Jump to content


Click Here To Visit Our Sponsor


Photo

Another nail in the coffin for science


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#31 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 02 May 2013 - 07:11 PM

BRAVO !! :D
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#32 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:15 PM

The Nazis were good at burning books too..............


May 4, 2013
Academic warmists celebrate book burning at San Jose State University

Thomas Lifson



At the San Jose State University Meteorology Department, they'd rather burn books than read them, if their faith in the gospel of man-made global warming would be challenged by the contents. That is the message conveyed on the Department's own website (archived here) with the picture below which was published there along with this explanation:


This week we received a deluge of free books from the Heartland Institute {this or this }. The book is entitled "The Mad, Mad, Made World of Climatism". SHown above, Drs. Bridger and Clements test the flammability of the book.


Posted Image

Anthony Watts of Watt's Up with That documented the posting, calling it something "from the Fahrenheit 451 department."


When I first got the tip on this, I thought to myself "nobody can be this stupid to photograph themselves doing this" but, here they are.


Alison Bridger, on the left, is Department Chair of Meteorology at SJSU, while Craig Clements is an Associate Professor. These are persons of standing, not crazy grad students pulling a prank. No, they are making a profound statement about their intellectual methods. The Chancellor

These people with PhDs are indeed fools, made so by a fundamentalist faith that offers redemption from imagined hell fires (check out the fires burning on the wall behind them).

Posted Image


When you are going to save the world from the fires of hell, that gives meaning and purpose to your life. (It also keeps the research grants coming.) Anything which threatens the theology providing meaning and sustenance must be extinguished (even if the subsequent combustion produces carbon dioxide, the very Satan of their Manichean scheme).




#33 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 04 May 2013 - 09:56 PM

??? I am sure you didnt mean that is a hateful way
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#34 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 04 May 2013 - 11:23 PM

??? I am sure you didnt mean that is a hateful way


I don't understand your comment. Please explain?

#35 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 05 May 2013 - 12:17 AM

You said the nazis were good at burning books too.. as in they were good at burning the Jews.
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#36 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:25 AM

You said the nazis were good at burning books too.. as in they were good at burning the Jews.


You have evidently come in at the end of this thread, without having read the thread in its entirety or any of the preceding threads.

Had you done so, you would have understood both the point of the posting and the relevance of my reference to the Nazis.

Particularly, you would be aware of the fact that the supporters of “The Great Global Warming Scam” directly attack those who challenge their assertions. They have long since abandoned the principles and philosophy of scientific enquiry and debate and now freely apply the political tactics employed by the Nazis in their program of firstly dehumanizing their opponents, then exterminating their opposition.

To illustrate; and you can find elaboration on each of these points in the various threads that deal with this issue:
  • The warmists have labeled those that dispute the scam as “deniers”.
    This is an evil, deliberate and calculated political tactic to smear their opponents with the hateful association with those that deny the Holocaust.
    By associating their scientific opponents with the Holocaust deniers, the warmists hope to discredit the opposing arguments.
    In this way, when their “science” is shown to be bogus, the warmists revert to the hateful political smear. The smear is more effective than a bogus argument.
  • The warmists have publicly and openly called for those that dispute the scam be put to death.
  • In Nazi Germany, numerous academics and intellectuals were very prominent and enthusiastic supporters of the policies and practices of the Nazi death machine.
    It is no coincidence that in the previous posting we see a couple of academics burning a book. Even worse, one of these academics is the head of a university department.
    Think of what these two intellectuals are teaching their students.
  • During the Russian revolution, the most active murderers of those opposing communism were academic intellectuals. It was commonplace for them to go marauding around the countryside murdering anyone they even suspected of being “counter-revolutionary”, and in the evenings get together and read poetry to each other.
  • “The Great Global Warming Scam” has done irreparable damage to science in general.
    In recent years, scientists have gone in public perception from people generally trusted, to being rated as equivalent to lawyers, used car salesmen, and politicians.
    Scientists are now viewed as just another vested interest lobby group.
  • If you choose not to inform yourself by reading the previous threads on this subject, I suggest that you at least read the following books:
  • “Blue Planet in Green Shackles” by Vaclav Klaus
  • “Intellectuals and Society” by Thomas Sowell
  • “Bloodlands” by Timothy Snyder


#37 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:24 AM

When you are a Jew such as I am, and you lost family in the holocaust, and you see a comment like that, brings back memories.... feelings, emotions and pain.

I am not a total schmuck an idiot, I had read the posts. I am sorry if you thought I was trying to pick a fight. I seen that comment and the thing that came to me was negativity.

