Visit our Popular Forums

daletournier · 25-09-2017, 23:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

4 out of 5 Dentists Surveyed Recommend Crest Toothpaste.
It's not a lie...and it's about as useful a statement as 97% of Scientists believe the MMGWH (Man Made Global Warming Hoax).

Might as well have all the scientists take a Knee during the national anthem and have El Trumpo call for their firing...

Better Exile?

Bias confirmation is very real.

Seabeau · 26-09-2017, 00:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by NevisDog

NASA (US):
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. .....

Anyone care to argue with NASA???

Yea. The people who argued in vain, against the NASA," Space Plane"(The Space Shuttle)in favor of "The Big Dumb Boosters", who were proven correct in terms of billions of dollars and valued human life wasted.

**newhaul** · 26-09-2017, 08:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Okay, quote a peer reviewed paper, published in a reputable scientific journal, disputing NASA's (and their multitude of US and overseas agencies') findings.

Sorry not doing your homework for you.

Exile · 26-09-2017, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

4 out of 5 Dentists Surveyed Recommend Crest Toothpaste.
It's not a lie...and it's about as useful a statement as 97% of Scientists believe the MMGWH (Man Made Global Warming Hoax).

Might as well have all the scientists take a Knee during the national anthem and have El Trumpo call for their firing...

Better Exile?

Phew. For awhile there I thought you got the bad taco or sumthin'. Good to see you're back on your game!

senormechanico · 26-09-2017, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

4 out of 5 Dentists Surveyed Recommend Crest Toothpaste.
It's not a lie...and it's about as useful a statement as 97% of Scientists believe the MMGWH (Man Made Global Warming Hoax).

Might as well have all the scientists take a Knee during the national anthem and have El Trumpo call for their firing...

Better Exile?

That quote reminds me of this one from a gum commercial:

"Nine out of ten Dentists who chew gum, chew Dentyne".

I wonder how many Dentists actually CHEW gum.

Exile · 26-09-2017, 10:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by NevisDog

Okay, quote a peer reviewed paper, published in a reputable scientific journal, disputing NASA's (and their multitude of US and overseas agencies') findings.

Nevis - I think the reason you're not getting much feedback is that there have been previous, extremely lengthy CF threads on this that will give you all the papers, articles, journals, blogs, commentary, charts & graphs you're looking for until your eyes start bleeding. There are a number of CF posters with techy backgrounds who are pretty dialed up on the science, or at least they think they are.

The threads ultimately get closed down because it's no longer a debate but just a shouting match with people not actually addressing contrary arguments.

In a nutshell, and to the extent I understand it, there are few scientists -- even the most skeptical ones -- who hold the position that humans have had zero influence on global warming. So the "97%" controversy boils down to the stats being arrived at by plucking individual statements from scientists in 1000's of articles but failing to specify, for example, what degree of warming is attributable to humans, how much that contributes to what most seem to agree is a natural warming cycle, and what, if anything, we can & should do about it. Hence Third Day's analogy about 4 out of 5 dentists . . . .

The gist of the temperature measuring debate seems to boil down to reliance on the multitude of land & ocean based thermometers situated around the world, or the satellite data which has been around since the 1990's (I think). The latter shows little to no warming over that period of time, and the two leading scientists who developed and maintain the (NASA) satellites are understandably two of the leading skeptics. And no, they're professorial types from a big university who used to work for NASA, so I doubt "oil money" is a factor.

Have fun with your homework, and be sure to let us know if you come up with any "definitive" answers and we'll nominate you for a Nobel prize.

buzzstar · 26-09-2017, 10:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exile

Nah, while some of our Canadian shipmates disagree with our politics, I've never found them to be disagreeable. Besides, it seems that all too many of them enjoy drinking good beer.

There are two errors, thus creating added combinations and permutations for misunderstanding: 1/ Unfriendly is not the same as disagreeable, and the implication that they are is incorrect; 2/ You are wise avoiding trying to define good beer. There is real trouble afoot when trying to define "good" in that realm. It could be a huge thread, separate, distinct, and potentially more initially divisive than say, cats and monos, or guns on board. That said, I believe, like you, we can agree that there ain't nothing quite like a good beer.

NevisDog · 26-09-2017, 12:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzstar

...That said, I believe, like you, we can agree that there ain't nothing quite like a good beer.

