What’s Wrong with Plate Tectonics Theory?
https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0510/0510090.pdf

Same is slowly happening with AGW.

Regardless for the media scare perpetuated by need for larger viewership, most people already don't believe in this stuff. New York is not under water and there are no commercial shipping lanes going from Japan to Europe over North Pole. The theory is going to be around fer a while but after a generation or so it is going into oblivion. The recent presidential debates in the US are indicative of the trend.

As I mentioned before AGW is a fallacy perpetuated by the positive feedback between government that needs to justify its expansion and the scientists who need funding for their research that justifies that expansion of the government.

Same as with Lysenkoism, the fallacy is largely limited to one cultural group, namely to the West. Other cultures could not care less most of the time and where there is a research it points out that there is no such thing as AGW

Check on the research of scientists from the former Soviet block, like Valentina Zharkova or Habbibulo Abdusamatov. They say the recent climate fluctuations are caused by the Sun and cooling is more likely than warming. There is hardly anything coming from Japan, China or Russia that promotes AGW. Just type "russian scientists global warming" on google you will see that they are very skeptical of AGW.

The thing is that in that part of the world concept of limited government does not have much prominence. They can grow their government as much as they want without much backlash from the people so no need for scientific theories to justify it..

Because of that, there is no positive feedback reasons for government expansion and proving AGW is real.

I find it very ironic that people who discard inconvenient scientific research, claim that it is financed by "big oil" or "big coal" or soem other "big something" implying that there is a bias there since those companies may perceive AGW theory as impediment to their growth. At the same time they are taking many from the government and don't see the conflict of interest in promoting the government's growth.

The only difference between the corporate and government funds is that the corporations can spent the money they have earned however they please because nobody forces anyone to buy their products, while we are all coerced to pay taxes to justify research targeted at proving we need to pay even more taxes.

[pbelter]

Carbon climatists religious fanatics will be unable to process this, http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

Great find!

[pbelter]

Carbon climatists religious fanatics will be unable to process this, http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/1 ... tampering/

I'd like to paraphrase a famous quote from comrade Stalin, who said that for the final outcome "it does not matter how people vote, it matters how the votes are counted" , to say that is does not matter what the data is, but how it is "adjusted"

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century


The adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.



The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

[happyjack27]

i give up. you guys are beyond all hope.