Cap and Trade implications.

[djolds1]

That is all I was saying. Your example is equally as troubling as theirs. I was pretty clear. Doing a visa versa smack down on me doesn't really change what I said. We are in agreement apparently.

No. I'll hunt up data and reply later in detail, however.

An assumed steady increase in positive feedback sensitivity when all evidence points to controlling negative feedbacks is... odd, doncha think? That those increases offset declines in the primary posited warming mechanism, reversing the trend from decrease back to predicted increase, even odder...

Duane

Preach on, my brother.

I'd be more respectful if you did not resort to ad hominem. A debating opponent is to be respected. A flame baiting troll boy is food to be played with.

The above data is entirely sourced and credible. Provided you even bothered to read it, which I doubt.

Duane

[djolds1]

I think the only honest answer is we don't really know if climate change is being driven by CO2 emissions --

The hypothesis that human CO2 release is the primary driver of climate change strains credulity for any rational person the moment it is uttered.

and either way a billion Indians and a billion Chinese aren't going to remain in poverty to stop it so it doesn't really matter much.

Truth.

FWIW, though, right or wrong Al Gore is getting rich of AGW, and Hansen's his right-hand man. And there is considerable evidence Hansen's NASA dept. is rigging their numbers by excluding areas that are cooling and applying algorithms to reduce temps recorded in earlier years.

Is Hanson the guy who rejiggered his algorithms so that urban heat islands became urban cool zones?

Anyways, cap-and-trade definitely helps Polywell.

Cap and trade in particular? I doubt it. But the watermelons & their enthusiasms can certainly be exploited to make BFRs a reality. After that, let the idiots rage as they will. The people of the First World are not going to tolerate much degradation of their quality of life to assuage Green righteousness, and as you pointed out above, the Second World is going to continue rising regardless.

Duane

[rj40]

Ignoring for a moment what I think about human induced global warming, I must agree that some green folks are … well … their kooks.

In fact I sometimes wonder that if BFRs actually come about, if certain greens will turn against them. I suspect there will still be protests in the streets. However this time I will be laughing at them.

Here is something though:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... jectFrance

OK, maybe not kooks, but still a bit…hmm…I don’t know. In fact they seem to share some of the same misgivings as people on this board. I suspect that at least some of their misgivings could (and would?) be translated to Polywell fusion if it works. They would probably add some new ones to boot.

Assuming BFRs actually work and companies start building them en-masse, what do you think the top complaints from extreme greens will be? How could they be countered? If protests started, would you visit to laugh in their faces or merely to take pictures?

[ravingdave]

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/



Global warming is Crap. Water Vapor has the largest spectral absorbtion of all major gases in the atmosphere. Carbon Dioxide and Methane don't even come close.

The occurance of water vapor in the atmosphere increases with temperature, and this should cause an increase in absorbtion of solar radiation, creating a positive feedback loop. Well that doesn't happen, and thank to the latest data from Nasa's Aquos sattelite, we now know why.

Increasing temperature does increase water vapor, the the increase in water vapor creates more clouds, which increases the reflectivity of the planet. Rather than being a positive feedback mechanism, water vapor is a Negative feedback mechanism. The system is self regulating and stable, which anyone who understands about positive and negative feedback would immediately realize.


Like I said, Global warming is a crock, and here's an article by Steve Milloy at "Junkscience.com" that exposes a lot of the crap flying around nowdays.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/



David

[Nanos]

I've spent a little while chatting to various greens in the UK and they are in simple terms against any kind of development.

Even if you want to put up a windmill, no they don't want that, it will spoil the landscape, chop up the birds, encourage gadget use..

Suggest electric cars, and your not welcomed as that will encourage urbanisation and will not solve the problem as far as they are concerned..

Suggest building eco-friendly homes and no one wants them on their doorstep..

Even suggest planting trees and your damaging the environment!


Even open a debate to do anything they want, and they cannot reach agreement on just what would be green..


Thats even if you can find a real green to chat with, most of those are comfortable in their well paid jobs and avoid public debate, preferring to release press statements whilst doing their best to hide their identity in case anyone questions why they are being paid $150k a year out of a charities budget..

I'm torn between thinking some are there as agent provocateurs to ruin our economy, whilst the rest appear very uneducated and suffer from NIMBYism. (Eg. if you ever try and talk to them about anything scientific, the majority lack the education to understand you and just yell loudly!)

Its rather a sad state of affairs that even if you did offer them the perfect solution, they wouldn't want it.

[djolds1]

I'm torn between thinking some are there as agent provocateurs to ruin our economy,

Radical suppression of technology (genetically modified foods included) isn't economic sabotage. Its demographic sabotage. Consciously or not, Greens want to be choosers of the slain. Their dream world could only support a fraction of the current human population, and they know it.

whilst the rest appear very uneducated and suffer from NIMBYism. (Eg. if you ever try and talk to them about anything scientific, the majority lack the education to understand you and just yell loudly!)

NIMBY is yesterday. Today its BANANA.