I guess there's not much else in this thread we will ever agree on - no point pushing water up hill with a pointy stick. I just hope for all our sakes you turn out to be right.

SecondBase · 26-09-2017, 15:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by NevisDog

I guess there's not much else in this thread we will ever agree on - no point pushing water up hill with a pointy stick. I just hope for all our sakes you turn out to be right.

If Twitter goes to 280 characters maybe we'll all understand each other twice as well.

For people doubting climate modeling, but agreeing the temperature shown off Charleston is correct I'm not going to call them "deniers". I will call them if you don't mind "show me's" who are seeking actual evidence they can follow. Some of these folks went through the 2008 housing mortgage modeling, probably using the same MATLAB version so yeah I understand the reluctance.

What I don't know is, forgetting any models, does the underlying bouy temp data show increase over years or is the warming only evidenced via a model?

I'm hoping bouy temps are visible for review that make the trend clear in a simple way. If that's missing then the case maybe hasn't been well communicated so far...

It's ok to rely on thermometers for temperature. And averaged readings over years should tell us something, no?

On the other hand it'd be real hard to fool DARPA.

buzzstar · 26-09-2017, 16:03

Originally Posted by daletournier View Post
What i find quite amazing is Tesla has a market cap similar to GM yet Tesla sells under 10,000 cars a year (at a loss i should add) and GM sells hundreds of thousands.

My point is musk is the worlds greatest saleman, he mananges to get billions of dollars invested into his company , from individuals and the government yet fails to make a profit EVER! Prior to "bubble world" only companies that made profit stayed around!

Im just envious, wish i was this good.

di[COLOR="Blue"][/Don't we all. Safe to say his investors don't suffer from SQM (small quarterly mind).

If his investors are correct and, over time, Mr Musk ends up with market leader in electric cars, half the country's power generation & storage, half the airlines business (26 minutes center city Philly to center city NYC, no cabs, no boarding circus, sounds COLOR]about right to me) he will do alright.

San Diego-AZ-Corpus Christi hyperloop that can move a TEU in 3 hours will eventually splace the Panama Canal. Add half the canal zone turnover to his revenue stream to boot.

So far he's executing on each item. Time will tell.
________

Just a cut and paste of a quote and a response, but it raised my curiosity. Which/who has received the most in federal government $ subsidies during the 21st century, General Motors or Tesla?

Lake-Effect · 08-10-2017, 12:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Just a cut and paste of a quote and a response, but it raised my curiosity. Which/who has received the most in federal government $ subsidies during the 21st century, General Motors or Tesla?

Some ideas.
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla...-oil-industry/

The low price of gasoline is a de facto subsidy for gas vehicles as well.

Exile · 08-10-2017, 12:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Some ideas.
https://electrek.co/2016/11/25/tesla...-oil-industry/

The low price of gasoline is a de facto subsidy for gas vehicles as well.

I don't think anyone disputes that subsidies exist -- in a myriad of forms -- for the fossil fuel industry and its related interests. In fact, one of the mantras of at least the more conservative/libertarian branch of the Republican party if not others wants to end "corporate welfare" generally.

But it would be nice if the linked article would at least compare the respective subsidies over a specific period of time, or maybe apportion the amounts based on the respective sizes of Tesla vs. the obviously much larger oil, auto, etc. cos. But then I wasn't holding out much hope from a publication named "electrek" where the opening sentence of the article read "In light of the recent smear campaign launched against Tesla and Elon Musk by a conservative group backed by a Trump propagandist . . . ." Maybe save the partisanship, bring on relevant stats from a more neutral source, and let readers decide if there are really "smear campaigns" going on -- from either side! After all, one side's "propagandist" is often just another side's "spokesperson," "consultant" or "advisor."

On the upside, the article did mention that not all the subsidies are going towards a luxury vehicle with limited range & application that only the 1%'ers can afford. But that statement seemed to be unsourced, and worse may have come from Musk himself. If it's all about improving battery technology, as opposed to not middle class taxpayers helping the wealthy buy cool but deficient luxury cars, then we'd be better off giving public tax dollars to a nonprofit institution that does R&D, no? But then there's the matter of those ever-present campaign contributions . . . .

When in doubt, this usually explains everything.