how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Really. Links and sources. Or is it all something you just pulled out of the nether regions?

No problem....here is just what the US has spent........This does not count carbon trading schemes or the latest fiascos'.


"The US government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid, and tax breaks. Despite the billions: “audits” of the science are left to unpaid volunteers. A dedicated but largely uncoordinated grassroots movement of scientists has sprung up around the globe to test the integrity of the theory and compete with a well funded highly organized climate monopoly. They have exposed major errors."





Climate Money: The Climate Industry: billion so far ? trillions to come | Originals

Science and Public Policy Institute - SourceWatch


See also Science and Public Policy Institute (disambiguation) for George Carlo's organization.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
SPPI is not a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit.

Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on "Benefit Analysis of CO2"[1] (previously known as "Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2"[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]



About ALEC




ALEC is a corporate bill mill. It is not just a lobby or a front group; it is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, corporations hand state legislators their wishlists to benefit their bottom line. Corporations fund almost all of ALEC's operations. They pay for a seat on ALEC task forces where corporate lobbyists and special interest reps vote with elected officials to approve “model” bills. Learn more at the Center for Media and Democracy's ALECexposed.org, and check out breaking news on our PRWatch.org site.

Monkton, a known liar and fraud. Westwall's peer group.

And you worship at the altar of skeptical science so we're even.

 

[Saigon]

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

Well, this is what NASA have to say:

"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks.""

Climate Change: Causes

Also please answer the question I asked before - the event was hosted by the Heritage Foundation - are they a scientific organisation or a political one?

Did you consider the story to be balanced when you read it, or did you think the story was openly and obviously one sided?


I would agree that Mammoth, PMZ and I are similar in that all three of us tend to stick to the topic and ignore the spamming and abuse that goes on here; but other than that I don't see that we have much in common.

Apart from the obvious difference in topics we post on, I'd be surprised if you cannot spot the differences between US English and EU English.

 

[gslack]

In recent decades, humankind has advanced scientific knowledge by huge leaps and bounds. And yet I personally believe we still only have a tiny fraction of all there is to know. A civilization from a distant planet able to visit us here would be maybe 100,000 years more advanced in technology and understanding of how things work than we are. Or 50 years more advanced than we are. Who knows?

I was just watching a news story of a 14-year-old boy who was diagnosed as autistic and severely disabled at Age 3. Turns out this kid has an IQ off the charts--far surpassing Einstein. He taught himself and mastered advanced calculus in two weeks and now teaches advanced college math courses.

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been regarded to about as close to settled science as it gets for some time now. This kid believes he can show how Einstein was wrong and is currently working on that project.

If he succeeds, how much more wrong about environmental science might far less capable and knowledgable scientists be?

We are all wise to not swallow hook, line, and sinker and deem credible a lot of self-serving 'science' that has a high potential for significant error.

You folks excessively obsessed with CO2 and whether that is or is not warming the planet in a dangerous way are quite likely to miss out on the possibility that we have entered the process toward an inevitable little ice age.

Apparently you are not aware that even Einstein regard his General Theory of Relitivity as flawed, and was seeking a Grand Unified Theory to the day of his death. Newton was not wrong, Einstein was not wrong, they advanced the understanding of the universe in their day. And, as we learn more, all present theories will be supplanted by that knowledge.

We are wise, if we think that present science is flawed, to do basic research into that science, and learn the source of those flaws. To stand and state that the science is flawed, with no knowledge at all of science involved, is an indication of extreme ignorance and egotism.

We should be slowly entering another ice age, by the Milankovic Cycles. Instead, we are rapidly warming. And the only major change that could drive that warming is the increase in anthropogenic GHG's.

General Relativity has been shown correct so far yet AGW has yet to be even quantified.

And your mention of Milankovitch cycles wasn't accurate. The theory by Milankovitch speculates that earth should juts be entering into an Ice age. AN ice age doesn't immediately make it cold silly. Takes a while, like on the order of hundreds of years or more. It doesn't instantly get noticeably colder.

You know kind of like now when there hasn't been any warming for more than 10 years..

 

[gslack]

So the Forbes articles cited several scientific groups, including NASA, that are studying the issue of global cooling. Perhaps you can provide some authoritative source that would dispute what these scientific groups are reporting?

Has anybody else noticed how similar Mamooth, Saigon, and PMZ are in their syntax, methodology, and tactics here?

Well, this is what NASA have to say:

"Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect"1 -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks.""