Build
Absolutely
Nothing
Anywhere
Near
Anything

Its rather a sad state of affairs that even if you did offer them the perfect solution, they wouldn't want it.

They do run the "we support alternatives" game. But the alternatives must never arrive

Duane

[tonybarry]

I've spent a little while chatting to various greens in the UK and they are in simple terms against any kind of development.

Even if you want to put up a windmill, no they don't want that ...

Hello Nanos,
A wise Buddhist doctor once discussed this with me, and pointed out that in such a world-view as you describe, the truest value is suicide.

Even though the average Green person is not suicidal, their underlying philosophy tends towards self-removal as a "final" goal state.

You may recall the Darwin Awards; the Greens definitely deserve an honorable mention if not an award outright.

Note that I have found such nihilistic attitudes present in other groups, including fundamentalist Christians.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[scareduck]

Re the data for global warming, an interesting comment at Climate Audit. Apparently the data regarding urban heat islands has been shifting over time, with nobody really taking care of revision control.

For new visitors to the thread, the reason all this matters is that the Jones et al. 1990 paper was cited in the IPCC 3rd and 4th Assessment Reports as the clinching argument why there is no urbanization bias in the surface temperature records over land. If readers are tempted to think this is all a bunch of nitpicking, hounding authors for old data, getting huffy about minor record-keeping omissions, etc; before jumping to that conclusion go back and read the relevant sections of TAR and AR4. There is a huge literature showing urbanization bias in climate records around the world. The IPCC has taken the view that while these matter in specific locations, the problem washes out globally. They still rely on Jones et al. 1990 for this claim, and invoke it as a reason to set aside all the contrary evidence. Jones et al. 1990 is not an old empty shack out in the back field, it’s a load-bearing wall right through the ground floor of the IPCC’s new building. It matters if nobody can see the data or replicate the results.

[seedload]

That is all I was saying. Your example is equally as troubling as theirs. I was pretty clear. Doing a visa versa smack down on me doesn't really change what I said. We are in agreement apparently.

No. I'll hunt up data and reply later in detail, however.

Don't bother. I recognize that your two examples are factual. Temperature has gone down since 1998. Temperature has been flat since 2002.

An assumed steady increase in positive feedback sensitivity when all evidence points to controlling negative feedbacks is... odd, doncha think? That those increases offset declines in the primary posited warming mechanism, reversing the trend from decrease back to predicted increase, even odder...

Duane

Preach on, my brother.

I'd be more respectful if you did not resort to ad hominem. A debating opponent is to be respected. A flame baiting troll boy is food to be played with.

The above data is entirely sourced and credible. Provided you even bothered to read it, which I doubt.

Duane

I don't think you have understood my point. When I make it, you just do more of what I am talking about, changing the subject and adding more bogus overstated details on top of more bogus overstated details. You are the one who is not listening.

Heck, you probably don't even understand that I agree with you. Anthropologic Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions is an overhyped myth that will eventually prove to be a costly mistake to our society. The ultimate lesson we will learn is that abandoning scientific method and treating science like religion is a dangerous proposition. It causes people to falsify data. It causes people to selectively pick data to make their points. It causes people to not look at the big picture. It causes people to put too much trust in artificial constructs (models) that are based on incomplete and biased theories.

My point is, if the above sins are lessons that we should learn from the mistakes of the global warming hysteria, it seems counterproductive to argue against global warming using the same tactics. You did so by using your own propoganda based on trends starting in 1998. Since you are so educated on this subject, I assume that you understand why this is so significant. Later you use 2002 as a starting point. Again, I assume there is a reason you picked this data rather than just 2000. I also assume that you understand how statistically insignificant all of this is.

Your temperatures going down over the last ten year argument is the equivilent of their hockey stick. Don't you get that. You classify them with demeaning names etc. but you are doing the same crap in reverse.

Heck, even the whole concept of "them" and "we" is so inappropriate that it makes me shake my head. Red/Blue, They/We, Black/White, FoxNews/ABC, blah blah blah...

BTW - I don't appreciate being called names. Please refrain from doing that in the future.

best regards

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, it's easy to score points by bashing the idiots on the other side. And some folks buy it. I don't, for one. Find the intelligent, considered people on the other side, and refute their work. It's harder, but worth more.

It's called debate. Shouting names at idiots is... well it is not debate.

Regarding the original topic that I'm long in getting back to, while I understand people's reluctance to put the government in charge of selecting projects to endorse (and thus distributing any money from cap revenues to them)... um... aren't they already doing that? In fact.. isn't that where Polywell gets it's money from? If it weren't for the Navy, wouldn't this project have died long, long ago?

Of course this is merely an extension of the age-old "public good" debate which I doubt MSimon and I will resolve here and now. But it'll suffice to note that I think that if the government garnering monies for the public good of producing net power fusion manages to make it happen, that I'll say that it was a good thing.

The gubbemint ain't ALL bad.

