joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Can you answer any of my questions MercTech? I doubt it....
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
Lets see if yours has any ...impact:)
Scientists compete for grant money to make a living. Most of them try to spin their results so they will be looked on favorably by whichever cash cow they are milking.
Please cite with references.
I would like to know the percentage of scientists that need grant money to handle 51-100% of their living expenses. In addition, where these scientists live. And what fields they are in.
Your going to find this 'argument' to be full of bullshit. Most scientists study science not for the salary or benefits. They do it because they enjoy studying this material. A person whom is passionate with what they do, will cut corners on financial issues just to have fun. Scientists do not study science because they have a political bent. They are free to have a political bent like anyone else in the nation.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
Some are more questionable than others.... remembering one anti-nuclear researcher back in the 80s whose major funding was OPEC. Can you say "credibility problem" when that came to light?
Funny how the deniers keep demanding credibility be proved among the actual scientists, and care not of the ones trying to undermine science at all.
Most of the evidence on Climate Change has been obtained without grant money. I know that will sound shocking. If the deniers claim the Theory was created by grant money from insidious conspiracies; how do you explain the volume of evidence collected not through grant money?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
There are fear mongers that try to play on fear of global catastrophe to gain rep points and access to your wallet.
There are naysayers that want to play on fear of lost jobs to gain rep points and access to your wallet.
There is media hype that wants to rile people up and sell more whatever.
The Grand Old Party. Or also known as the Republican Party!
Together with their allies in the conservative media, financial industry, and religious sections; they control an obedient population that will do as its told, rather than think for themselves. Since thanks to science, we can understand how people are manipulated. Behaviors are trained and used. And how different 'animalistic' behaviors of the back section of the human brain operator.
Yes, people that use science for negative reasons and desires; are the ones we should be keeping an eye on. I could use what I know in science to manipulate the uniformed to gain stuff in life. It might be illegal in a few rare cases. Highly immoral and unethical. Thankfully I'm not such a person. I use these skills to help other people deal with problems.
So apply your 'high standards' across the board MercTech. Apply it to the individuals, groups, and organizations you support, believe in, and give money to. You wish to hold scientists accountable? Fine, do it with equal measure to everyone else. Including all the people you think support your political viewpoints
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
What gets lost in the shuffle is the repeatable, measurable, fact that changing the chemical balance of the atmosphere by returning carbon to the cycle that was bound up in the ground eons ago by burning fossil fuels will have an effect on the climate system. Will some things change; most likely. Will it be self correcting? Possibly over time. The chemical balance of the atmosphere will shift as any chemical equilibrium will do when you add more of one of the reactants. (I first heard of fossil fuel causing atmospheric warming back in 1976. It was a systems problem in sophomore physics class. The media didn't get a whiff of it until the 1990s when the changes went from being "predicted by the math" to being "slight but measurable".)
Its not self-correcting. Dont you think scientists would have studied that concept? The ability of the Earth and its 'magical properties' to correct right from wrong? Sounds like a belief system rather than one understood by science. This would have (and it did) come up when scientists were wondering if climate change could be taking place. Or, if this is just a natural phase of the planet. They would have determined that long ago. In fact, they still test it every now and then and come up with the evidence that things are still true today.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
There are more reasons than climate change for weaning our culture off the fossil fuel teat. Diminishing supply. Toxic by products (release of lead, cadmium, and mercury into the air). Even release of radioactive material into the air (but it's naturally occurring radioactive material so it doesn't count). But our whole infrastructure is based on fossil fuel technology at this point.
How do we know there is a diminishing supply of oil? Without using science, please explain this 'knowledge' you have.
The only way we know about this, was through the study of climate change in the first place!
Our whole infrastructure is not based on fossil fuels, its based on greed, selfishness, inconsideration, and being an immoral asshole! Need some evidence? Check out those bridges that are nearing the end of their structural stability lives. If what you say is true, those bridges would have been repaired/replaced many years ago. If our dependance on fossil fuels is so great, why are we looking into non-fossil fuels with great interest? Remember, before you can answer these questions, you have to explain how we know there is a diminishing supply of oil, WITHOUT, using science, and CAN show the evidence.
Good Luck....
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
Re-directing the massive inertia of an oil based cultural system isn't done lightly and it can't be done without a lot of resistance. And many pie in the sky alternatives that have been proposed just don't work out if you look at things in a larger perspective. (Current tech solar farms don't generate as much power as it takes to make them. Electric cars currently cause more fossil fuel to be burned that you would have with internal combustion engines. The fossil fuel is just burned at a location remote from the roadways.)
The level of your 'scientific and engineering' knowledge is totally....pathetic!
Solar Farms make an abundant amount of energy. And sell that energy off the grid to customers. Very successful models have been used in Arizona, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Florida. The amount of power it takes to create a solar farm is about 10% of its total output in the first three months of its creation. There are many farms being build right now, using better materials, technologies, and knowledge. Maybe you should sit down and do some studying on the subject material.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
Electric cars currently cause more fossil fuel to be burned that you would have with internal combustion engines.
Care to explain this one? How does an electric vehicle cause more fossil fuel to burn....WHEN IT DOESN'T HAVE FOSSIL FUEL IN IT TO BURN?
Get an education on the topic I want you to point out the moment fossil fuel starts burning in that car, ok?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
I keep hoping the Piled higher and Deeper crowd will come up with a couple useful breakthroughs.
Let's compare the number of breakthroughs for humanity those 'Ph.D.'s have uncovered thanks to science, compared to you and all the other conservative idiots in the last five years? Ten years? Twenty years? Fifty years?
Would you even know a technological breakthrough if you were using it? (HINT: The Internet)
The answer is 'no'. You would not understand the 'latest and greatest' stuff created thanks to science. Or do you think all these things just popped out from a magical realm?
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
> A workable room temperature to cryogenic temperature electrical connection so that superconducting windings will be viable. The best conversion between mechanical to electrical energy we have to date is 28%. (power factor of a motor or generator) 72% of the mechanical energy is lost in the conversion to electricity then 72% is lost when converting from electrical energy to mechanical. But, if we could use superconducting windings, the power factor would be more like 90% than 28% and electric cars would be a much better idea.
> Compact fuel cells that run on tankable fuel. The current ones marketed run on Hydrogen which is a storage nightmare. How about one that runs on LPG or coal gas? Needs a breakthrough in catalyst technology to be a viable home or municipality power source.
Where does this information come from? Because this sounds too technical for you to devise on your own.
quote:
ORIGINAL: MercTech
If those two items become workable; it could change the power utilities industry on the same scale that cellular phones and the internet are changing the telecommunications industry.
Why would we want to create devices that we already know are harmful to the environment and use products from a supply that is diminishing? Oh that's right, forgot, you dont know shit about science.
|
RE: why would climate scientists lie? - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread