Global Warming Pie Chart

[Derideo_Te]

Other than the pollution, none of your listed changes is a negative. The pollution is localised only, there is some inter continental impact from Chinese pollution for sure, but it is for the most part benign.

And I have never once stated that pollution is good or should be ignored. In fact most of my career has been directed at cleaning up mans environmental damage. But that is local for the most part. There is zero empirical data that shows any worldwide pollution cauing problems other than where it is created...your fevered attack on CO2 excepted.

And all evidence shows that CO2 is the bottom rung of the food chain. Halt it and we all die. If that's your goal then stick with it. If on the other hand your goal is pollution control, then think globally, ACT locally.

Your grasp of ecology leaves a lot to be desired. Destruction of habitat is a major problem and a contributing factor in global warming. Ignore it at your own peril.

I've read enough of Westwall's posts over the last year or so to be pretty confident he is not in favor of destroying habitat in a careless or uncaring manner. And believe it or not, NONE of us eeeeeeevul skeptics want dirty air, water, soil, or destruction of wildlife and aesthetic beauty than does anybody else.

But what most of us do want is to allow human beings to exist, to live, and to improve their well being, along with that of most wildlife, in an intelligent and well considered manner. And to use common sense instead of emotional hysteria to make decisions and evaluate results.

For instance, there is a silvery minnow that supposedly exists ONLY in the middle Rio Grande that has apparently survived there for thousands of years despite the worst floods, despite terrible polluting accidents and forest fires, and despite droughts that dried up the river for months at a time. The environmentalists are so determined to protect those few non descript minnows that they demand untimely release of upstream reservoirs and refuse to allow irrigation down stream at the risk of hundreds of farmers losing their livelihood.

There needs to be a balance of reasonable compromise in there somewhere don't you think?

Absolutely! There must also be those who are willing to speak up on behalf of those that can't speak for themselves AKA silvery minnows. A compromise was reached between chicken factory farmers and those who wanted humane living conditions for the chickens when it was pointed out that larger cages resulted in healthier chickens. By reducing overcrowding the need to spend a fortune on antibiotics ever year was eliminated thus saving the farmers more than the one time cost to increase the size of the cages. Compromises are how we function as a society. Compromises need to be made with the ecosystem too since it is the only one your God gave us, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...


Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.

It's worth being honest about that.




No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.

Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."



BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

So someone got a prediction wrong therefore all scientific facts are wrong? How many times has the date of the second coming been wrong? Does that mean Christianity is wrong too? Anecdotes are meaningless. Facts are what matter.

So someone got a prediction wrong therefore all scientific facts are wrong?

No, it means someone who wants us to spend 10s of trillions of dollars and give government even more control of our lives and our economy, got a prediction wrong.
Wrong about 6 years in the future, so I'm skeptical of the same clowns and their predictions for 80 or 100 years into the future.
Because they want us to spend 10s of trillions of dollars, based on their predictions.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your grasp of ecology leaves a lot to be desired. Destruction of habitat is a major problem and a contributing factor in global warming. Ignore it at your own peril.

I've read enough of Westwall's posts over the last year or so to be pretty confident he is not in favor of destroying habitat in a careless or uncaring manner. And believe it or not, NONE of us eeeeeeevul skeptics want dirty air, water, soil, or destruction of wildlife and aesthetic beauty than does anybody else.

But what most of us do want is to allow human beings to exist, to live, and to improve their well being, along with that of most wildlife, in an intelligent and well considered manner. And to use common sense instead of emotional hysteria to make decisions and evaluate results.

For instance, there is a silvery minnow that supposedly exists ONLY in the middle Rio Grande that has apparently survived there for thousands of years despite the worst floods, despite terrible polluting accidents and forest fires, and despite droughts that dried up the river for months at a time. The environmentalists are so determined to protect those few non descript minnows that they demand untimely release of upstream reservoirs and refuse to allow irrigation down stream at the risk of hundreds of farmers losing their livelihood.

There needs to be a balance of reasonable compromise in there somewhere don't you think?

Absolutely! There must also be those who are willing to speak up on behalf of those that can't speak for themselves AKA silvery minnows. A compromise was reached between chicken factory farmers and those who wanted humane living conditions for the chickens when it was pointed out that larger cages resulted in healthier chickens. By reducing overcrowding the need to spend a fortune on antibiotics ever year was eliminated thus saving the farmers more than the one time cost to increase the size of the cages. Compromises are how we function as a society. Compromises need to be made with the ecosystem too since it is the only one your God gave us, right?

Certainly we need to make compromises that disrupt the natural ecology as little as possible. So long as it is recognized that humankind is also part of the ecology and what humans do is natural to them too. And humankind doing what comes naturally, even when it changes things, is not automatically a bad thing.

As a teenager I often walked along the base of the northern Sandias when we drove over here from Santa Fe. There were some areas we kids liked to hang out in. There was little there though other than bare dirt, rock, cactus, yucca, a few fern and rabbit bushes, and few other plants barely clinging to life. Aesthetically it was pretty grim.

Well humans have pretty well moved into that entire area now. All the trash and debris that had been carelessly dumped there is all cleaned up and there are lovely homes, elegant landscaping, artistic sculpted walls and terraces that blend in beautifully with the natural surroundings and have transformed a rather non descript desert into a place of beauty. The road runners enjoy running along the walls instead of the boring dirt paths now, the rock squirrels thrive, the coyotes still yip at night. It's all very harmonious.

But yeah, getting the building permits past the environmentalists who thought the desert should remain pristine wasn't easy to accomplish that.

The point is, if there is natural global warming, then lets focus on helping folks adapt to it. If humans are causing global warming, lets don't throw out the baby with the bath water while we seek remedies for that. And if we humans are having neglibible effect on climate change or are in fact improving where we live, then there's nothing at all to be done but let humans live and let live.