Climate Change: Causes

Also please answer the question I asked before - the event was hosted by the Heritage Foundation - are they a scientific organisation or a political one?

I would agree that Mammoth, PMZ and I are similar in that all three of us tend to stick to the topic and ignore the spamming and abuse that goes on here; but other than that I don't see that we have muchin common.

If you cannot spot the differences between US English and EU English, I'd be surprised!

I wondered what the number 1 was for in your quote. I followed your link and clicked it. Goes to the IPCC 4th assessment report... LOL, a political body pretending to be scientific..

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

NASA requires the cooperation of other countries to do it's job. And that cooperation is usually gotten through the UN... It's called placating...

 

[IanC]

And there we see why I call you dishonest...

Going to downplay the fact a self-proclaimed mathematician of some sort ( that'd be you) would not recognize Fermat's last theorem? And pretend that the double-slit experiment is somehow an improper experiment???

LOL, it's your persona you're outing here fake, so be it....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment



A nice graphic...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Young_experiment.gif

Your fake mathematics "expert" nonsense is tiresome. You're a fraud just like all the other internet fakes we have on here lately. I don't think the fact you claim tobe something you're not, and lately we have a rash of people claiming to be things they are not is a coincidence at all..

Fact is you are a liar, and an obvious fake, and I for one am not fooled by your act.

Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media.

I am sorry that you are somewhat slow witted but that is not my responsibility. Go back to your uninformed ad homs.

LOL, very funny yet somehow your inability or just preference of NOT READING what people post has just shown again how utterly full of it you are..

You're claims that wire's math was wrong previously and your continued claims against me and everyone else and our "slow-witted-ness" gives at least the impression you somehow think yourself mentally or at least educationally above the rest of poor souls. So any mistake as to your credentials are due to your pretense clown.. Don't act like an expert if you don't want to be called on it...

Now as to your misconception of the double-slit experiment. It works in more ways then the hypothetical superposition, it also shows the concept of wave-particle duality..

My quote again..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

The double-slit experiment, sometimes called Young's experiment (after Young's interference experiment), is a demonstration that matter and energy can display characteristics of both waves and particles, and demonstrates the fundamentally probabilistic nature of quantum mechanical phenomena.

Now you can play pretend dumbass now if you like but anybody with half the level of knowledge you pretend to have would know this and I wouldn't have to explain it over and over...The same type of experiment is accomplished in many different ways. Again someone with your claimed mathematical chops would know this.. Here read something...

Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? - MIT News Office

Recently, Yves Couder, a physicist at Université Paris Diderot, has conducted a series of experiments in which millimeter-scale fluid droplets, bouncing up and down on a vibrated fluid bath, are guided by the waves that they themselves produce. In many respects, the droplets behave like quantum particles, and in a recent commentary in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, John Bush, an applied mathematician at MIT who specializes in fluid dynamics, suggests that experiments like Couder’s may ultimately shed light on some of the peculiarities of quantum mechanics.

Now please play stupid and pretend you don't understand it again. We love seeing you dance..

I think you are the only one on this forum that I have called out for being mentally challenged, although I may have uncharitably compared konrad v to you once. I think I apologized to him afterwards.

that said, I would like to thank you for goading me into investigating the walking droplets.

video from a commercial program-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk]Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole] - YouTube[/ame]

from MIT-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE]The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets - YouTube[/ame]

PNAS article- Quantum mechanics writ large

Some two centuries before the quantum revolution, Newton (1) suggested that corpuscles of light generate waves in an aethereal medium like skipping stones generate waves in water, with their motion then being affected by these aether waves. Times have changed. Light corpuscles are now known as photons, and the majority of physicists have dispensed with the notion of aether. Nevertheless, certain features of Newton's metaphor live on in one particular version of quantum mechanics. According to pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie (2) and later developed by Bohm (3) with Einstein's encouragement, microscopic elements such as photons and electrons consist of both particle and wave, the former being guided by the latter. Although this physical picture has not been widely accepted, it has had some notable proponents, including Bell (4). Its principal appeal is that it restores realism and determinism to quantum mechanics, its weakness that the physical nature of the guiding wave field remains unclear. At the time that pilot wave theory was developed and then overtaken by the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard view of quantum mechanics, there was no macroscopic pilot wave analog to draw upon. Now there is.

while I think the similarities to QM are overblown and cherrypicked, there is no denying that droplet walkers are very cool to watch and give a strong visual image for waveform probabilities.

