Re: AMD's well may be running dry

JF Mezei wrote:
Dr. Dweeb wrote:
What is needed is real science instead of "climatologists"
postulating cause-effect and then trying to prove it, and having
failed, using the political process to sell the idea anyway.


Are you able to disprove the fact that when water goes from -0 to +0,
it melts ?
Are you able to diprove the number on the amount of ice on land in
both the arctic/greenland as well as antarctica ?

Are you able to disprove the fact that more and more of the arctic
ocean becomes open water in the summer and that the summer (in terms
of navication) is longer now than it was before ? Are you able to
disprove that this ice is currently melting and are you able to
provide that satellite imaging showing ice covered surfaces
schrinking ?
Are you able to disprove the fact that darker substances aborb more
heat than white snow ? (aka: open ocean water versus ice/snow
covered ocean) ?
Are you aware of El Ninio and the destructuve nature of the weather
that accompanies it ? It is caused by minute temperature changes in
ocean water. Imagine how much a more significant change in ocean
temperature and water levels would do.

How much in terms of assets and infrastructure in the USA are near
sea level ? How much or that would be destroyed by rising sea levels
which would bring more destruction/flooding/erosion during storms ?


Can you really afford to ignore the scientific facts ?


You are an intellectually incapable fool (this is is a personal opinion
based on your postings)

You need to distinguish observation and cause-effect - something which you
amply demonstrate here that you are incapable of doing.

Again, forget the USA's weather. You need to consider the border
zones where the average temperature is near the freezing point. Raise
the average temperature by a couple of degrees and all of a sudden,
you have a lot of ice melting into the ocean.

Your reaction is akin to homeonewrs near a river being warned of
possible flooding in the spring and refuse to sand bag their property
because they see no scientific evidence that this will happen since
those are just predictions.

You are correct. This isn't hard evidence like the knowkedge that
mixing glycerine with nitro something creates a mighty explosive.

But the humanity has moved beyond just empirical evidence a LONG LONG
time ago. We have the power of reason and deduction. And we can
predict certain things. Eisntein was pretty good and coming up with
theories that have been accepted.
Based on what we are seeing happen today (weather data, and those are
factual), we can reson/deduct that we are headed towards something
really really bad if nothing is done with it.

We also know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (as well as others). Humans
have that uncanny hability to test CO2 in a lab and find that it lets
light though, but reflects infrared, AND they are able to deduct what
happens on a planerary scale.

We also know that humans have recently begun to introduce large
quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere (previously sequestered for
millions of years underground), and that the weather DATA starts to
match CO2 emissions starting at a certain point. (aka: when CO2
production exceeded plant consumption of CO2.
Consider also that airlines dump CO2 in upper atmoshere where plants
can't get to it. The minute it goes out the jet engines, it is
contributing to rising temperatures. At least the gas that comes out
of the SUV/Hummers people drive takes a number of years before it
reaches the upper atmosphere, and at least while still near the
ground, those gases have a chance to be captured by plants.
Sorry, but people who refuse to accept the fact that CO2 is harming
the planet are like ultra religious people who refused to accept the
fact that the earth is not the centre of the universe.



You would be a failure as a scientist. This post is flawed at so many
levels it is difficult to know where to start.

You take a set of selected observed events, and ascribe them all to a single
cause with no theoretical basis upon which to do so. You then posit a
solution based on this faulty logic.

It is as logically flawed to list the same set of observed events, ascribe
them to a supernatural being, and claim that burning cows at the alter will
solve the problem!!!

The bottom line is that climatological models are incapable of predicting
the past, where all the data is known, and relying on them to predict the
future is of the same level of folly as relying upon prayer - ie. an act of
faith.

If it can be predicted accurately, that global temperatures will fluctuate
in certain cycles based on the physics of planetary movement and the
observed behaviour of the physics of the power source etc., and these
predictions concord closely with the past and measurments in real time, then
the theory has merit and is likely to have a high degree of predictive
reliability.

