T1B

Okay SS, where is any sort of proof for your conspiracy theory? I've provided undisputed proof of the denying scientists being shills. Where's yours?

Your idiotic assertions of the air being better, the toxins being fewer, the ocean acidification not rising--oh wait, you ignored that planet killing incident which is growing as we speak--and you suggest that no, species are not going extinct at record levels. But...you offer nothing but bluster and simplistic bunkered right-wing radio talking points.

As for professor Benglsson, we can only ask how much he was paid to join the denialist shill group. A few hundred grand? He's 79 and needs some security?

How pathetic are you guys? Really...

88 wrote:scientist

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Oil is dirty when burned and useful for many things besides burning.
We have alternatives that just need a little pimping like oil gets and has gotten for decades.
Why are we scientists still discussing dropping oil as a fuel?

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:scientist

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Who gives a fuck? It's a trace gas, you fucking idiot. Water vapor is a far more serious "greenhouse gas" and nary a peep about it.

Now go fuck yourself with a chainsaw.

It's a trace gas so it's not important just like O3, CFCs, CH4 and N2O are not important. Gotcha.

^^^^^^^^
I think this is what the brain dead must think is going to do the job. If we even thought the supply of oil would run out in say 50 years, you think the price of gas would still be under $3 a gallon? I believe there's enough to take us a couple centuries if not more, especially if it really is an abiotic product. By then physicists may have figured out controlled fusion power and we can build a big power plant in the middle of the desert in Nevada to take care of us.

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:We have alternatives that just need a little pimping like oil gets and has gotten for decades.

What are these "alternatives [to oil] that just need a little pimping"? Inquiring minds want to know.

I have a car that runs mostly on the sun that shines on my roof. I have friend that has a house that runs on the same sun and a small wind turbine. The neighbor has a car that runs on biofuel, but then you know all this. Why the feigned ignorance? It is feigned right?

Wolfman wrote:

^^^^^^^^
I think this is what the brain dead must think is going to do the job. If we even thought the supply of oil would run out in say 50 years, you think the price of gas would still be under $3 a gallon? I believe there's enough to take us a couple centuries if not more, especially if it really is an abiotic product. By then physicists may have figured out controlled fusion power and we can build a big power plant in the middle of the desert in Nevada to take care of us.

Head in the sand much old man? Don't worry, your CO2 is just a fart in the wind. The rest of us with brains will bail your dumb ass out.

Wolfman wrote:
I think this is what the brain dead must think is going to do the job. If we even thought the supply of oil would run out in say 50 years, you think the price of gas would still be under $3 a gallon?

You're kidding, right? You've heard of supply and demand? Do you think any producer would voluntarily cut production (or raise prices) even if they thought the supply would disappear 2020? They'll keep supplying it at the market price until the last drop is gone.

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:We have alternatives that just need a little pimping like oil gets and has gotten for decades.

What are these "alternatives [to oil] that just need a little pimping"? Inquiring minds want to know.

I have a car that runs mostly on the sun that shines on my roof. I have friend that has a house that runs on the same sun and a small wind turbine. The neighbor has a car that runs on biofuel, but then you know all this. Why the feigned ignorance? It is feigned right?

If you think solar can or ever will replace the world consumption of oil, coal and natural gas, you are a good deal dumber than I think you are.

Don't get me wrong -- I'd absolutely love an electric car... right up until it "ran out of gas." A tow truck isn't showing up with a 5 gallon can to get you out of the desert.

So, any acceptable electric vehicle is going to have a gas or diesel (propane?) motor on board to charge the batteries, should the need arise.

Dinsdale wrote:Don't get me wrong -- I'd absolutely love an electric car... right up until it "ran out of gas." A tow truck isn't showing up with a 5 gallon can to get you out of the desert.

So, any acceptable electric vehicle is going to have a gas or diesel (propane?) motor on board to charge the batteries, should the need arise.

Yea I still have one dinosaur for the long trips, but an atty friend has a tesla that goes 280 and charges pretty fast. And then there is this...

Moving Sale wrote:

88 wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:We have alternatives that just need a little pimping like oil gets and has gotten for decades.

What are these "alternatives [to oil] that just need a little pimping"? Inquiring minds want to know.

I have a car that runs mostly on the sun that shines on my roof. I have friend that has a house that runs on the same sun and a small wind turbine. The neighbor has a car that runs on biofuel, but then you know all this. Why the feigned ignorance? It is feigned right?

So your car runs on sunshine, what about the folks in Alaska in the winter or Boston or Seattle where grey rules?

Biofuel, that requires far more energy to refine than it gives back. Where is that energy coming from?


But then you know all this. Why the feigned solutions?

And guess where that lithium is? That's right, Afghanistan. Huh. Maybe we shouldn't have run away from the place so fast. Especially since China bought the rights to mine the stuff right under our noses. Great job, Obama, you jug earred simpleton.

Pretty sure the lithium rights were sold before GWB left.

I hope we're getting a cut since we rebuilt a bunch of stuff over there.

88 wrote:

Rooster wrote:And guess where that lithium is? That's right, Afghanistan. Huh. Maybe we shouldn't have run away from the place so fast. Especially since China bought the rights to mine the stuff right under our noses. Great job, Obama, you jug earred simpleton.

Wikipedia wrote:Deposits of lithium are found in South America throughout the Andes mountain chain. Chile is the leading lithium producer, followed by Argentina. Both countries recover the lithium from brine pools. In the United States lithium is recovered from brine pools in Nevada. However, half the world's known reserves are located in Bolivia, a nation sitting along the central eastern slope of the Andes. In 2009 Bolivia was negotiating with Japanese, French, and Korean firms to begin extraction. According to the US Geological Survey, Bolivia's Uyuni Desert has 5.4 million tonnes of lithium. A newly discovered deposit in Wyoming's Rock Springs Uplift is estimated at 228,000 tons. Additional deposits in the same formation were extrapolated to be as much as 18 million tons.

Maybe Obama is fixing to invade Bolivia?

Maybe Rooster needs to put on his tin foil hat and take a red.

88,
I have a client who owns an oil field in the valley and one who manages a solar farm. The former has fewer restrictions on production and more incentives from the government, the solar farm is just the opposite. You can stick your head in the sand all you want but oil is, and should be, on its way out as a fuel because it is too dirty and inefficient for the world we are making. You can fight it all you want but that won't change those facts.

War Wagon wrote:you're a coward and won't expose yourself

I really hope that is not what you were trying to get him to do. My reasons for not doing so have little to do with cowardice.

SS, your "rah rah" cheering of some simplistic "libertarian" world is pretty silly. Do you really suppose the oil industry wants any part of some new cheaper source of energy?

http://www.rense.com/general72/oinvent.htm

Do you suppose they would let that happen?

http://somethgblue.hubpages.com/hub/Inv ... Suppressed

Sure, you're right that the corn-based ethanol plan is a disastrous fraud. But..why do you hold on to the notion of oil as some sort of practical plan for the future?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:SS, your "rah rah" cheering of some simplistic "libertarian" world is pretty silly. Do you really suppose the oil industry wants any part of some new cheaper source of energy?

I didn't even read your links, since you insist on posting ridiculous shit.

But if you think Big Oil hasn't leveraged their position, and you don't believe they aren't heavily invested in emerging markets, then you're even dumber than you come across on here.

The next generation of commercial energy, whenever that may occur, will be a boon for Big Oil...


dumbass.

Well of course you won't read them, you tired old blanket fart. That's because you're a total coward. Just like you won't dare read--let alone attempt to dispute--this...
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_23.htm

or this..

http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/

As far as your unquestioning faith in the obvious shill Climate Change Denial "institutes" and experts paid for by the Kochs, you're a pretty easy convert. A "lie down" as it's known in sales.

So you believe there is a 9-11 conspiracy, but there could not be such a thing as a anthropomorphic global warming conspiracy? Is that your take?

Okay , "rooster," let's consider your suggestion.

The assertion that 9/11 was in fact an inside job is based on actual compiled facts. Like these..
http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_23.htm

Now...can you dispute any of this? What...total silence?

As for the assertion that Climate Change is some sort of conspiracy, we have actual compiled facts that the denialists--and the ones suggesting a conspiracy--have been directly paid to say Climate Change is a lie.

(right here, pal, read this carefully)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-effort/


So..what exactly do you feel you've got? Who besides Sarah Palin and similar moronic weirdos are supporting your position? Beside the Kochs, of course

Dinsdale wrote:
For really real?

You're actually contending that science-by-democracy is consistent with "scientific method"?


So, the flat earth has the sun revolving around it?

"Even if we have to change what the peer review process is!!!!!!"

Felix, yes or no question -- don't dance around it:

Is altering observed data (always in one direction) consistent with the scientific method?

"YES" or "NO"?

96% of the scientists attributing some of the global warming to humans based on their observations from employing scientific analogy isn't a vote, it's an expression of their conclusions.....

altering data....yes, using methods such as smoothing for graphs is commonplace and isn't considered to be altering data.....

Felix wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Is altering observed data (always in one direction) consistent with the scientific method?

"YES" or "NO"?

altering data....yes

Wow, that's sad and telling.