 

[IanC]

Whatever. If you cannot understand that there is a difference between the 15 IR escaping directly into space rather than being dispersed in all directions then I don't see much of a point in endlessly repeating it.

Just a minute there IanC. I do know the difference !
I was the one who said that CO2 absorbs 15 µm IR and the re-despirses it in all possible directions. So sayeth also all the equations when they factor in "sr", the "solid angle".
And it is the IPCC that says that a portion of the re-dispersed 15 µm IR heats planet earth...so does Hansen, so does Roy Spencer and so did you only weeks ago.
Now you start "morphing" your statements away from that and have me "not understand the difference"....in true liberal fashion I might add !
Need I dig up again what you said when I put a thermistor in the focal point of a 6 inch reflector telescope and pointed it at a window pane that was at room temperature and at a -20 C cold country side ?
Need I dig up what you said to SSDD when he linked you to some "solar refrigerator" web pages ?
You know damn well what I said and what you have been saying...
So does everybody else who has been on this subject.

hey polarbear- here is a quote from a dyed-in-the-wool slayer argueing at Jeff Condon's blog-

In summary, the facts are that radiation from a cooler body slows radiative cooling of a warmer body, but does not raise its temperature. Something else has to do so first. The upper limit depends upon the energy coming from this other source.

that is exactly what I have been saying all along. the sun warms the surface, the atmosphere impedes the radiative cooling, extra CO2 incrementally adds to that impediment therefore indirectly heats the surface.

SSDD- here is Condon's take on SLoT-

Work, heat, entropy are all bulk concepts. The second law is a law only in the bulk context. It is a law in that after twenty trillion rolls, the probability is toward the heavy side of the die.

Backradiation is a sub-process which in no way “violates” the second law. This is a common misunderstanding from those who didn’t grok the meaning of their basic physics rules. Saying it can or can’t be explained by either theory is rather amusing to me because mathematically – en bulk – they are equivalent. Where slayers here have faltered is that they don’t give a coherent message and too many members are scientifically weak.

to which the slayer responded with-

The “system” referred to in the Second Law of Thermodynamics must be either a single (one-way) process or a sequence of interdependent components as explained here.

again, which I have been saying all along. back radiation is simply interdependent component of the overall net flow. although it can be calculated it cannot be thought of as an independent process which would happen without the other side of the equation also proceeding.


you guys are even more extremist than the slayers and PSI!

 

[jon_berzerk]

the upside of more C02

cycles

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

 

[IanC]

the upside of more C02

cycles

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

higher CO2 levels also give plants more resistance to drought because they dont have to open their pores as much to get enough 'plant food', therefore less moisture loss.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the upside of more C02

cycles

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.

Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.

The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.

Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener

higher CO2 levels also give plants more resistance to drought because they dont have to open their pores as much to get enough 'plant food', therefore less moisture loss.

that too is a good thing

 

[PMZ]

It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.

Yep. And there's ZERO empirical data to support the idea that CO2 is the driver of global temps. There is however, empirical data that says it isn't. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

There is only zero empirical data if you mind is completely closed down. The trouble with data is that it doesn't seek you out.

 

[PMZ]

The big oil marketing people who are the center of keeping ostrich heads in the sand only have a few tools. One is to keep those heads filled with details that are well beyond their comprehension that could, if only vaguely understood, sow reasonable doubt.

But the details, while interesting, are completely within the big picture.

The earth is a closed system, maintained at the optimum temperature range for life, solely by radiant heat from the sun. Radiant energy in minus radiant energy out determines the temperature. If there is more coming in than going out, there can only be one response ultimately. Warming to increase radiation out.

Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere reduces radiant energy out.

Everything else is a detail whose only effect, if any, would be on the the rate of warming, given the imbalance.

Nasty news for us life forms. Expensive news. Catastrophically expensive news. But, for big oil, make more money regardless of the cost to others, determines their response. Sow reasonable doubt.

Butts in the air, heads in the sand, has no impact on restoring radiation out. Only on the ultimate cost of undoing what we're doing.

 

[Saigon]

PMZ -

I can't agree with you on this.

Big oil DID fnd "research" that conveniantly denied there was any link between CO2 emissions and climate change, but at the point a decade or so back that the science became undeniable, most major oil companies realised that they were better off coming clean - literally!

