doublegunshop.com - home Forums Global warming

LOL We are the peanut gallery!

Amen to that!!

As far as my behavior in other threads, a lot gets lost in translation. Most of my ad hominem attacks are typically made tongue 'n cheek. I am more pointed though when defending. But you have to admit, there is some pretty ridiculous shit tossed around on the misfires board. So if I am guilty of anything, it would be being an [censored] at times. Which, as I have been getting along in years, I more freely admit to.

FYI, my appreciation of the global warming email scandal is that it was much hyped.

Gnom, you gotta admit your first comment about science is not taught doesn't contribute to understanding any theory, but I'd agree that your buddy nca thinks a scientist is just a decent lab technician where you try to explain how a scientist explores beyond what's currently known. You really muddy the water and prove to me, at least, that global warming is bunk, if you truly believe it's proponents are philosophers.

Structural engineering is most certainly 'science'. Metallurgy, material properties and how they're arranging most certainly are based on scientific finding. When the next office building goes up, it won't be a bunch of big blocks stacked by slaves. If a building falls, it generally won't disprove the science, but highlight corner cutting.

You're right that 'stuff' isn't always arranged according to the books, but science lets the surgeon look before the first cut is made. A fracture can be pinpointed without opening anything up so that it can be seen first hand. The arthroscopic image on a screen has been 'proven' reliable without the confirmation of direct vision. There are times when the best available diagnostic tools don't tell the whole story, but that doesn't disprove anything. It just show how important the application of the science might be.

And, no big deal, but you most certainly asked to ponder the apparent creation of matter if someone took an organic synthesis course. But hey, that was quite a while ago, yesterday. I was just wondering if there was a scientific point to the comment or just philosophizing.

NCA you fail to address or even acknowledge the argument that is being made: There is enough uncertainty in the science that economics and world politics are important considerations in what actions need to be taken or postponed here in the USA.

If the cost to swtich is zero let's ban fossil fuels now. The science is certain enough to justify that.

If the cost is ten times the US annual gross domestic product then the science is not certain enough now and we need to wait before we take drastic action.

Of course neither figure is realistic so the scrimmage line is somewhere in between.

The economics are very important in these discussions.

And no, I don't think a warm March in Iowa or a particular area the South East having a tornada season that is well out on the bell curve prove any weather trends.

Best,

Mike

I have been living in Mexico on and off for almost 30years...Some time ago someone coined the phrase "El Nino" and "La Nina'"....Nothing changed, some times the water is cooler than other times...I bet a century ago, people called it cooler water, and warmer water...

Nope. Engineering is not "science" per se, but it does involve the application of scientific knowledge and principles.

He already admitted in this thread that he won't put his money where his mouth is. That to me is plenty proof enough that someone is full of s..t, not simply have different political leanings. Sorry to jump on your note Mike.

"NCA you fail to address or even acknowledge the argument that is being made: There is enough uncertainty in the science that economics and world politics are important considerations in what actions need to be taken or postponed here in the USA.

If the cost to swtich is zero let's ban fossil fuels now. The science is certain enough to justify that.

If the cost is ten times the US annual gross domestic product then the science is not certain enough now and we need to wait before we take drastic action.

Of course neither figure is realistic so the scrimmage line is somewhere in between.

The economics are very important in these discussions.

And no, I don't think a warm March in Iowa or a particular area the South East having a tornada season that is well out on the bell curve prove any weather trends.

Best,

Mike"


Well Mike,

Our mileage varies on that. I don't think I'm ignoring the economics presented by the situation. I just don't subscribe to the version of events you have described. Would total abandonment of fossil fuels create what you describe. Sure would. Its impractical as well. Lets talk about a proportional phasing out. Start it slowly and have policy drive the shift to non fossil fuel technology. It would need to span decades.

A decision would have to be made on the best type of "organization" (READ DOES NOT HAVE TO BE GOVERNMENT JUST INDEPENDENT) to over see the shift and distribute recourses and assets to address the economic shifts caused by going non-fossil. I have no idea what the structure and make-up of this would be, but you have to agree a project of this magnitude would need to be properly managed.

Keep the fossil fuel infrastructure intact until it is rendered obsolete with the new technology. An important detail is to drive the research and technological innovation so that old technology can be phased out.

A project that spans decades will also have the benefit of allowing the workforce to transition gradually, allowing attrition to work and younger workers to retrain.

Most importantly, this can't be done half-assed (best to leave the politics out then) It must be properly funded and managed or its another project doomed to fail.

Just an idea, but a different one than the overnight wholesale switchover that has been presupposed by the nay sayers.

I suspect you're right; however, I have been aware of the El Nino name for almost fifty years. If I remember correctly (not always the case anymore), it refers the Christmas time appearance of El Nino, the Child. I think what has really changed is that we understand the causes much better and also the impact it has on areas other than just locally along the coast of South America.

I think this is a good case of the pot calling the kettle "black". It would be nice if you answered just one question posed to you.