Mike

[rj40]

Didn’t the Government fund the internet – at least at the start? And how about GPS? Those are two things that really took off. Vast new businesses and more wealth creation. I can get a scarf from India by going directly to the creator via the internet. That person may be working her bottom off, but she now has another avenue to make money and maybe a better life for herself. This is big stuff, and it was government funded at the start. I agree not all government spending is good, but it does have its (it’s?, its’?) moments. Perhaps the internet would have happened without government spending, but I’ll bet it took off a lot sooner. Look at GPS today. Where will that be in 20 years? And look at remote sensing. It is growing but it is still subsidized; at least for now. Look at Google Earth. It is exploiting remote sensing tech, what new businesses will it lead too? Cool, fun, scary stuff. I love it.

So I agree with the statement “The gubbemint ain't ALL bad.”

Maybe Polywell will follow the same trend (if the darn thing works).

OK, I drifted from the topic. Thanks Mike Holmes!

[djolds1]

Preach on, my brother.

I'd be more respectful if you did not resort to ad hominem. A debating opponent is to be respected. A flame baiting troll boy is food to be played with.

The above data is entirely sourced and credible. Provided you even bothered to read it, which I doubt.

Duane

I don't think you have understood my point. When I make it, you just do more of what I am talking about, changing the subject and adding more bogus overstated details on top of more bogus overstated details. You are the one who is not listening.

Your point?

"Preach on, my brother."

Ad hominem, insult and a contemptuous attitude are not overly difficult to grasp.

Heck, you probably don't even understand that I agree with you.

That becomes easier when a person debates civilly.

Duane

[seedload]

Your point?
"Preach on, my brother."
Ad hominem, insult and a contemptuous attitude are not overly difficult to grasp.

You said temperatures were going down since 1998.

I said that starting a trend in 1998 is silly. You are using their tactics.

You said, well, temperatures are flat since 2002. And, oh BTW here is all this other evidence.

I pointed out again that you are using their tactics by picking another convenient starting date for your trend (2002). Your arguments seem to be intentionally deceptive and came off to me as being preachy. I found it ironic that I was pointing this out to you and you responded by doing it some more and then intentionally shifting gears to a new set of convincing details. You bothered to respond to me without actually responding to me.

If you are that offended by my phrasing, I think it probably has as much to do with your thin skin as it does with my sarcastic tone. Considering that you are so comfortable calling other people "warmingists" and actually seeming to believe that anyone who believes in AGW is practicing "Gaianist Gnosticism", I guess I felt that you had set a tone that allowed for a little bit of playful sarcasm. Obviously, I was wrong.

I find it a little funny that you continue to focus on one phrase and ignor the fact that I am saying that you are picking trends that are INTENTIONALLY misleading.

1998 was an exceptionally hot year. Starting a trend in 1998 is misleading.

2002 was hotter than 2000. You intentially claim a flat trend starting in 2002 as evidence that the 2000's were flat. But it was colder in 2000 than in 2002 and 2000 is definitely part of the 2000's.

Why do you do that? I believe you do it for the same reason as the "warmingists" make up a hockey stick.

Regardless, reviewing your original post on Gaianist Gnosticism, I am pretty sure that I am barking up the wrong tree trying to suggest adding a bit of moderation to your arguments. I am trying to understand it, but find myself incapable. I even looked up Gnostism. I can't figure out how people can both love Gaia and consider Gaia a prison. But then you don't seem to be sure whether 'warmingists' are 'communists', 'radicalized environmentalists', 'atheist humanists', or 'North Atlantic elites'. They seem to be 'putative', running 'kangaroo courts', 'grabbing power', practicing thier 'religious faith', 'wiggling', following their 'inner spark' to find their 'transcendent focus', and otherwise acting with rather large egos because they believe themselves to be the "Smart People".

My flame baiting troll boy head is spinning. I am better off not trying to understand all of this. After all, temps have gone DOWN.

regards

[djolds1]

I find it a little funny that you continue to focus on one phrase and ignor the fact that I am saying that you are picking trends that are INTENTIONALLY misleading.

I value civility in debate. Highly. Forums given to incivility break down into flame-baiting screaming venues darn fast. That or they become heavily moderated and inevitably purge one point of view using the same political myopia which we both disagree with. Neither eventuality would improve this forum.

If you want to call me on inaccuracy or rhetorical games, that's fine.

If you do so in an insulting manner, using ad hominems and such, you undercut your own credibility just as much as I did if not more so. Civility is the cornerstone on which productive debate is based. So yes, I focus on your intentionally insulting words as more important than my detail errors and/or rhetoric; which were presented civilly.

On reflection I did use the extreme example for the 1998-2008 period. I've heard the "warmest decade on record" trope 85 too many times, and tend to throw the statistically valid counter back in their faces. If idiots are going to make claims, they ought to at least check the data. Regardless, the last decade shows no substantive warming trend.

Duane

[djolds1]

Warmingist mathematics are also "troubling:"

That is all I was saying. Your example is equally as troubling as theirs. I was pretty clear. Doing a visa versa smack down on me doesn't really change what I said. We are in agreement apparently.

That was intended as plain data, not a smackdown.

The claims of positive feedback are simply not credible.

Duane