 

[Mustang]

I've read enough of Westwall's posts over the last year or so to be pretty confident he is not in favor of destroying habitat in a careless or uncaring manner. And believe it or not, NONE of us eeeeeeevul skeptics want dirty air, water, soil, or destruction of wildlife and aesthetic beauty than does anybody else.

But what most of us do want is to allow human beings to exist, to live, and to improve their well being, along with that of most wildlife, in an intelligent and well considered manner. And to use common sense instead of emotional hysteria to make decisions and evaluate results.

For instance, there is a silvery minnow that supposedly exists ONLY in the middle Rio Grande that has apparently survived there for thousands of years despite the worst floods, despite terrible polluting accidents and forest fires, and despite droughts that dried up the river for months at a time. The environmentalists are so determined to protect those few non descript minnows that they demand untimely release of upstream reservoirs and refuse to allow irrigation down stream at the risk of hundreds of farmers losing their livelihood.

There needs to be a balance of reasonable compromise in there somewhere don't you think?

Absolutely! There must also be those who are willing to speak up on behalf of those that can't speak for themselves AKA silvery minnows. A compromise was reached between chicken factory farmers and those who wanted humane living conditions for the chickens when it was pointed out that larger cages resulted in healthier chickens. By reducing overcrowding the need to spend a fortune on antibiotics ever year was eliminated thus saving the farmers more than the one time cost to increase the size of the cages. Compromises are how we function as a society. Compromises need to be made with the ecosystem too since it is the only one your God gave us, right?

Certainly we need to make compromises that disrupt the natural ecology as little as possible. So long as it is recognized that humankind is also part of the ecology and what humans do is natural to them too. And humankind doing what comes naturally, even when it changes things, is not automatically a bad thing.

As a teenager I often walked along the base of the northern Sandias when we drove over here from Santa Fe. There were some areas we kids liked to hang out in. There was little there though other than bare dirt, rock, cactus, yucca, a few fern and rabbit bushes, and few other plants barely clinging to life. Aesthetically it was pretty grim.

Well humans have pretty well moved into that entire area now. All the trash and debris that had been carelessly dumped there is all cleaned up and there are lovely homes, elegant landscaping, artistic sculpted walls and terraces that blend in beautifully with the natural surroundings and have transformed a rather non descript desert into a place of beauty. The road runners enjoy running along the walls instead of the boring dirt paths now, the rock squirrels thrive, the coyotes still yip at night. It's all very harmonious.

But yeah, getting the building permits past the environmentalists who thought the desert should remain pristine wasn't easy to accomplish that.

The point is, if there is natural global warming, then lets focus on helping folks adapt to it. If humans are causing global warming, lets don't throw out the baby with the bath water while we seek remedies for that. And if we humans are having neglibible effect on climate change or are in fact improving where we live, then there's nothing at all to be done but let humans live and let live.

Yeah, humans have been moving into a whole bunch of new areas, thereby driving off the indigenous life forms in one way or another. And if they don't leave, we exterminate them in order to make room for our homes, our lawns, our roads, our stores, our farms, our businesses, etc.

 

[Dragonlady]

What I am NOT for is chasing theories and maxims put out by people who seem to be primarily interested in increasing THEIR personal power and fortunes and don't seem to give a damn what negative effects result from their doctrines and don't care whether they are right or not so long as the money keeps flowing in.

Scientists are not getting rich or increasing personal power putting out these reports. YOU don't seem to give a damn about anything other than your own pocket book and you're looking for any way to avoid the facts. There is SUBSTANTIAL evidence that global warming, destruction of habitat, and loss of ice in Antartica is made made.

 

[Saigon]

The point is, if there is natural global warming, then lets focus on helping folks adapt to it. If humans are causing global warming, lets don't throw out the baby with the bath water while we seek remedies for that. And if we humans are having neglibible effect on climate change or are in fact improving where we live, then there's nothing at all to be done but let humans live and let live.

Foxfyre -

I do think that is exactly what most people and most scientists ARE saying. Lunatic extremists aside, dealing with climate change means new technologies and new solutions.

The best example I can think of is the ban on CFC's. As a result of that ban, the ozone hole has grown smaller, and the result of that should be less skin cancers in New Zealand and Australia. A simple technological solution has made a difference to peoples lives.

No one is sggesting we all go live in caves - this is about how we can maintain or improve our standards of linving, while also protecting our planet.


Westwall -

Please post honestly and sensibly. I have already shown that many of the predictions concerning the Arctic and glacial melt were far too conservative, which was my original point.

 

[JoeNormal]

Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol

Yes, your methods are so successful, you mandate that MTBE be added to gasoline to combat air pollution ignoring the experts from the sceptical side that warned you the consequences of that would be severe.

We were proven correct as thousands of water wells were polluted throughout California.

A classic example of "crisis mismanagement" which you all do on a regular basis.

I'll bet I can come up with a counter example for every similar criticism you have.

I remember all the pissing and moaning back in the 70's about cars having to meet more stringent emissions standards. The cars don't run right, gotta use unleaded gas, GD government mandating to the car companies... And I also remember the super crappy air we all had to breathe. There was a winter with 60 straight days of pea soup fog inversion. Now, with about 3 or 4 times the population, the air is much better than it was back then.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol

Yes, your methods are so successful, you mandate that MTBE be added to gasoline to combat air pollution ignoring the experts from the sceptical side that warned you the consequences of that would be severe.

We were proven correct as thousands of water wells were polluted throughout California.

A classic example of "crisis mismanagement" which you all do on a regular basis.

I'll bet I can come up with a counter example for every similar criticism you have.

I remember all the pissing and moaning back in the 70's about cars having to meet more stringent emissions standards. The cars don't run right, gotta use unleaded gas, GD government mandating to the car companies... And I also remember the super crappy air we all had to breathe. There was a winter with 60 straight days of pea soup fog inversion. Now, with about 3 or 4 times the population, the air is much better than it was back then.

