[Rick Tiglon Eng]

I am continually confused by the use of the term "scientist" as i mentioned in an earlier post even within a group of "scientists" there will be a conflict as to what a scientist is, unfortunately the extremeists, on either side or even the fence sitters, blame this faceless mass of "Scientists", for all manner of "facts" which would be better described as theories, No scientist worth his salt would construe a theory as a fact, and surely doing so reduces that individuals credibility.

In my opinion whenever we get to a point where 99.9% of "scientists" agree on a topic there is no excitment involved in studying that subject, as a result the projects on that subject, dwindle off and die, based upon the number of folks studying climate change we are far from agreeing anything just yet.
Best Regards
Rick

[Charlm]

Re- read my post guys. I did not attack or single out anyone for what they wrote but it would seem that the pack did exactly that when I did put forward some evidence.

From what I read some of you believe that climate change is real. Some of you believe the climate is cooling. I have not found anyone who believes that the reason for this is CO2 being put into the atmosphere.

Interesting

What is El Nino and La Nina? Do you know what these do how they effect the world climate? Google it!

Find out what is meant by by PEER REVIEWED

When you have scientific evidence backed up by numerous scientific trials - gained using the scientific process that is taught to children in secondary school and further refined at university - that actually backs up the various claims that have been made in this thread maybe you will be able to write your own Journal article\s and get it\them published in a Peer Reviewed Journal with a high significance factor.

But until you do I don't think that the claims directed at my previous posts have any real substance.

What I have noticed in the posts directed at me and what I have written are: basic bullying tactics that are designed to shoot me down and perhaps basically say get out of my forum: you want to keep being able to say the same thing over and over; the scientists have all got it wrong and besides I don't want to change my ways - so get out.

Why don't you use a different tactic? Where is your evidence? Why do you disagree to what is a basic consensus among the scientific community? When was the last time you spoke to a climate scientist? What is wrong with scientific theory anyway?

ON SCIENTIFIC THEORY...

Theory to the majority has a different meaning to a Scientist. The Law of Gravity is still a theory. Evolution is still a theory. Newton's three laws are "just" theories.

But still they work. For something to become a recognised theory there needs to be massive amounts of experimentation with replicable results.

Even after all this if there is evidence to the opposite of what has previously been found then the theory needs to either be modified or dispelled.

We are presently in this process with climate change....

WHY DON'T WE HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE SCIENTISTS?
This is the purpose of Peer- Reviewed Journals. They put their findings into the public domain in this way in a non pushy way. Scientists are not, as a whole, hungry for public adoration. They have the thirst for knowledge and really for them to be any good at their profession they need to be a bit autistic. Which tends to mean that they are extremely focused on their one interest but in turn are not great communicators to large audiences.

As a whole most Scientists do not bother worrying about what the public thinks about their work or even their findings. They just plod away at what they love doing and in turn keep on trying to workout the puzzle of the universe.

HOW DOES IT EFFECT YOU IF GLOBAL WARMING AS A THEORY IS INCORRECT?

I saw someone write that they are going to pay more for their energy.

LIKELY no matter what happens this will probably be the case. How much COAL to we have? How much OIL do we have? How much NUCLEAR material do we have?

These are all finite materials (they will run out).

Supply and demand: these materials are needed in larger amounts each day and the providers can up the fee in relation to this demand.

This webzone is largely posted to by machinists - people who like me love to make stuff. Even better this zone is posted to by people who love to make homebrew machines because: 1 they can and 2 to save themselves some money and not get tied down to the multi corporate world.

You do not have to buy power from your power company. You do not have to get water from your local utility provider. Your government certainly should not help you do this but still what I say is still true.

The sun is where the energy that made all our fossil fuels has come from. This has been the case over the last 4 billion years and science tells us that it should do this for another 4 billion years.

It is possible to make your own home brew power that uses the sun's energy. The sun's energy lead to the coal, and oil produced and another SUN (star) gave us its nuclear elements. Go to the source. Bypass the middle man. Do it yourself. Make it yourself or stop complaining that it cost TOO much.

Home brew PHOTOVOLTAIC technology is a possibility (not the best price wise but is becoming cheaper and more energy dense) - make it, install it -you can do a course and rewire your house.

The same can be said for Solar water heating, Wind power, water power.