I think we all realise how difficult it must have been for companies who make their living from a product that creates CO2 emissions to admit the truth - but that is what they did, much as tobacco companies eventually admitted the link to cancer after decades of fraudulent research.

Chevron, BP and Shell have all acknowledged AGW, and have clear statements on climate change on their websites.

In doing so, deniers lost one of the last remaining fig leaves, ofcourse.

 

[westwall]

It's funny that there is zero science behind benign disposal of fossil fuel wastes in our atmosphere, but those hired by big oil to defend their atrosity insist that science must prove to them that what they have no proof of is wrong.

Yep. And there's ZERO empirical data to support the idea that CO2 is the driver of global temps. There is however, empirical data that says it isn't. Put that in your pipe and smoke it!

There is only zero empirical data if you mind is completely closed down. The trouble with data is that it doesn't seek you out.

On the contrary, my mind is open to ALL possibilities. It is you who wish to stop all discussion on the matter. That was my first clue that you guys were full of crap. Were you secure in your knowledge then all papers for and against would be welcome but no, you guys stopped publication of any paper that didn't support you. That meant (in this scientists eyes) that you had something to hide.

 

[westwall]

PMZ -

I can't agree with you on this.

Big oil DID fnd "research" that conveniantly denied there was any link between CO2 emissions and climate change, but at the point a decade or so back that the science became undeniable, most major oil companies realised that they were better off coming clean - literally!

I think we all realise how difficult it must have been for companies who make their living from a product that creates CO2 emissions to admit the truth - but that is what they did, much as tobacco companies eventually admitted the link to cancer after decades of fraudulent research.

Chevron, BP and Shell have all acknowledged AGW, and have clear statements on climate change on their websites.

In doing so, deniers lost one of the last remaining fig leaves, ofcourse.

Reality differs with your propaganda.......

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-5020/

Big oil now seeing green - The Denver Post

Research: Big Oil putting more money into alternative energy programs -- Tuesday, February 17, 2009 -- www.eenews.net

Big Oil's Big in Biofuels - Businessweek


BP Alternative Energy continues to invest in a sustainable and secure energy future – producing low-carbon fuels and power, while developing sustainable energy technologies.

"BP made a commitment in 2005 to spend $8 billion over 10 years on alternative energy. We are investing at a faster pace than this, and at the end of 2011 we had invested approximately $7 billion, with more than $4 billion of that in the United States.

BP Alternative Energy focuses on those segments of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business. This has led us to focus on wind and biofuels, businesses that are material, scalable, and suited to BP's core capabilities. We also invest in clean energy technologies to gain strategic insights on the advances occurring in this sector."



BP Alternative Energy | BP in America| BP worldwide | BP.com

And on and on......your assertions are crap.

 

[PMZ]

PMZ -

I can't agree with you on this.

Big oil DID fnd "research" that conveniantly denied there was any link between CO2 emissions and climate change, but at the point a decade or so back that the science became undeniable, most major oil companies realised that they were better off coming clean - literally!

I think we all realise how difficult it must have been for companies who make their living from a product that creates CO2 emissions to admit the truth - but that is what they did, much as tobacco companies eventually admitted the link to cancer after decades of fraudulent research.

Chevron, BP and Shell have all acknowledged AGW, and have clear statements on climate change on their websites.

In doing so, deniers lost one of the last remaining fig leaves, ofcourse.

I pretty much agree with you but, apparently the army of deniers that they recruited are carrying on the denial without them.

While big oil got all of the profits from oil, they can't possibly carry all of the cost of the risks, now known. That leaves we the people focused through our government as the only solution left standing. Therefore denier voters can stand in the way, and are. The future could unfold, as I've guessed, that the ostriches will continue to be overwhelmed at the polls and be therefore carried into irrelevance as well as infamy. The strength in democracy being its tolerance for error.

But we just can no longer afford dithering.

 

[PMZ]

I live in NY where the windmills are sprouting like dandelions, and in FL where the same can be said of solar. I drive a Prius, as comfortable a car as can be found on the road, that gets 3X more from a gallon of gas than most previous cars. I see fewer and fewer filament bulbs, really heaters that give out some light, on the shelves at Lowes. Lots of good things happening.

Then I read about billion dollar hurricanes costing hundreds of lives and superstorm Sandies.

The fat lady isn't even dressed yet much less tuning up.

 

[PMZ]

While AGW is the culprit, the item which will break us, financially, is water.