But is improvement in air quality a result of removing lead from automobiles? I don't recall any studies that leaded gasoline affected air quality. It did however add lead to the soil along our roadways and that in turn was suspected of allowing read to run off into water ways and/or leach into ground water. And because lead is so toxic to humans, THAT is why it was a good thing to remove lead from automotive fuels. Also lead is destructive to catalytic converters that are removing other pollutants from the air.

The air quality has definitely been improved, however, by requiring factories and production plants to clean up their emissions, adding scrubbers and detoxifiers instead of belching tons of pollutants out of their smoke stacks. Here is Albuquerque, because of naturally occuring in our valley, there are burn and no burn days for wood burning fireplaces and during the winter months these are announced each day in the newspaper and on the radio. All this was in progress long before global warming was becoming the religion of environmental activists.

But some of the scientific conclusions that have made their way into policy are less justifiable. Take ethanol in motor fuels for instance.

Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85. Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
Want to Reduce Air Pollution? Don't Rely on Ethanol Necessarily: Scientific American

Further, millions of acres of quality farmland are now devoted to growing crops to make ethanol instead of for quality food for people to eat. This has driven up costs for most food products we buy which might factor in to more than twice as many Americans needing food stamps over recent years.

Somewhere in all of this we seem to have lost common sense or any ability to really analyze and assess whether our policy and practices are doing more harm than good.

And the environmental religionists don't seem to care.

 

[JoeNormal]

Yes, your methods are so successful, you mandate that MTBE be added to gasoline to combat air pollution ignoring the experts from the sceptical side that warned you the consequences of that would be severe.

We were proven correct as thousands of water wells were polluted throughout California.

A classic example of "crisis mismanagement" which you all do on a regular basis.

I'll bet I can come up with a counter example for every similar criticism you have.

I remember all the pissing and moaning back in the 70's about cars having to meet more stringent emissions standards. The cars don't run right, gotta use unleaded gas, GD government mandating to the car companies... And I also remember the super crappy air we all had to breathe. There was a winter with 60 straight days of pea soup fog inversion. Now, with about 3 or 4 times the population, the air is much better than it was back then.

But is improvement in air quality a result of removing lead from automobiles? I don't recall any studies that leaded gasoline affected air quality. It did however add lead to the soil along our roadways and that in turn was suspected of allowing read to run off into water ways and/or leach into ground water. And because lead is so toxic to humans, THAT is why it was a good thing to remove lead from automotive fuels. Also lead is destructive to catalytic converters that are removing other pollutants from the air.

The air quality has definitely been improved, however, by requiring factories and production plants to clean up their emissions, adding scrubbers and detoxifiers instead of belching tons of pollutants out of their smoke stacks. Here is Albuquerque, because of naturally occuring in our valley, there are burn and no burn days for wood burning fireplaces and during the winter months these are announced each day in the newspaper and on the radio. All this was in progress long before global warming was becoming the religion of environmental activists.

But some of the scientific conclusions that have made their way into policy are less justifiable. Take ethanol in motor fuels for instance.

Environmental engineer Mark Jacobson of Stanford University used a computer model to assess how the air pollution in the U.S. would react if vehicles remained primarily fueled by gasoline in 2020 or if the fleet transferred to a fuel that was a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline, so-called E85. Under the latter scenario, levels of the cancer-causing agents benzene and butadiene dropped, whereas those of formaldehyde and acetaldehyde rose: In other words, it was a wash.

Because burning ethanol can potentially add more smog-forming pollution to the atmosphere, however, it can also exacerbate the ill effects of such air pollution. According to Jacobson, burning ethanol adds 22 percent more hydrocarbons to the atmosphere than does burning gasoline and this would lead to a nearly two parts per billion increase in tropospheric ozone. This surface ozone, which has been linked to inflamed lungs, impaired immune systems and heart disease by prior research, would in turn lead to a 4 percent increase in the number of ground level ozone-related deaths, or roughly 200 extra deaths a year. "Due to its ozone effects, future E85 may be a greater overall public health risk than gasoline," Jacobson writes in the study published in Environmental Science & Technology. "It can be concluded with confidence only that E85 is unlikely to improve air quality over future gasoline vehicles."
Want to Reduce Air Pollution? Don't Rely on Ethanol Necessarily: Scientific American

Further, millions of acres of quality farmland are now devoted to growing crops to make ethanol instead of for quality food for people to eat. This has driven up costs for most food products we buy which might factor in to more than twice as many Americans needing food stamps over recent years.

Somewhere in all of this we seem to have lost common sense or any ability to really analyze and assess whether our policy and practices are doing more harm than good.

And the environmental religionists don't seem to care.

My main point is that not all government mandated environmental laws are enacted to be a pain in the butt for industry and that some (many) of them actually accomplish the goal that was set.

As for your take on ethanol, I agree.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But at least that is rarely ever as destructive as "Let's tell everybody that there is a terrible danger for the entire world out there and get our countries to pass a lot of laws to deal with it. Because there are fools who will believe anything if it is published in the right kind of publication, we can make out like bandits. We might have to shut up a few folks, but it will be worth it."

yeah except all I'm saying is pro vs con. Your so wrapped up in who would be getting money that you're against doing anything for the planet we all live on. If we were talking about not cutting your front lawn...ok, you would have to deal with the ticks, bugs, weeds etc.

We're talking about not doing anything for the entire block (for example) and you want everyone to deal with the ticks, vermin, bugs and weeds because you don't want the landscaper to make money. Makes total sense...except, no

Excuse me? You don't know me and don't have a clue about what I am for and against re the planet.

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

So lets break this down for a sec. You only want things to be done that have a proven record to work. I agree, except how do you get a proven record of something working without testing, research and theorizing? You cant, so you've already baked failure into the cake unless you know a way to finding solutions with research. Next Paragraph

What I am NOT for is chasing theories and maxims put out by people who seem to be primarily interested in increasing THEIR personal power and fortunes and don't seem to give a damn what negative effects result from their doctrines and don't care whether they are right or not so long as the money keeps flowing in.