Efficiencies can be gained everywhere.
Did you know that the NEW SOUTH WALES electricity grid is that least efficient grid in the western world? less than 20% of the power generated makes it to NEW SOUTH WALES homes. Their government is ignoring this and saying that they need to install another power plant. If they fix the power distribution methods then they will not need to do this until the population is over twice its present size.

Is this true with you? The technology used to make and distribute power is over 100 years old.

I've finished my rant. Ultimately it does not matter what I think. The evidence is there for you to read - in peer reviewed journals. Check them out at your local library.

[fizzissist]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/2...ta/#more-11091

'Nuff Said.

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

Mr Charlm,
You really have stepped over the line here, Are you trying to offend the scientists or the greater Autistic community now. Are you claiming that Autistic people have no interest in what people think about them? Autisim is a spectral disorder, that is, there is a huge range of emotions that are experienced depending on the particular person, and the position they hold on "the spectrum". With reference to what the public might think about a persons efforts, Many Autistic people work very hard to overcome their particular difficulties in order to fit better into a world that they often find difficult to comprehend, a part of this effort often focuses on finding a position where they can be seen to contribute to society, yes there is some truth in the fact that Autistic people often contribute to the sciences.

I won't be reading any more of your posts, as I would rather not be further offended by your ignorance.
Rick

[fizzissist]

Why is it that people are worried about climate change? Simple. The meaning of life (to pass on your DNA and keep it going long into the future). If the environment does not stay, how it has always been, then we need to do something about it.

Or do we?

From all the scientific evidence that I have seen there is no doubt about the fact of climate change among the scientific community. There is little doubt about where the change is coming from as well. Us burning Fossil fuels - that have taken millions of years to sequester CO2 from our environment and in the next 50 - 100 years most of that will now be back in our environment.

You blew your credibility a post or two ago when you mentioned the Oreskes tripe. Benny Peiser blew that one out of the water years ago. You should have known that, and you should have known that the real irony is that Google helped do it.

From all the scientific evidence you have seen? Well, deserves a very simple response....you need to see an awful lot more. Peer reviewed journals are a good place to start, and guess what. I've read lots of 'em.

There is currently within the ranks of the AGU alone about a 1/3 split between the belief in AGW, disbelief in AGW, and middle of the isle. Hardly a consensus by any standard...and these ARE climate scientists.

You still swallow the Hockey Stick too? McIntyre & McKittrick blew that one out of the water too, and Michael Mann is still flailing.

Care to comment about Richard Lindzen? ..or, go ahead and pick a particular. I'll be happy to point you to plenty of actual science that puts some very big holes in your AGW boat. Even Patrick Michaels, the guy who authored the article in the link I just posted agrees there's warming...because we're coming out of an ice age...duh....and he takes the position that AGW is so far down in the noise as to be irrelevant.

I'll bet you don't even know what the most significant greenhouse gas is.

[fizzissist]

WHY DON'T WE HEAR DIRECTLY FROM THE SCIENTISTS?
This is the purpose of Peer- Reviewed Journals. They put their findings into the public domain in this way in a non pushy way. Scientists are not, as a whole, hungry for public adoration. They have the thirst for knowledge and really for them to be any good at their profession they need to be a bit autistic. Which tends to mean that they are extremely focused on their one interest but in turn are not great communicators to large audiences.

As a whole most Scientists do not bother worrying about what the public thinks about their work or even their findings. They just plod away at what they love doing and in turn keep on trying to workout the puzzle of the universe.

Rubbish. Pure, unadulterated, ignorant rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about. This prattle is what you can expect from someone who's experience with actual scientists amounts to what they've seen on TV.

"..need to be a bit autistic.."
What have you been smokin'???

[fizzissist]

Find out what is meant by by PEER REVIEWED

Here's Bob Carter. He knows what is meant by PEER REVIEWED.
His video talks about a theory, not scientific fact, but a THEORY... a theory called anthropogenic global warming...

http://video.google.com/videosearch?...8&sa=N&tab=wv#

(btw, you idiot, a scientific law is not a theory, nor is a theory a law. The more I re-read your posts the more I realize you must be closely related to handlewanker. You make it up as you go along)

[dhellew2]

Many will appreciate you doing your homework on global whatever. One thing is for certain 'all things change always'. It is too bad so many folks get hooked into a fad (ie global warming) and cannot give it up even when it ended years ago.

We would all pay a lot less taxes if less money was wasted on all forms of BS causes and theories.