If you didn't mean it like that then I apologize, I am only human, with a very big heart.
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#38 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 05 May 2013 - 11:16 AM

When you are a Jew such as I am, and you lost family in the holocaust, and you see a comment like that, brings back memories.... feelings, emotions and pain.

I am not a total schmuck an idiot, I had read the posts. I am sorry if you thought I was trying to pick a fight. I seen that comment and the thing that came to me was negativity.

If you didn't mean it like that then I apologize, I am only human, with a very big heart.


I am sorry, please do not think I am a mean and ugly person. The subject of Nazis is still very sore. my apologies !
I hope you have a good day, I am glad you are trying to show people that hate, racism, and injustice is ignorance.
BE WELL my friend !
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#39 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:08 PM


When you are a Jew such as I am, and you lost family in the holocaust, and you see a comment like that, brings back memories.... feelings, emotions and pain.

I am not a total schmuck an idiot, I had read the posts. I am sorry if you thought I was trying to pick a fight. I seen that comment and the thing that came to me was negativity.

If you didn't mean it like that then I apologize, I am only human, with a very big heart.


I am sorry, please do not think I am a mean and ugly person. The subject of Nazis is still very sore. my apologies !
I hope you have a good day, I am glad you are trying to show people that hate, racism, and injustice is ignorance.
BE WELL my friend !


I have sent you a personal message.

#40 no1plumbrr

no1plumbrr

    Would let the taxpayers foot the bill to go to a GV convention

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,079 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fayetteville, nc
  • Interests:DENISE
    ghosts, aliens, and anything crazy.

    FEARS: clowns and now BEP, thanks guys you rock ! ;)

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:18 PM

thank you so much !

you are a good person
In love with an awesome woman
SHALOM my friends !

#41 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 10:18 PM

Just when you thought we might be seeing the end of stupidity, we get this. As you read this, remember that it is "scientists" who are coming up with this stupidity. You can't fix stupid.

Harvesting forests to reduce fossil fuels the next big boondoggle


WE are all brought up to recycle paper to save trees. Indeed, environmentalism was born with a call to preserve the forests.
But now, in the name of saving the planet from climate change, environmentalists are proposing a global campaign to cut down and burn trees to reduce fossil-fuel use. This could be dismissed as a weird irony if it weren't for its phenomenal costs, which include likely destruction of biodiversity, increased water use and reduced global food production. And it may increase global CO2 emissions to boot.
When most people think of renewables, they imagine solar panels and wind turbines. Globally, however, solar and wind were less than 7 per cent of renewables in 2010. Hydropower is a much bigger player, at 17 per cent.
But most important is biomass, humanity's oldest fuel that makes up 76 per cent of renewable energy and 10 per cent of all energy. About 60 per cent of this is wood, twigs and dung, used by almost three billion people who lack modern fuels, resulting in terrible air pollution and millions of deaths.
But the West uses the other 40 per cent of biomass to produce heat, and it will increasingly use it to generate electricity. This makes sense; because solar and wind power are inherently unreliable we still need electricity on cloudy days or when the wind dies down. Biomass (along with hydropower) can be used to smooth the fluctuations inherent to wind and solar.
Biomass is experiencing a revival, because it is considered CO2-neutral. The conventional wisdom is that burning wood only releases the carbon sucked up while the tree was growing, and hence the net climate effect is zero.
But a growing number of voices challenge this view. The European Environment Agency's Scientific Committee has called it a "mistaken assumption" based on "a serious accounting error" because if a forest is cut down to burn wood it will take a long time for new growth to absorb the CO2 emissions. The effect could be a net increase in emissions if forests are cleared to plant energy crops.
According to the committee's members, "the potential consequences of this bioenergy accounting error are immense". Environmentalists' plan to obtain 20-50 per cent of all energy from biomass could mean a tripling of biomass consumption, placing its production in direct competition with that of food for a growing global population while depleting water supplies, cutting down forests and reducing biodiversity.
An academic paper published last year makes the point clear in its title: "Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral". Its authors point out that, while the industrial revolution caused climate change, reliance on coal was actually good for forests because our forebears stopped raiding them for wood. This is one of the major reasons why forests in Europe and the US have recovered, and why many forests in developing countries are threatened.
The developed world's re-enchantment with biomass could take it down a similar road.
But the biggest problem is that biomass production pushes other agricultural production elsewhere. In Denmark, researchers estimated how much various crops would reduce CO2 emissions. For example, burning a hectare of harvested willow on a field previously used for barley (the typical marginal crop in Denmark) prevents 30 tonnes of CO2 annually when replacing coal. This is the amount proud green-energy producers will showcase when switching to biomass.
But burning the willow releases 22 tonnes of CO2. All of that CO2 was soaked up from the atmosphere the year before; had we just left the barley where it was, it too would have soaked up quite a bit, lowering the reduction relative to coal to 20 tonnes. And, in a market system, almost all of the barley production simply moves to a previously unfarmed area. Clearing the existing biomass there emits an extra 16 tonnes of CO2 a year on average (and this is likely an underestimate).
So, instead of saving 30 tonnes, we save four tonnes at most. And this is the best-case scenario. Of the 12 production modes analysed, two would reduce annual CO2 emissions by only two tonnes, while the other 10 actually increase total emissions up to 14 tonnes a year.
At the same time, we are paying a king's ransom for biomass. Germany spends more than $3 billion annually or $167 per tonne of avoided CO2 emissions, which is more than 37 times the cost of carbon reductions in the European Union emissions trading system.
And the estimate of avoided emissions ignores indirect land use changes, making the likely real cost at least eight times higher.
Ten years ago, the EU and the US embraced biofuels to combat global warming. Today, the US turns 40 per cent of its maize into ethanol to fuel cars. This has driven up food prices, caused tens of millions to starve, costs more than $17bn a year in subsidies and causes agricultural deforestation elsewhere in the world, with more total CO2 emissions than the entire savings from the ethanol. Biofuels are an almost unstoppable, unmitigated disaster.
We need to confront the potentially much bigger biomass boondoggle. Yes, we should turn waste into energy and be smart about agricultural leftovers.
But we are about to diminish biodiversity, over-extract water, make food more expensive, and waste hundreds of billions all while cutting down trees to burn them and potentially increasing CO2 emissions. We have been brought up to know and do better.
Bjorn Lomborg is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

#42 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 22 May 2013 - 10:12 PM

You worded thanks to Bjørn Lomborg to imply all environmentalists worldwide endorse this idea. You shouldn't be so credulous. To say that environmentalists would want to harvest forests in such an obviously detrimental way really does stretch credulity. Perhaps you might want to poke around the web to find out more info before you post.
Here's the abstract. If I have the correct article it looks to me that thesefive authors are arguing just the opposite of what the article's author you quoted thinks and states .

Owing to the peculiarities of forest net primary production humans would appropriate ca. 60% of the global increment of woody biomass if forest biomass were to produce 20% of current global primary energy supply. We argue that such an increase in biomass harvest would result in younger forests, lower biomass pools, depleted soil nutrient stocks and a loss of other ecosystem functions. The proposed strategy is likely to miss its main objective, i.e. to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, because it would result in a reduction of biomass pools that may take decades to centuries to be paid back by fossil fuel substitution, if paid back at all. Eventually, depleted soil fertility will make the production unsustainable and require fertilization, which in turn increases GHG emissions due to N2O emissions. Hence, large-scale production of bioenergy from forest biomass is neither sustainable nor GHG neutral. http://onlinelibrary...1169.x/abstract


I found the full article here: http://ncfp.files.wo...bon-neutral.pdf

On Lomborg himself all is not what it appears to be. This is from the site Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.or...-skeptical.html

The heavily promoted book, published by Cambridge University Press, has received significant attention from the media and praise from commentators writing in The Economist, The New York Times, and Washington Post. For example, the Post's reviewer (a philosophy professor from New Zealand) concluded that it was "a magnificent achievement," and "the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962." Meanwhile, groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo are using the book to promote their "no need to take action to address global environmental problems" agenda. For example, the "Cooler Heads Coalition" -- formed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others to "dispel the myths of global warming" -- featured Lomborg in a Capitol Hill briefing on global warming.
Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg's book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.


So is this a nail in the coffin? Doesn't look like it is to me.

Edited by ohreally?, 22 May 2013 - 10:13 PM.


#43 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 27 May 2013 - 10:46 PM

For those of you who have not yet slashed your wrists in despair, check this out:

http://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/

#44 ohreally?

ohreally?

    Junior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 149 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 01:31 PM

For those of you who have not yet slashed your wrists in despair, check this out:

http://www.dominosugar.com/carbonfree/


It's unclear to me why we should have slashed our collective wrists by now. What is the point you are making about a company doing what it can to mitigate it's carbon footprint. Watts wrong with reducing your carbon footprint? Even Anthony does it by using less energy. From his blog. http://wattsupwithth...ghts-fantastic/

#45 canuck

canuck

    Senior Villager

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Posted 28 May 2013 - 08:42 PM

Albert Einstein famously quipped: "There are two things that are infinite: the universe, and human stupidity".

Thank you for reaffirming Einstein.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users