Again, how do you find a solution without a theory first? Does it come from god?
Also you just took a motive you don't like (personal power and fortunes) and applied to everyone in the field. So, how do you find a solution when you don't want them to theorize a solution AND you want to withhold any money to find a solution because you believe they are doing something else with the money and power. Again, baking failure right into the cake. I'll ask again, how do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it? Next Paragraph..

What I am NOT for is giving up my or anybody else's liberties, choices, options, and opportunities for what is very likely flawed science being used by unethical and opportunistic people.

"Very likely flawed science" - You're on a roll, not only do you not want anyone to research, theorize and test. Because that's bad? But you don't want anyone to have any money to provide the answer that is supposed to come by divine power...but also you already know that the science or answers they'll produce in the future is already flawed. Now we are getting somewhere...You don't disagree with research, you don't believe anything scientist have to say on the subject. And that's why you throw up all these other smoke screens about motives, answers without research, power etc. It all stems from your inability to believe in ANY results they have or WILL produce in the future. Next Paragraph...

What I am NOT for is condemning some of the world's poorest people to ever more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied the ability to use their natural resources to better the lives as the rest of us have already done.

Be careful what you accuse others of in your zeal to grovel at the feet of the great gods of the AGW religion.

Everyone is against that. Its like being against cat fucking. You're not really going rogue with that opinion.

So please explain to everyone (you've laid out what you aren't for, why I don't know) How you plan to produce answers to the problems we could face without money, researching, testing, and theorizing? And how will any of that stop you from accusing anyone of producing flawed science? How do you propose to make sure someone isn't doing it "just for power" that would make it ok for you?

All of these have no answers because your issue isn't really with the 14-15 things you listed here. You have an issue with the subject altogether. Everyone has 1 or 2 reasons for something but when the "reasons" are this many they become excuses

 

[Foxfyre]

yeah except all I'm saying is pro vs con. Your so wrapped up in who would be getting money that you're against doing anything for the planet we all live on. If we were talking about not cutting your front lawn...ok, you would have to deal with the ticks, bugs, weeds etc.

We're talking about not doing anything for the entire block (for example) and you want everyone to deal with the ticks, vermin, bugs and weeds because you don't want the landscaper to make money. Makes total sense...except, no

Excuse me? You don't know me and don't have a clue about what I am for and against re the planet.

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

So lets break this down for a sec. You only want things to be done that have a proven record to work. I agree, except how do you get a proven record of something working without testing, research and theorizing? You cant, so you've already baked failure into the cake unless you know a way to finding solutions with research. Next Paragraph



Again, how do you find a solution without a theory first? Does it come from god?
Also you just took a motive you don't like (personal power and fortunes) and applied to everyone in the field. So, how do you find a solution when you don't want them to theorize a solution AND you want to withhold any money to find a solution because you believe they are doing something else with the money and power. Again, baking failure right into the cake. I'll ask again, how do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it? Next Paragraph..

What I am NOT for is giving up my or anybody else's liberties, choices, options, and opportunities for what is very likely flawed science being used by unethical and opportunistic people.

"Very likely flawed science" - You're on a roll, not only do you not want anyone to research, theorize and test. Because that's bad? But you don't want anyone to have any money to provide the answer that is supposed to come by divine power...but also you already know that the science or answers they'll produce in the future is already flawed. Now we are getting somewhere...You don't disagree with research, you don't believe anything scientist have to say on the subject. And that's why you throw up all these other smoke screens about motives, answers without research, power etc. It all stems from your inability to believe in ANY results they have or WILL produce in the future. Next Paragraph...

What I am NOT for is condemning some of the world's poorest people to ever more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied the ability to use their natural resources to better the lives as the rest of us have already done.

Be careful what you accuse others of in your zeal to grovel at the feet of the great gods of the AGW religion.

Everyone is against that. Its like being against cat fucking. You're not really going rogue with that opinion.

So please explain to everyone (you've laid out what you aren't for, why I don't know) How you plan to produce answers to the problems we could face without money, researching, testing, and theorizing? And how will any of that stop you from accusing anyone of producing flawed science? How do you propose to make sure someone isn't doing it "just for power" that would make it ok for you?

All of these have no answers because your issue isn't really with the 14-15 things you listed here. You have an issue with the subject altogether. Everyone has 1 or 2 reasons for something but when the "reasons" are this many they become excuses

And you can't and haven't rebutted a thing I said without misrepresenting what I said, misrepresenting what I want, misrepresenting what I intend, etc. etc. etc.

Here's your first clue Sherlock. Your opinion is no more valuable than anybody else's when you don't back it up with anything. And your opinion is much more likely to be deeply flawed if you aren't willing to even look at anything that doesn't fit the beliefs you choose to have. I look at everything. Pro and con. I consider the sources. I consider the motives. I consider the funding. And I consider what is to be gained and who will profit.

And I also have lived long enought to be deeply aware of good intentions producing unintended negative consequences. No matter what the motive, if the concept is more harmful than good, it should not be done.

I'm not going to support something that somebody wants us to buy into because it MIGHT help when I can look around me and see the negatives that it is producing.

Obama, for instance directed more than $90 billion. . .that billion with a B. . . of the stimulus money to green energy projects. The last I read, as of the first of this year, the track record is 2 successes to 52 failures.

I don't know too many people that would say a track record like that is commendable or that we should continue down that road.

Occam's razor indeed. When something isn't working, we should not blindly continue to do it just because somebody thought it MIGHT be a good thing. The simplest solution when something isn't working is to just stop doing it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Excuse me? You don't know me and don't have a clue about what I am for and against re the planet.

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

So lets break this down for a sec. You only want things to be done that have a proven record to work. I agree, except how do you get a proven record of something working without testing, research and theorizing? You cant, so you've already baked failure into the cake unless you know a way to finding solutions with research. Next Paragraph



Again, how do you find a solution without a theory first? Does it come from god?
Also you just took a motive you don't like (personal power and fortunes) and applied to everyone in the field. So, how do you find a solution when you don't want them to theorize a solution AND you want to withhold any money to find a solution because you believe they are doing something else with the money and power. Again, baking failure right into the cake. I'll ask again, how do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it? Next Paragraph..



"Very likely flawed science" - You're on a roll, not only do you not want anyone to research, theorize and test. Because that's bad? But you don't want anyone to have any money to provide the answer that is supposed to come by divine power...but also you already know that the science or answers they'll produce in the future is already flawed. Now we are getting somewhere...You don't disagree with research, you don't believe anything scientist have to say on the subject. And that's why you throw up all these other smoke screens about motives, answers without research, power etc. It all stems from your inability to believe in ANY results they have or WILL produce in the future. Next Paragraph...

What I am NOT for is condemning some of the world's poorest people to ever more generations of crushing poverty because they are denied the ability to use their natural resources to better the lives as the rest of us have already done.

Be careful what you accuse others of in your zeal to grovel at the feet of the great gods of the AGW religion.

Everyone is against that. Its like being against cat fucking. You're not really going rogue with that opinion.

So please explain to everyone (you've laid out what you aren't for, why I don't know) How you plan to produce answers to the problems we could face without money, researching, testing, and theorizing? And how will any of that stop you from accusing anyone of producing flawed science? How do you propose to make sure someone isn't doing it "just for power" that would make it ok for you?

All of these have no answers because your issue isn't really with the 14-15 things you listed here. You have an issue with the subject altogether. Everyone has 1 or 2 reasons for something but when the "reasons" are this many they become excuses

And you can't and haven't rebutted a thing I said without misrepresenting what I said, misrepresenting what I want, misrepresenting what I intend, etc. etc. etc.

I cant provide a rebuttal to an opinion piece. If you lay out facts, I'll take a look and respond to that.

Here's your first clue Sherlock. Your opinion is no more valuable than anybody else's when you don't back it up with anything. And your opinion is much more likely to be deeply flawed if you aren't willing to even look at anything that doesn't fit the beliefs you choose to have. I look at everything. Pro and con. I consider the sources. I consider the motives. I consider the funding. And I consider what is to be gained and who will profit.

I agree, that's why I asked how do you think we should come up with answers with theorizing, testing and researching? Its an open question.

Btw, you cant consider motives unless someone tells you what they are. If they do not, motive is what you believe it to be. Who profits should come second to finding an answer or is finding an answer less important?

And I also have lived long enought to be deeply aware of good intentions producing unintended negative consequences. No matter what the motive, if the concept is more harmful than good, it should not be done.

again, not going rogue with this opinion...everyone agrees

I'm not going to support something that somebody wants us to buy into because it MIGHT help when I can look around me and see the negatives that it is producing.

I know what you're not going to do...I'll ask you again and Again, how do you want ppl to come up with answers that WILL help if you don't want them to theorize, research and test?

Obama, for instance directed more than $90 billion. . .that billion with a B. . . of the stimulus money to green energy projects. The last I read, as of the first of this year, the track record is 2 successes to 52 failures.

So? That's part of testing, researching and theorizing...Think NASA

I don't know too many people that would say a track record like that is commendable or that we should continue down that road.

How many success' would be enough...ya know what nevermind now you're shit against the wall like your previous post

Occam's razor indeed. When something isn't working, we should not blindly continue to do it just because somebody thought it MIGHT be a good thing. The simplest solution when something isn't working is to just stop doing it.

You're right, the first plane that was built was a 747, the first boat was a cruiseliner and the first computer was an ipad

I'll ask again...It's the only question I've asked you in fact but maybe you missed it

How do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it?

 

[Foxfyre]

So lets break this down for a sec. You only want things to be done that have a proven record to work. I agree, except how do you get a proven record of something working without testing, research and theorizing? You cant, so you've already baked failure into the cake unless you know a way to finding solutions with research. Next Paragraph



Again, how do you find a solution without a theory first? Does it come from god?
Also you just took a motive you don't like (personal power and fortunes) and applied to everyone in the field. So, how do you find a solution when you don't want them to theorize a solution AND you want to withhold any money to find a solution because you believe they are doing something else with the money and power. Again, baking failure right into the cake. I'll ask again, how do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it? Next Paragraph..



"Very likely flawed science" - You're on a roll, not only do you not want anyone to research, theorize and test. Because that's bad? But you don't want anyone to have any money to provide the answer that is supposed to come by divine power...but also you already know that the science or answers they'll produce in the future is already flawed. Now we are getting somewhere...You don't disagree with research, you don't believe anything scientist have to say on the subject. And that's why you throw up all these other smoke screens about motives, answers without research, power etc. It all stems from your inability to believe in ANY results they have or WILL produce in the future. Next Paragraph...



Everyone is against that. Its like being against cat fucking. You're not really going rogue with that opinion.

So please explain to everyone (you've laid out what you aren't for, why I don't know) How you plan to produce answers to the problems we could face without money, researching, testing, and theorizing? And how will any of that stop you from accusing anyone of producing flawed science? How do you propose to make sure someone isn't doing it "just for power" that would make it ok for you?

All of these have no answers because your issue isn't really with the 14-15 things you listed here. You have an issue with the subject altogether. Everyone has 1 or 2 reasons for something but when the "reasons" are this many they become excuses

And you can't and haven't rebutted a thing I said without misrepresenting what I said, misrepresenting what I want, misrepresenting what I intend, etc. etc. etc.

I cant provide a rebuttal to an opinion piece. If you lay out facts, I'll take a look and respond to that.



I agree, that's why I asked how do you think we should come up with answers with theorizing, testing and researching? Its an open question.

Btw, you cant consider motives unless someone tells you what they are. If they do not, motive is what you believe it to be. Who profits should come second to finding an answer or is finding an answer less important?



again, not going rogue with this opinion...everyone agrees



I know what you're not going to do...I'll ask you again and Again, how do you want ppl to come up with answers that WILL help if you don't want them to theorize, research and test?



