Science in America - Page 4 - CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion



Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Science in America

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-20-2017, 05:03 PM   #61
vette6799
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17
 
vette6799's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Posts: 23,547
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud View Post
Vaccines are another issue that strongly parallels MMGW deniers.

You have a group of folks telling us that the science is all wrong, that it's corrupt by big pharma and of course thousands of physicians who are also in on the conspiracy, and that there's plenty of evidence linking vaccines to autism even though there isn't.

Appeal to conspiracy, and disregard of actual science, is a common theme among MMGW-deniers and anti-vaxxers.

Same patterns, but oddly enough, it's not always the same people-- some people choose which science they want to trust and which they don't.
I've seen breakdowns of vaccine coverage and strangely, certain high income areas in SoCal are on the list. For anyone with the slightest knowledge of epidemiology, what is happening with vaccines is very scary. As the science of vaccine development moves ahead, people take a step backward.

Re MMGW, I generally let you and a few others make the good fight, but as an engineer, I have a hard time with two things. First, I find it hard to believe that 7 billion people who have denuded large parts of the planet are not having a significant impact on the Earth.

The second thing that bothers me, other than politicians taking sides, is the almost complete lack of any climate scientists coming forward and saying the whole thing is a fraud, bloggers with often questionable technical backgrounds and motives based on sketchy funding notwithstanding. One would think by now that there would be a significant number of people who would have said enough is enough, this is a hoax and I won't be part of it, but that simply has not happened. There has no doubt been fraud, DuPont's Freon BS being a case in point, but that was corporate greed at its very best.
vette6799 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:04 PM   #62
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 9,061
Thanked 111 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud View Post
Yes yes yes, we know, you have the knowledge about this which can turn the entire field of science on its head, and win you a nobel prize in Physics. Yet you continue to sit here and waste your valuable earth-shattering research on a car forum, rather than actually get it published.

Or, maybe you are just having trouble understanding that spectroscopy is a real thing, and that CO2 actually does absorb certain wavelengths of infrared.
I have never disputed "that CO2 actually does absorb certain wavelengths of infrared," a point of your denial.

The CMMGW contention is that infrared is never blocked before it leaves the 0-2 meter terrestrial surface boundary layer of the atmosphere (something that the enthalpy analysis disputes with observed data). You conveniently remove that consideration in the CMMGW community denial (your denial).
63 340HP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:05 PM   #63
Gunsmith
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Gunsmith's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2016
Location: Okeechobee Florida
Posts: 1,243
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr turbo rotary View Post
So when he caught you spouting off ignorance and not science you attack. Who is the science denier?

I love it.
Gunsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:07 PM   #64
Tinkerbell_in_Texas
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12, '14
 
Tinkerbell_in_Texas's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 2006
Location: "There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts" American in Perth,Western Australia
Posts: 24,906
Thanked 7 Times in 6 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rharker View Post
I don't know about Jane Fonda but I do know that we have had at least 3 major nuclear disasters since then -- 3 mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi.

No we didn't run out of fossil fuels, but what do we do to get it now? Pollute many of the wells and water sources of the country trough fracking, the Gulf of mexico still hasn't recovered from the deep water horizon spill. Numerous pipeline leaks and untold number of underground gas tank leaks.

Our oceans are contaminated from over 8 millions tons of plastic dumped per year which takes centuries to degrade. https://www.plasticoceans.org/the-facts/

There may be enough food to feed everyone yet almost a billion people go hungry everyday.

Science is not left or right. It's simply the messenger, take it or leave it and it won't change the truth.
Oh so now it's "truth" that fracking is polluting wells and water sources? Got any proof of that or are you just repeating what you've been fed?
Tinkerbell_in_Texas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:12 PM   #65
Vitoc
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17
 
Vitoc's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 33,018
Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinkerbell_in_Texas View Post
Oh so now it's "truth" that fracking is polluting wells and water sources? Got any proof of that or are you just repeating what you've been fed?
...and that's the thing. Warmers like Thud absolutely refuse to call out any of their envirowhackos that make absolutely absurd statements that completely ignore facts, reality, and actual science that dares challenge their "the sky is falling" narrative.

