Another rambling post. If you're not trying to refute AGW, then what's your point? Why waste our time and thread space? So, I order you to try writing a coherent and succinct post refuting AGW. I double dare you to even try.
Remember that science is NOT about beliefs, it's about providing evidence to back up your claims. You haven't posted anything relevant to the AGW discussion.
"AGW is supported by the research" is only true so far as you have only seen research that supports it.
It always makes me a little nervous to talk to someone who is absolutely sure that something is so because they've never personally seen anything else. It doesn't tell me that it is so, just that they haven't very wide horizons.
But that's a point I was making while you were sitting and waiting for me to refute AGW for you, so you could defeat me, wasn't it?
Since when do I dance to your whip? Y'see, this is why you run off on monologs. I didn't say a thing about AGW: I said plenty about IPCC and the business of publishing scientific papers, and how unscientific science has become. And how you aren't doing anyone any good standing on your own self-carved ivory tower and insisting that no one can say anything unless they produce the papers that haven't been published. Which is, to be blunt, pretty bully-ish.
If you want me to refute AGW, you're going to have to ask politely. I'm not too likely to bother, though. Once you throw away the hockey stick, the bad math that produced it, the bad math that was synthesized to show that the first set of bad math was good math, and the whole of RealScience.com and Argyle and their arrogant associates, it's hard to prove global warming is happening just like you claim, and a lot harder to claim that it's caused by mankind alone. But hey, that's _my_ opinion. I'm not forcing that on you: you're happy with your beliefs, and apparently they empower you.
I am, however, quite willing to challenge your implicit claim that you can dictate to others how they can go about making their points. It's just another way to try to rob someone of their right to free speech without actually admitting that you have no basis for a rebuttal.
If you're saving the real basis for your rebuttal, by all means, play the card. We're all waiting, with bated breath. But put the ad hominem attacks and the school-yard bully aside, and man up.
Get a grip. Climate is the signal and weather the noise. Adding CO2, a greenhouse gas, adds energy to the system and thus disturbs the equilibrium, which then forces the system to "seek" a new equlibrium. One would expect the signal to increase and the noise to become more chaotic, which it apparently does.
AGW is supported by the research and i see that you have nothing to refute it, except your attitude.
Come on, it's democratic in that anyone can get involved, from performing the actual research to reviewing and commenting on the research, which is kinda like voting. So it is a group thing. Also, there are teams of researchers working together, like at CERN.
Still nothing refuting AGW I see. Long post though. Instead of rambling, please succinctly provde evidence that AGW theory is wrong. Nothing more. There's a lot of research out there, so start reading.
You oversimplify all of your points or don't understand anything about your stated issues. For example, overpopulation predictions have been coming true as scientists have never predicted absolute collapse. They have consistently predicted a steady degradation of the environment, the decimation of wildlife as humans encroach on habitat and perform outright slaughter, conflicts over resources, etc. These are happening and are getting worse as indicated by the increasing loss of habitat to develoment globally and the slaughter of elephants and rhinos in Africa.
Then there's the outright lie or ignorance. For example you claim that sea levels have not risen when they have as discussed in Melting Glaciers Raise Sea Level.
Your claims that the predicted negative consequences just aren't true are wrong. You don't deal in facts because you don't read about the subjects before you post! If you did you wouldn't write what you do.
I would say that the list of names at the end of the article does in fact refute the idea of anthropogenic global climate change. The fact that the climate changes around the planet is not, in fact in argument, it's called weather. But that the statement of carbon dioxide, that is the reference C02, and it is in fact the part of the atmosphere which has been blamed for damage. Before that it has been trinitro toluene, ozone, chlorfloro hydrocarbons, JuJu, Karma and many other superstitions which, thanks to AlGore, have become the new religion of the weak minded.
Insult? I only wish I could insult those that have been beating that drum in person.
Jeffbiss, I suppose an ad hominem attack on me is to be expected. It does fail the purpose for which it is intended. It is actually not a fact that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid.
I never set out to disprove AGW as you claim, proving that you read into my reply what you wanted to see. Since I've completed two ASs in hard science and am completing a third in Computer Science Technology (which places me in my third year minus a couple of non-science humanities requirements which can be completed just by continuing to take music lessons privately and giving a concert or two) I don't feel any need to defend myself against your inference that I haven't had any hard science courses.
Since I can read English and also write it, I'm unaffected by your claim (based on nothing, since you don't know me from adam) that I haven't read what I said I have read.
Oh yes, ScienceDaily.com is definitely the place to go to get both sides of the AGW debate. After all, it is popular! And it has earned the respect of loyalty of students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, educators and the general public around the world! After all, it tells us on it's "About ScienceDaily" page. Kind of reminiscent of Sir Joseph Porter, KCB, or realscience.com "Real science by Real Scientists!" I'm so impressed. Why, the editor has served as the senior Science editor for Grollier's Book of Knowledge!!!! Wow!
Science is a Democratic endeavor, indeed. Note to self: Ignore all of Einstein's theories because the democratic vote in his own time was against him. Sorry, wrong again. There may have been a time when Science was democratic. The fact that we don't still adhere to theories like phlogiston and the aether proves pretty conclusively that Science is uninterested in your vote, just what Nature presents and, for the moment, what theories do a good job of modelling. When the model proves to be inaccurate, it gets updated or cast out...except recently.
You say to read. Have you read all (yes, all) of the reviewed literature on the Hockeystick graph? Talk about cherry-picking. Have you read both the papers and leaked info from the scientists exposed by the Argyle leaks? Or just the media reports? It's one thing to try to win an argument by suggesting that your (obviously intellectually deficient) opponent is un-lettered and ignorant. It's quite another to take your own prescription.
Maybe, instead of relying on "good overviews" and bragging about links to sources, you should read sources and forget the overviews. And, in fact, maybe you ought to forget letting ScienceDaily filter the links you access. It could just be setting you up to appear biased by insufficient exposure. Along the way, you can answer the major question that you avoided by the adhominem response:
If the publishers of the papers are either in the 'consensus group' or are being pressured by the consensus group to toe the line, how will _anyone_ read a paper about the non-consensus view, ever? Yes, politics has a valid place in this discussion, and the politics of the situation stinks.
One last thing: 'economics' isn't 'competent to discuss anything, yes. Economics does not discuss. Economists are arguably not competent to discuss economics. However, when the hand that holds the money bags is in a position to determine who gets funded and bases that on their own preconceived notions, it's necessary to discuss it. If you believe it is not, quit your job, and build your lab in your den. If you can't afford to do that, or your first thought is, I can't do what I'm doing now without support from my company, then you have just admitted that ecoomics has a part in the discussion.
Truchard will be presented the award at the 2014 Golden Mousetrap Awards ceremony during the co-located events Pacific Design & Manufacturing, MD&M West, WestPack, PLASTEC West, Electronics West, ATX West, and AeroCon.
In a bid to boost the viability of lithium-based electric car batteries, a team at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has developed a chemistry that could possibly double an EV’s driving range while cutting its battery cost in half.
For industrial control applications, or even a simple assembly line, that machine can go almost 24/7 without a break. But what happens when the task is a little more complex? That’s where the “smart” machine would come in. The smart machine is one that has some simple (or complex in some cases) processing capability to be able to adapt to changing conditions. Such machines are suited for a host of applications, including automotive, aerospace, defense, medical, computers and electronics, telecommunications, consumer goods, and so on. This discussion will examine what’s possible with smart machines, and what tradeoffs need to be made to implement such a solution.