So? That's part of testing, researching and theorizing...Think NASA

I don't know too many people that would say a track record like that is commendable or that we should continue down that road.

How many success' would be enough...ya know what nevermind now you're shit against the wall like your previous post

Occam's razor indeed. When something isn't working, we should not blindly continue to do it just because somebody thought it MIGHT be a good thing. The simplest solution when something isn't working is to just stop doing it.

You're right, the first plane that was built was a 747, the first boat was a cruiseliner and the first computer was an ipad

I'll ask again...It's the only question I've asked you in fact but maybe you missed it

How do you come up with a solution without theorizing, testing, and researching? Also, how do you test, theorize and research without money because you don't want them to have it?

I have no problem with testing, theorizing, and researching. I not only do that all the time, but teach it as well. Sometimes it requires money to do. Sometimes not. When it does, I don't look to anybody but myself to produce it.

But when I have tested something again and again and again with the same bad results, or without producing the results I am looking for, that is a strong clue for me that I need to do something different and/or take a different approach.

Have you read any of the writings/teachings of Gary Goodman PhD? Dr. Goodman is a well known management and business theories consultant who, as a personal hobby, tracks down fallacies offered as 'proof' for this or that theory and that have made their way into the conventional wisdom.

For instance, with a short amount of research, he discoverd that Thomas Edison had tried 'thousands of times', 1,000 times, 2,000 times, 2,988 times, 3,000 times, 5,000 times, 6,000 times, and 6,635 times to produce a working lightbulb. Conclusion, nobody really knew how many times Edison had tried, but folks kept repeating numbers they had read somewhere else when they used him for an example.

But we can conclude that he made a lot of attempts before he arrived at a working model. And it is a pretty safe bet that he didn't try the same thing more than a very few times before concluding that it wasn't going to work and he needed to try a different approach.

Ditto for those who invented the cotton gin, the steam engine, the automobile, airplanes, computers, can openers, vessels carrying people into space, etc. etc. etc. When one thing didn't work, they tried something else until something did. But they weren't involving anybody in the process who didn't want to be involved.

And those folks working on those things were not demanding that policy be adopted and forced on other people, to their detriment, based on what they HOPED might eventually come of their research. And with very few exceptions, they certainly didn't expect the taxpayer to fund their efforts.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I have no problem with testing, theorizing, and researching. I not only do that all the time, but teach it as well. Sometimes it requires money to do. Sometimes not. When it does, I don't look to anybody but myself to produce it.

That's not what you said earlier, you said:

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

Sooo, now you are for things that maybe, might or possibly could?

But when I have tested something again and again and again with the same bad results, or without producing the results I am looking for, that is a strong clue for me that I need to do something different and/or take a different approach.

Right, testing, researching and theorizing...All which you are against. Or now you're for it. or Both...yeah

Have you read any of the writings/teachings of Gary Goodman PhD? Dr. Goodman is a well known management and business theories consultant who, as a personal hobby, tracks down fallacies offered as 'proof' for this or that theory and that have made their way into the conventional wisdom.

no but Cool story

For instance, with a short amount of research, he discoverd that Thomas Edison had tried 'thousands of times', 1,000 times, 2,000 times, 2,988 times, 3,000 times, 5,000 times, 6,000 times, and 6,635 times to produce a working lightbulb. Conclusion, nobody really knew how many times Edison had tried, but folks kept repeating numbers they had read somewhere else when they used him for an example.

Did Edison try 52 times? Because earlier you said 52 failures and 2 success meant they should stop trying. btw cool story

But we can conclude that he made a lot of attempts before he arrived at a working model. And it is a pretty safe bet that he didn't try the same thing more than a very few times before concluding that it wasn't going to work and he needed to try a different approach.

Correct as long as its not more than 52 times.

Ditto for those who invented the cotton gin, the steam engine, the automobile, airplanes, computers, can openers, vessels carrying people into space, etc. etc. etc. When one thing didn't work, they tried something else until something did. But they weren't involving anybody in the process who didn't want to be involved.

Cool story, now we are on the same page. It's take more than a few times to find a solution but your premise is that these Envionmental Scienctist are doing the same things an infinite number of times without switching their technique. Did Gary Goodman tell you that or did you just make it up?

And those folks working on those things were not demanding that policy be adopted and forced on other people, to their detriment, based on what they HOPED might eventually come of their research. And with very few exceptions, they certainly didn't expect the taxpayer to fund their efforts.

Ahhh, want to know why? Because they sold those things for profit. Which is very different. They invested in something that would bring a return. The only return in a cleaner planet is...a cleaner planet. Unless you sell the planet.

Paragraphs aside, do you support testing, researching and theorizing now or do you not support it like you said earlier? Both is not an answer btw

 

[westwall]

The point is, if there is natural global warming, then lets focus on helping folks adapt to it. If humans are causing global warming, lets don't throw out the baby with the bath water while we seek remedies for that. And if we humans are having neglibible effect on climate change or are in fact improving where we live, then there's nothing at all to be done but let humans live and let live.

Foxfyre -

I do think that is exactly what most people and most scientists ARE saying. Lunatic extremists aside, dealing with climate change means new technologies and new solutions.

The best example I can think of is the ban on CFC's. As a result of that ban, the ozone hole has grown smaller, and the result of that should be less skin cancers in New Zealand and Australia. A simple technological solution has made a difference to peoples lives.

No one is sggesting we all go live in caves - this is about how we can maintain or improve our standards of linving, while also protecting our planet.


Westwall -

Please post honestly and sensibly. I have already shown that many of the predictions concerning the Arctic and glacial melt were far too conservative, which was my original point.

And you are LYING!



Just so people can see what a loon saigon is. His fundamental lack of honesty is fully displayed here...