Have to agree with you about the mercury, however, sometimes, at least until something better happens, a little bad can be better than a big bad. :banana: Fluorescent lights in their own little way are reducing the amount of mercury spewed into the environment by reducing the amount of energy consumed from coal fired plants, less landfill because of their long life (about 13 to 1), and a little less fossil fuel burned.

Just one related article of many available on the web.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...-11-21-092.asp

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

I must say that I was angered by the EU directive that effectively outlaws good old fashioned light bulbs, for a couple of reasons, The least of my concerns was the Mercury issue, as has already been mentioned reducing the amount of coal burnt could reduce the mercury "fallout" around power stations, as we are all aware that coal is far from pure, containing all sorts of nasties, this lead to the revelation many years ago regarding the radioactive "fallout" around coal fired stations being much more concentrated than around the Nuclear variety. Furthermore, I was fine with the arguement that it makes some economic sense to use compact fluoros as they last longer and as a result are cheaper in the long run. I am also ok with the different qualities of the light generated, I don't like the early ones but the newer ones are fine, as for the claim that they flicker and that is "bad" well incandescents flicker as well, when running on AC you just need a very fast photoresistor to measure it, whether it is bad, worse, terminal, well, I suppose that depends on your viewpoint, and personal health concerns.

The two reasons that angered me were these;

1. We have been informed by the news media that "The efficiencies gained by using compact fluorescents will reduce CO2 output, and we must reduce CO2 to survive"
The problem I have with this is that in much of Europe, we have very long days in summer time, which means we hardly use lighting in summer, and in winter just about all houses are heated, the old style inefficient light bulb creates more heat, if you change to compact fluorescent bulbs, it means only that your central heating works a little harder and not much else, taking this into account, at least in my home, the calculated savings became pretty slim.

2. I hate to be told that something that works fine and is proven over a hundred years or so is no longer a legal option, this just frustrates me as I know that my toilet requires lighting for a relatively small period of time each day, but during that time I might like to read (it's my choice, i have to read my "peer reviewed" data somewhere) but the compact fluorescents take forever to warm up and this, in a very small way, reduces my quality of life.

Incidentally, I use compact fluorescents throughout my house anyway, have done so since they became available, but I don't like being told that I have no other option, why do i use them, because i don't like changing bulbs, my ceilings are high and it is a hassle. The point is that there will always be a legitimate reason for using any type of technology and just banning it wholesale is rude, I am pretty sure Nuclear weapons are more environmentally damaging then a 60watt Edison screw, but there are still a bunch of those primed and ready to go.

Best Regards
Rick

[Rick Tiglon Eng]

I don't wish to knock the Mercury article link just posted, but it states that 6 percent of US women have levels of mercury in their systems high enough to cause damage to a fetus, if one happened to be growing in one of these women. I am just curious about one thing, that being which 6 percent, as we know that heavy metal poisoning is generally a cumulative thing, so it might stand to reason that the older women are more likely to contain the mercury, but logic also tells us that they are by far and away less likely to be growing a fetus.

Just an observation, I have seen heavy metal poisoning up close and do not deny the tragic consequences, just looking at the logic behind the report.
Best Regards
Rick

[dhellew2]

Rick, no argument here, however, I would like to make a very small correction. While it is true that there are trade offs for the heating system, ceiling lighting is not one of them. As you know, heat moves towards cold, so lights placed near an unheated space (attic) lose nearly all their heat into the attic, so less heat = less heat loss.. this is one case where the cfl wins more than convienience.

To support your article for those that may not understand, all electric devices trade most of the energy they consume given off as heat. I live in eastern Washington state. Nine months out of the year some heating is required. Were it not for body heat, appliance heat, etc the heating system would turn on a lot more. Appliances (and people) are space heaters, heating only the space they are in. Forced air systems, including heat pumps, heat the entire building to the same temperature and due to some wind chill most folks maintain a higher temperature than buildings heated with radiant heat. This applies to all forms of heating systems, the primary difference to the end user is the cost of the fuel. Remember this: every degree you raise the temperature in a building incrases the heating cost by 3%.

In simple terms, if your home is all electric, or if electricity is cheaper than gas/coal/etc then the only time appliances add to your energy cost (except in or next to unheated areas) is when the air conditioner is running.

[dhellew2]

Rick, re mercury poison logic, I suspect it may be those that live close to coal fired plants. You do have the right idea though, always question data because it is the opinion of the author. As long as we question it is hard to be mislead.