As AGW warms the climate we already see rainfall changing places. We built our farms where the water was. Now that it is moving, do we relocate the farms or the water. Moving water is pretty well known technology, but requires a great deal of energy. In the past the sun supplied the energy for the water cycle with no help from us. It evaporated, it moved, it condensed. In a warmer climate we'll either need to help mother nature, or relocate our farms.

One thing about big cities is that they tend to grow upon the water. Ports. Now the water is relocating from the arctic and Antarctic ice fields to the oceans and eventually around our skyscrapers. Move the skyscrapers or hold back the water. Big, big bucks.

Here's the only saving grace. We can kick the can down the road to our grandchildren instead of solving it.

I'm thinking that they're going to be pissed if we ignore it.

 

[Foxfyre]

PMZ -

I can't agree with you on this.

Big oil DID fnd "research" that conveniantly denied there was any link between CO2 emissions and climate change, but at the point a decade or so back that the science became undeniable, most major oil companies realised that they were better off coming clean - literally!

I think we all realise how difficult it must have been for companies who make their living from a product that creates CO2 emissions to admit the truth - but that is what they did, much as tobacco companies eventually admitted the link to cancer after decades of fraudulent research.

Chevron, BP and Shell have all acknowledged AGW, and have clear statements on climate change on their websites.

In doing so, deniers lost one of the last remaining fig leaves, ofcourse.

Reality differs with your propaganda.......

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-5020/

Big oil now seeing green - The Denver Post

Research: Big Oil putting more money into alternative energy programs -- Tuesday, February 17, 2009 -- www.eenews.net

Big Oil's Big in Biofuels - Businessweek


BP Alternative Energy continues to invest in a sustainable and secure energy future – producing low-carbon fuels and power, while developing sustainable energy technologies.

"BP made a commitment in 2005 to spend $8 billion over 10 years on alternative energy. We are investing at a faster pace than this, and at the end of 2011 we had invested approximately $7 billion, with more than $4 billion of that in the United States.

BP Alternative Energy focuses on those segments of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business. This has led us to focus on wind and biofuels, businesses that are material, scalable, and suited to BP's core capabilities. We also invest in clean energy technologies to gain strategic insights on the advances occurring in this sector."



BP Alternative Energy | BP in America| BP worldwide | BP.com

And on and on......your assertions are crap.

In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.

I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.

Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

 

[gslack]

Hahaha care to quote where I said I was a mathematician? I am literate in math and science but so what?

Why are you bringing up the double slit experiment? You had nothing to say about superposition or the polarization paradox, instead you linked to a mechanical wave study in oil. Not many people confuse light waves with waves propagated in a media.

I am sorry that you are somewhat slow witted but that is not my responsibility. Go back to your uninformed ad homs.

LOL, very funny yet somehow your inability or just preference of NOT READING what people post has just shown again how utterly full of it you are..

You're claims that wire's math was wrong previously and your continued claims against me and everyone else and our "slow-witted-ness" gives at least the impression you somehow think yourself mentally or at least educationally above the rest of poor souls. So any mistake as to your credentials are due to your pretense clown.. Don't act like an expert if you don't want to be called on it...

Now as to your misconception of the double-slit experiment. It works in more ways then the hypothetical superposition, it also shows the concept of wave-particle duality..

My quote again..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment



Now you can play pretend dumbass now if you like but anybody with half the level of knowledge you pretend to have would know this and I wouldn't have to explain it over and over...The same type of experiment is accomplished in many different ways. Again someone with your claimed mathematical chops would know this.. Here read something...

Can fluid dynamics offer insights into quantum mechanics? - MIT News Office



Now please play stupid and pretend you don't understand it again. We love seeing you dance..

I think you are the only one on this forum that I have called out for being mentally challenged, although I may have uncharitably compared konrad v to you once. I think I apologized to him afterwards.

that said, I would like to thank you for goading me into investigating the walking droplets.

video from a commercial program-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yWv5dqSKk]Yves Couder . Explains Wave/Particle Duality via Silicon Droplets [Through the Wormhole] - YouTube[/ame]

from MIT-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmC0ygr08tE]The pilot-wave dynamics of walking droplets - YouTube[/ame]