A scientific theory that has no predictive capability is useless and will be
discarded by a scientist as a futile pursuit.

Climatology has essentially zero credibility at present. Current models are
incapable of predicting the past when all the inputs and outputs are known.
Why do you think that climatological models might accurately predict the
future, or even explain the present, when they are incapable of predicting
known history? There are plenty of theories with large bodies of scientific
and empirical research that accurately predict the past and present which
clearly are better choices upon which to base policy.

The politics of alarmism or whatever you wish to call it is not serving
science, or humanity.

There are environmental issues that are more important, where the
cause-effect is demonstrated and provable, and where mankinds actions (or
inactions) can affect the state. In these areas there is a cost benefit for
expending energy and money.

Yelling and screaming about the end of life as we know it because of a very
dubious cause-effect ascription to C02 emissions is a waste of breath and
effort.


Dweeb







When you drill for oil, you sell the oil with a fossil fuel tax on
it. The refiner buys oil to be refined and buys oil to fuel the
refining process. The refined product is sold with a tax that
combines both. The steel maker buys refined oil and pays that fossil
fuel tax. When
it sells the steel to the car manufacturer, it includes that fossil
fuel tax.
The car manufacturer then also buys oil to fuel its car assembly
plants and the fossil fuel taxes from all the products that go into
the car are combined.

When the car is sold, the owner ends up paying for the total carbon
footprint that was used to manufacture the car. The beauty of this
is that if
that car is exported to another country, it is the person in the
other country that inherits the responsability for the car's carbon
footprint and it affects that country's per capita carbon footprint.
(just discussing manufacture it, not
use).
Similarly, when someone buys fuel at a petrol station to power
his/her car, they pay the end carbon tax on the refined fuel (just
like the steel maker did). But being the end user, they can't deduct
it and it goes against that country's per capita CO2 consumption.

Lets assume for a minute that the USA had a positive trade balance,
and generated 25% of the world's pollution. Americans citizens
should not be penalised for the carbon emissions generated when
producing widgets that are exported to canada, mexico or anywhere
else. It is the importers that should be penalised.

But a company that is highly inefficient and which consumes a lot of
oil to produce a widget will not be as competitive as one which is
far more
efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon
tax attached to the product.
There would have to be some exceptions such as companies that
sequester oil products (plastics, vaseline, lubricants etc). Those
do not get burned so they should get a refund on the carbon tax for the
amount of fuel they sequester (but still pay the carbon tax
generated when the raw oil was refined before being delivered to
them).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... Humans have that uncanny hability to test CO2 in a lab and find that it lets light though, but reflects infrared, AND they are able to deduct what happens on a planerary scale. ... The steel maker buys refined oil and pays that fossil fuel tax. ... it sells the steel to the car manufacturer, it includes that fossil fuel tax. ... efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon tax ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... Humans have that uncanny hability to test CO2 in a lab and find that it lets light though, but reflects infrared, AND they are able to deduct what happens on a planerary scale. ... The steel maker buys refined oil and pays that fossil fuel tax. ... it sells the steel to the car manufacturer, it includes that fossil fuel tax. ... efficient since the more efficient one will have a smaller carbon tax ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: QUESTION/ANSWER (very important)
    ... storage matrix creates far more pollution than a vehicle could ever ... 6 kilograms of carbon are emitted during the process ... "In one year, a new 2001 model small car, traveling the ... manufacture for fuel cells assumes that 50 - 100 grammes of platinum ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: LibDem proposed new VED rates
    ... if you use more fuel for a tax that costs more even though you could well be ... I dare say that you genuinely believe that a car that produces 200g/km of CO2 ... One I have, effectively, as a weekend vehicle - I do a few trials and a bit ...
    (uk.transport)
  • Re: nut flaps... (Astro-Turf Wars)
    ... grass, or whatever, and you're converting it into fuel. ... changed the total amount of carbon in the biosphere, ... definitely added CO2 to the atmosphere that wasn't there before. ... Yeah--but if you stop the green plants from growing, ...
    (rec.arts.comics.strips)