Food for thought economically speaking only: Government spending cannot stimulate the economy because when government spends money (including employee paychecks) the money is just returned to the same people they took it from. Dale

[idtkid]

Food for thought economically speaking only: Government spending cannot stimulate the economy because when government spends money (including employee paychecks) the money is just returned to the same people they took it from. Dale

Amen, whether the stimulus works or not, we still have to pay it back. Dumbest decision apart from de-militarizing our country, that the President has made thus far. Much more dumb decisions to come...

[Mariss Freimanis]

I don't think Charml is here anymore. His post had all the hallmarks of a drive-by, hit and run post.

Mariss

[amplexus]

Many will appreciate you doing your homework on global whatever. One thing is for certain 'all things change always'. It is too bad so many folks get hooked into a fad (ie global warming) and cannot give it up even when it ended years ago.

We would all pay a lot less taxes if less money was wasted on all forms of BS causes and theories.

Have to agree with you about the mercury, however, sometimes, at least until something better happens, a little bad can be better than a big bad. :banana: Fluorescent lights in their own little way are reducing the amount of mercury spewed into the environment by reducing the amount of energy consumed from coal fired plants, less landfill because of their long life (about 13 to 1), and a little less fossil fuel burned.

Just one related article of many available on the web.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2...-11-21-092.asp

I think it may be easier to scrub mercury from power plants than it is to keep it from leaching from landfills. Perhaps led's are a better idea however the pollution debate clouds the climate debate as does alternate energy which is more about economics and fundamental physics than climate
I tend to agree with Monkton that the UN model is flawed; the Bode model, which is great for designing a new amplifier is a kludge when it comes to climate modeling. It does not predict known outcomes from observed data nor does it explain the paleo CO2 and temp data. A big part of the problem is the fact that only a small percent of the people commenting on the climate debate possess the math skills to understand the model including most of the US congress and virtually all of the UN delagates, no hard data but feel free to do a quickie phone poll.
Amplexus (Ender)

ps The MIT courseware is online and free, help yourselves Lewin's physics class was fun.

[amplexus]

I don't think Charml is here anymore. His post had all the hallmarks of a drive-by, hit and run post.

Mariss

Mariss
As someone that I trust to get the math right any chance you would take a berak from the step servo thingy (not too long) and look at the UN bode model as presented by Monkton
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Amplexus

p.s ..Have you seen Pease's ball on beam balancer, not PID but very cool analog ,blows away the fuzzy logic. (Then again I'm easily amused.)

[307startup]

Hey, no distracting the genius from his work!

Mariss
As someone that I trust to get the math right any chance you would take a berak from the step servo thingy (not too long) and look at the UN bode model as presented by Monkton
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newslet...7/monckton.cfm

Amplexus

p.s ..Have you seen Pease's ball on beam balancer, not PID but very cool analog ,blows away the fuzzy logic. (Then again I'm easily amused.)

[dhellew2]

Maybe Mariss is right, charlm may be gone and forgotton. I just thought it interesting that in his reply to my first post he was running his mouth about things I said that were actually from a previous post from someone else. He didn't get global warming right either.
Maybe he is afraid to ask questions because he will find out that global warming isn't set in concrete, besides I think everyone except charlm realises the politically correct term is now Climate Change. Global Warming died about 1998 RIP.:idea:
I see a fair amount of discussion about the scientists and I repeat my question - who are they. Answer: worldwide the majority of them are at universities and they depend on government grants. I question their data because their pay often gets in the way. Dale

[rokag3]

I see a fair amount of discussion about the scientists and I repeat my question - who are they. Answer: worldwide the majority of them are at universities and they depend on government grants. I question their data because their pay often gets in the way. Dale

But it will be fair to add :"And the governments depend of the very private (for the profits only, for the losses they are 'social')big corps "

[amplexus]

Hey, no distracting the genius from his work!

Wouldn't dream of distracting the genius from his work, on the other hand a bit of dreaming may provide a solution. Like Mariss if I can't find a solution I work on something else for a while the solution eventually comes to me often while sleeping (if you don't write the idea down immediately you will lose it) I expect the step servo pid will come to me in about 45 years. This may be genetic; my father also has the same blessing/curse. (Does lucid dreaming work? could it be used to access this selectively?) Bob Pease, no relation, also does the dream thing, I think Mariss has his version of it, call it subconscious problem solving or whatever it is real.