Quote: Originally Posted by Saigon
Westwall -

You and I both know that predictions made about ice loss in the Arctic and on the collapse of global glaciers turned out to be much more conservative than what actually occured.

It's worth being honest about that.




No, they havn't been. In 2007 the revisionists were proclaiming an ice free arctic by 2013.
WHOOPS.... You see dear silly person with this wonderful thing called the internet we can go back and print up all the stupid halfwit claims made by the revisionists....so that revisionists like you can't revise history, and the historical record, to suit you.

Must suck to be so wrong so completely....all the gosh damned time.



Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.

In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly

Professor Peter Wadhams

"Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007," the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
"So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative."



BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

 

[westwall]

Some of you guys would make terrible "risk managers". The advice would be "I dunno, lets just see if that happens" lol

Yes, your methods are so successful, you mandate that MTBE be added to gasoline to combat air pollution ignoring the experts from the sceptical side that warned you the consequences of that would be severe.

We were proven correct as thousands of water wells were polluted throughout California.

A classic example of "crisis mismanagement" which you all do on a regular basis.

I'll bet I can come up with a counter example for every similar criticism you have.

I remember all the pissing and moaning back in the 70's about cars having to meet more stringent emissions standards. The cars don't run right, gotta use unleaded gas, GD government mandating to the car companies... And I also remember the super crappy air we all had to breathe. There was a winter with 60 straight days of pea soup fog inversion. Now, with about 3 or 4 times the population, the air is much better than it was back then.

And I was one of those fighting for better air. What I do NOT condone is ignorant people mandating regulations that cause more harm than the problem they are trying to fix.

Do you understand that?

For truly catastrophic regulations like that and actions that have likewise caused massive destruction you look at the radical environmentalists because they don't care about the outcome, they only care about the perception they are doing something great.

The Kaibab Plateau disaster is another example of environmentalism run amock because they just couldn't be bothered to educate themselves on the issue.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have no problem with testing, theorizing, and researching. I not only do that all the time, but teach it as well. Sometimes it requires money to do. Sometimes not. When it does, I don't look to anybody but myself to produce it.

That's not what you said earlier, you said:

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

Sooo, now you are for things that maybe, might or possibly could?



Right, testing, researching and theorizing...All which you are against. Or now you're for it. or Both...yeah



no but Cool story



Did Edison try 52 times? Because earlier you said 52 failures and 2 success meant they should stop trying. btw cool story



Correct as long as its not more than 52 times.

Ditto for those who invented the cotton gin, the steam engine, the automobile, airplanes, computers, can openers, vessels carrying people into space, etc. etc. etc. When one thing didn't work, they tried something else until something did. But they weren't involving anybody in the process who didn't want to be involved.

Cool story, now we are on the same page. It's take more than a few times to find a solution but your premise is that these Envionmental Scienctist are doing the same things an infinite number of times without switching their technique. Did Gary Goodman tell you that or did you just make it up?

And those folks working on those things were not demanding that policy be adopted and forced on other people, to their detriment, based on what they HOPED might eventually come of their research. And with very few exceptions, they certainly didn't expect the taxpayer to fund their efforts.

Ahhh, want to know why? Because they sold those things for profit. Which is very different. They invested in something that would bring a return. The only return in a cleaner planet is...a cleaner planet. Unless you sell the planet.

Paragraphs aside, do you support testing, researching and theorizing now or do you not support it like you said earlier? Both is not an answer btw

I never ever said I did not support testing, research, or theorizing and I would challenge you to find any post anywhere on the internet where I even suggested that I did not support testing, research, or theorizing.

And yes, the pro AGW people, the scientists, politicians, and others who profit from the AGW agenda, are doing the same things over and over and over and beating the same drums in hope, I suppose, that everybody will just give up and accept what they preach as fact. Much as many just accepted those numbers re Edison's research as fact.

And let's look at the profit motive a bit too. Yes, most of those folks doing all the research and experimentation to give us wonderful products that have improved and enhanced our lives so much might have been doing it for profit. I suspect most were doing it just to find out whether it could be done. Once they found out it could be done, then yes millions of people have benefitted from and profited from their efforts. That is the way freedom and a free market works.

But Edison didn't demand that storage and transmission facilities be built to supply electric lighting while he was in the process of finding out whether such a thing was feasible. He wasn't demanding that the less efficient and more dangerous gas and kerosene lighting be phased out because there might be electric lighting available in the future. And he wasn't demanding that the local or state or federal governments make policy toward that end or pay him money to do his research.

Edison was by no means the only one working on a viable incandescent electric light bulb, but he was the first to get to the patent office with a working model. The tumultous history of the development of the electric lighting industry is interesting and spans several decades with many others getting into the act. But in the process they changed the world forever.

Important​

Their efforts didn't cost anbody a dime other than themselves.

And they didn't ask a single soul to give up a single kerosene lantern or wax candle or gas light in the entire process. They produced a better product that people recognized as superior to what they had and were willing to pay to have it.

And THAT is difference between research, theory, and experimentation to accomplish a specific purpose and that which is designed to control and order the people without providing them a product they want or need or that has demonstrated that it has any necessary benefit.

 

[westwall]

I have no problem with testing, theorizing, and researching. I not only do that all the time, but teach it as well. Sometimes it requires money to do. Sometimes not. When it does, I don't look to anybody but myself to produce it.

That's not what you said earlier, you said:

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

Sooo, now you are for things that maybe, might or possibly could?



Right, testing, researching and theorizing...All which you are against. Or now you're for it. or Both...yeah



no but Cool story



Did Edison try 52 times? Because earlier you said 52 failures and 2 success meant they should stop trying. btw cool story



Correct as long as its not more than 52 times.

Ditto for those who invented the cotton gin, the steam engine, the automobile, airplanes, computers, can openers, vessels carrying people into space, etc. etc. etc. When one thing didn't work, they tried something else until something did. But they weren't involving anybody in the process who didn't want to be involved.