Left Seater wrote:

Felix wrote:

Dinsdale wrote:

Is altering observed data (always in one direction) consistent with the scientific method?

"YES" or "NO"?

altering data....yes

Wow, that's sad and telling.

you need to understand the term alter as opposed to falsification.....data is adjusted to fit the question to be answered.....think of it like this....I'm a real estate appraiser and when im doing a comparative analysis of a group of properties comparing them with the property I'm appraising, it's necessary to apply adjustment factors to those comparable properties to better represent the value potential of the property I'm appraising.....from a technical standpoint im in fact altering the data to better represent the value potential of the subject property...I'm altering the data, but not falsifying it....this is the thing guys like dimsale seem unable to comprehend.....

Felix wrote:you need to understand the term alter as opposed to falsification.....data is adjusted to fit the question to be answered.....think of it like this....I'm a real estate appraiser and when im doing a comparative analysis of a group of properties comparing them with the property I'm appraising, it's necessary to apply adjustment factors to those comparable properties to better represent the value potential of the property I'm appraising.....from a technical standpoint im in fact altering the data to better represent the value potential of the subject property...I'm altering the data, but not falsifying it....this is the thing guys like dimsale seem unable to comprehend.....

The data was fudged as much as 35%! The data's been falsified, and there is no earthly reason for it, other than committing fraud.

Here's your sign.

FLW Buckeye wrote: The data was fudged as much as 35!

Link?

Moving Sale wrote:

FLW Buckeye wrote: The data was fudged as much as 35!

Link?

Did you manually type that quote in...because the % is missing from your re-post.

Do you know how the quote function works on phpBB? How fucking stupid are you?

You've gotta excuse him...it's not laziness, it's just that he's exhausted. Them there ambulances are pretty fast, you know.

Nice white flag%

Moving Sale wrote:Nice white flag%

Your white flag is holding it's own tiny, little white flag.

Felix wrote: you need to understand the term alter as opposed to falsification.....data is adjusted to fit the question to be answered.....think of it like this....I'm a real estate appraiser and when im doing a comparative analysis of a group of properties comparing them with the property I'm appraising, it's necessary to apply adjustment factors to those comparable properties to better represent the value potential of the property I'm appraising.....from a technical standpoint im in fact altering the data to better represent the value potential of the subject property...I'm altering the data, but not falsifying it....this is the thing guys like dimsale seem unable to comprehend.....

Apples and handgrenades....

Throwing out aberrations to come up with realistic appraisals is a shitty analogy. It gets rid of properties that are completely run down or were purchased by fukking morons with too much money.

The weather is the weather. You include it all. The hot days, the cold days. All of them. "Smoothing", in this case, is done for one reason. Just ask that billionaire moron, algore.

Felix wrote: you need to understand the term alter as opposed to falsification.....data is adjusted to fit the question to be answered.....from a technical standpoint im in fact altering the data to better represent the value potential of the subject property

Bad example. An adjuster does not alter the data, he makes a guess using the best data he can get his hands on. The data he uses are age, size, number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, any recent renovations or upgrades, etc. the then compares this to other properties with a similar data set to guess what an appropriate valuation would be. He does not alter any data, say, changing the number of bedrooms from 3 to 4, or the age of the house to get the valuation number he wants. Further, appraisers can and are suspended, fined and have their licenses revoked for altering data or using data that doesn't closely match the subject property. Something climate "scientists" don't have to worry about.


As for your claim it is ok to adjust data to fit the question to be answered is complete crap. If that is the case there is zero science. Altering data invalidates any claims one attempts to make. As an example lets ask the question how long do acme brand 4inch birthday candles burn? We would then open the box and time the length of burn for all 20 candles in the box. At this point we would have a data set of 20 measurements of time. Why in the hell would we alter this data? What does adjusting some of the length of burn times do for us? Absolutely nothing. Unless we worked for Acme and we wanted to show that our candles burned longer than the competition, or if we worked for brand X and wanted to show Acme candles burned faster than ours. But every 4th grader knows our conclusions are crap as soon as we altered our data set.

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote:

Moving Sale wrote:Nice white flag%

Your white flag is holding it's own tiny, little white flag.

Do you have anything relevant to say or are your just masterbating with a cheese grater you stupid silly nonentity?

masterbaiting?

learn to spell, dumbfukk.

Huh?

That's not helping.

smelling smack is generally pretty weak, but you are doing a pretty nice KYOA job in this case.

here's a little hint. you misspelled masturbating.

Yea I know that and you mis-spelled my mis-spelling which is why I wondered wtf you were getting at but we will just leave it at, spelling smack is pretty weak.