PNAS article- Quantum mechanics writ large

Some two centuries before the quantum revolution, Newton (1) suggested that corpuscles of light generate waves in an aethereal medium like skipping stones generate waves in water, with their motion then being affected by these aether waves. Times have changed. Light corpuscles are now known as photons, and the majority of physicists have dispensed with the notion of aether. Nevertheless, certain features of Newton's metaphor live on in one particular version of quantum mechanics. According to pilot wave theory, first proposed by de Broglie (2) and later developed by Bohm (3) with Einstein's encouragement, microscopic elements such as photons and electrons consist of both particle and wave, the former being guided by the latter. Although this physical picture has not been widely accepted, it has had some notable proponents, including Bell (4). Its principal appeal is that it restores realism and determinism to quantum mechanics, its weakness that the physical nature of the guiding wave field remains unclear. At the time that pilot wave theory was developed and then overtaken by the Copenhagen interpretation as the standard view of quantum mechanics, there was no macroscopic pilot wave analog to draw upon. Now there is.

while I think the similarities to QM are overblown and cherrypicked, there is no denying that droplet walkers are very cool to watch and give a strong visual image for waveform probabilities.

Wow Ian, you were that close to being humble.. SO close... But again ya blew it. Thank you Ian,yes I know I was correct, and I didn't expect you to be big enough to admit it anyway..

 

[PMZ]

PMZ -

I can't agree with you on this.

Big oil DID fnd "research" that conveniantly denied there was any link between CO2 emissions and climate change, but at the point a decade or so back that the science became undeniable, most major oil companies realised that they were better off coming clean - literally!

I think we all realise how difficult it must have been for companies who make their living from a product that creates CO2 emissions to admit the truth - but that is what they did, much as tobacco companies eventually admitted the link to cancer after decades of fraudulent research.

Chevron, BP and Shell have all acknowledged AGW, and have clear statements on climate change on their websites.

In doing so, deniers lost one of the last remaining fig leaves, ofcourse.

Reality differs with your propaganda.......

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/shell-boosts-renewable-energy-spending-5020/

Big oil now seeing green - The Denver Post

Research: Big Oil putting more money into alternative energy programs -- Tuesday, February 17, 2009 -- www.eenews.net

Big Oil's Big in Biofuels - Businessweek


BP Alternative Energy continues to invest in a sustainable and secure energy future – producing low-carbon fuels and power, while developing sustainable energy technologies.

"BP made a commitment in 2005 to spend $8 billion over 10 years on alternative energy. We are investing at a faster pace than this, and at the end of 2011 we had invested approximately $7 billion, with more than $4 billion of that in the United States.

BP Alternative Energy focuses on those segments of the energy industry where we can profitably grow our business. This has led us to focus on wind and biofuels, businesses that are material, scalable, and suited to BP's core capabilities. We also invest in clean energy technologies to gain strategic insights on the advances occurring in this sector."



BP Alternative Energy | BP in America| BP worldwide | BP.com

And on and on......your assertions are crap.

In my opinion, since I have no desire to go hunting stuff up to link, Big Oil has been paid handsomely with taxpayer monies to develop green energy. This was mostly due to the Bush Administration's ambitious green policies that have been continued under Obama.

I have a close family member who is a high level engineer with Conoco Phillips who designed and supervised construction of a multi-million dollar beef fat rendering process turning beef fat into usable, biodegradable fuel. And we paid for a good chunk of that process.

Conoco (and I'm sure other oil companies) has a huge contract with Tyson to provide the beef fat--ironically one of my family member's old classmates works for Tyson who is involved in that in so I was privileged to sit in on a discussion between the two of them a few years ago. And that is one of several reasons, that we are paying so much more for beef these days as more and more of our food supply is diverted to production of 'clean fuels' rather than food.

The truth is, the oil companies are making out like bandits with 'green energy' processes which makes it ridiculous to think those scientists receiving grant monies from oil companies get it in order to discredit global warming.

The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant. If the government was not mandating and paying the oil companies to make them, few would see any reason to do so.

"The truth also is, ALL these green energy bio fuels are less efficient and much more expensive to produce than are carbon based fuels and the cost to us taxpayers in direct subsidies as well as higher costs for fuel AND food is significant."

Explain to us how energy requiring no fuel; solar, wind, water is less efficient than fossil fueled energy?

There's only one reason that fossil fuels seem cheap to us. We hide much of the cost. Like the wars. Like the extreme weather recovery caused by AGW. Like the environmental damage. (Although we have to hand it to Obama, he got BP to pay the cost of being careless in the Gulf.) Like the subsidies. Added to that is the cost to our grandchildren when they realize that the Greedy Generation burned up all of the raw material for plastics and so many chemicals.