Cool story, now we are on the same page. It's take more than a few times to find a solution but your premise is that these Envionmental Scienctist are doing the same things an infinite number of times without switching their technique. Did Gary Goodman tell you that or did you just make it up?

And those folks working on those things were not demanding that policy be adopted and forced on other people, to their detriment, based on what they HOPED might eventually come of their research. And with very few exceptions, they certainly didn't expect the taxpayer to fund their efforts.

Ahhh, want to know why? Because they sold those things for profit. Which is very different. They invested in something that would bring a return. The only return in a cleaner planet is...a cleaner planet. Unless you sell the planet.

Paragraphs aside, do you support testing, researching and theorizing now or do you not support it like you said earlier? Both is not an answer btw

Of course we support testing. However I find it amusing that you equate Edison trying something 52 times with the abject failure of the "green" programs that Obama funded. The amount of resources committed for instance is orders of magnitude greater in the failures today. When one of Edisons guys failed in an experiment it cost a few hundred dollars and time.

The projects that Foxfyre mentioned resulted in the squandering of billions that could have gone to projects that had a much higher chance of succeeding. The one overiding reality is that all of the companies that got money were owned by "friends of Obama" save in one case.

That is called corruption my friend.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I have no problem with testing, theorizing, and researching. I not only do that all the time, but teach it as well. Sometimes it requires money to do. Sometimes not. When it does, I don't look to anybody but myself to produce it.

That's not what you said earlier, you said:



Sooo, now you are for things that maybe, might or possibly could?



Right, testing, researching and theorizing...All which you are against. Or now you're for it. or Both...yeah



no but Cool story



Did Edison try 52 times? Because earlier you said 52 failures and 2 success meant they should stop trying. btw cool story



Correct as long as its not more than 52 times.



Cool story, now we are on the same page. It's take more than a few times to find a solution but your premise is that these Envionmental Scienctist are doing the same things an infinite number of times without switching their technique. Did Gary Goodman tell you that or did you just make it up?

And those folks working on those things were not demanding that policy be adopted and forced on other people, to their detriment, based on what they HOPED might eventually come of their research. And with very few exceptions, they certainly didn't expect the taxpayer to fund their efforts.

Ahhh, want to know why? Because they sold those things for profit. Which is very different. They invested in something that would bring a return. The only return in a cleaner planet is...a cleaner planet. Unless you sell the planet.

Paragraphs aside, do you support testing, researching and theorizing now or do you not support it like you said earlier? Both is not an answer btw

I never ever said I did not support testing, research, or theorizing and I would challenge you to find any post anywhere on the internet where I even suggested that I did not support testing, research, or theorizing.

Actually you did, I'll post it again for you:

But just for your edification, I can assure you I am for whatever will--not maybe it might, not it possibly could, not let's pretend it will--but whatever will improve our air, water, soil quality and preserve the wonderful creatures and aesthetic beauty that God gave us. Good stewardship in all things is pretty damn important to me.

Now that's the 2nd time I posted it. See it now?

And yes, the pro AGW people, the scientists, politicians, and others who profit from the AGW agenda, are doing the same things over and over and over and beating the same drums in hope, I suppose, that everybody will just give up and accept what they preach as fact. Much as many just accepted those numbers re Edison's research as fact.

Ahh you just made a statement of fact without reference. Link or you made it up?

And let's look at the profit motive a bit too.

Lets not, profits aren't bad and if someone profits from developing good science why are you in their pockets or mad about it. No matter why you are, it doesn't matter

But Edison didn't demand that storage and transmission facilities be built to supply electric lighting while he was in the process of finding out whether such a thing was feasible. He wasn't demanding that the less efficient and more dangerous gas and kerosene lighting be phased out because there might be electric lighting available in the future. And he wasn't demanding that the local or state or federal governments make policy toward that end or pay him money to do his research.

Why do you always talk about what didn't happen. Yeah, I know, what about it?

Edison was by no means the only one working on a viable incandescent electric light bulb, but he was the first to get to the patent office with a working model. The tumultous history of the development of the electric lighting industry is interesting and spans several decades with many others getting into the act. But in the process they changed the world forever.

Important​

Their efforts didn't cost anbody a dime other than themselves.

And they didn't ask a single soul to give up a single kerosene lantern or wax candle or gas light in the entire process. They produced a better product that people recognized as superior to what they had and were willing to pay to have it.

And THAT is difference between research, theory, and experimentation to accomplish a specific purpose and that which is designed to control and order the people without providing them a product they want or need or that has demonstrated that it has any necessary benefit.

Do you know what impact a cleaner earth has as compared to a light bulb? For you to compare the two is ridiculous. You cant live on a light bulb. Ecosystems don't live on light bulbs. I mean, be serious and talk about science and Global Warming / Climate Change and how we are supposed to find answers without research. I only posted you saying so 3 times already, I figured you would address the first time but you keep on with Light bulbs and stuff

 

[ClosedCaption]

Of course we support testing. However I find it amusing that you equate Edison trying something 52 times with the abject failure of the "green" programs that Obama funded.

I didn't...Fox Fyre did and said since out of 52 times there were only 2 success' then it's not worth it because...the earth is...like a light bulb? Or something

The amount of resources committed for instance is orders of magnitude greater in the failures today. When one of Edisons guys failed in an experiment it cost a few hundred dollars and time.

Uh yeah, know why....Because it was a fucking light bulb not the Manhatten project

The projects that Foxfyre mentioned resulted in the squandering of billions that could have gone to projects that had a much higher chance of succeeding.

According to...? Btw Monday Morning Quarterbacking is different than playing the game. could things have been better? Sure...Was it a total loss? Nope, even Fox said there has been 2 in the win column. I bet you're going to say 3 would be better, right?

The one overiding reality is that all of the companies that got money were owned by "friends of Obama" save in one case.

That is called corruption my friend.

Friends how? And were they scientists doing science? Or not? statements of fact require proof...remember that