The sky is always falling, even when it's not. Global warming is too big to fail.
Vitoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:14 PM   #66
Vitoc
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17
 
Vitoc's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 33,018
Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
Thud, casting everyone else as ignorant, while personal practicing denial.

Only one person on CFPRC has the misunderstanding of non-condensation atmospheric gasses, although you Thud have exposed your misunderstanding of CO2 at atmospheric temperature and pressure.

Terrestrial radiation has to reach atmospheric CO2 to be absorbed, something that is assumed to occur to explain the energy imbalance between incoming and outgoing global energy. This assumption is inferred, not proven, with the isolation of day and night heat transfer an ignored analysis in the CMMGW science community, an analysis that can support the assumption or discredit the theory (and yet, the CMMGW community remains in resistant denial).

The novice CMMGW community assumes nighttime heat transfer is linear throughout the period and pure sensible heat. The more scientific CMMGW community also recognizes this assumption is flawed and has forwarded a secondary assume that atmospheric CO2 absorbs significant radiant heat at a vapor pressure where the available mass capacitance can be boosted by a phase change, a physical impossibility under the physical conditions. The magnitude of absorbed CO2 heat, to create even the GHG forcing factor that is the current theory, demands more CO2 mass or heat absorption by a CO2 phase change to even come close to the calculation needed for the assumed energy balance and nighttime heat transfer.

The nighttime analysis reflects that heat transfer begins the nighttime period with radiation above the 0-2 meter terrestrial surface boundary layer, into the atmosphere where heat is present for GHG absorbtion, but later in the nighttime period the heat transfer assumed to be to GHG is conducted back to the terrestrial surface (earth and ocean, by water vapor condensation and conduction). The heat the CMMGW community is torturing CO2 physics to account for, never leaves the 0-2 meter boundary layer of the atmosphere junction with the earth surface. The heat is returned and retained at the surface, and transferred to the crust and ocean in condensed moisture (the ocean heat sink we keep reading about). The globe is warming, and the warming is due to a greenhouse gas, but the forcing GHG is not CO2.

That last claim of the ideal atmospheric CO2 equilibrium concentration is new, and probably a dodge to distract from answering the questions of the ideal global temperature and ideal temperature change trend.

So, Thud, what Is the ideal atmospheric CO2 concentration and what is the baseline temperature and acceptable rate of temperature change corresponding to that ideal concentration?
You're trying to reason with a guy that criticizes people citing blogs, all while countering with citations from... you guessed it... blogs.

There's no having a reasonable debate with him. It's simply not possible.
Vitoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:17 PM   #67
Aerovette
CF Senior Member
 
Aerovette's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2001
Location: TRUMP 2016 Make America great again
Posts: 17,136
Thanked 30 Times in 19 Posts
Default

I am going on record that I do not believe in global flattening.
Aerovette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:32 PM   #68
Gunsmith
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Gunsmith's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2016
Location: Okeechobee Florida
Posts: 1,243
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

This world is going to keep changing with or without us.
Gunsmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:36 PM   #69
Thud
CF Senior Member
 
Thud's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 1999
Location: Bagpipes put the "fun" in "funeral"
Posts: 68,473
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vitoc View Post
You're trying to reason with a guy that criticizes people citing blogs, all while countering with citations from... you guessed it... blogs.
I criticize people that use blogs as their sole source of information when the bloggers themselves know nothing about the subject matter.

Nice try.


Quote:
There's no having a reasonable debate with him. It's simply not possible.
To have a reasonable debate with me, you have to use reason.

For example-- aren't you the one that constantly references "natural cycles" without ever explaining what specifically those are? Because, you know, science studies natural cycles.

Last edited by Thud; 04-20-2017 at 05:37 PM.
Thud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 05:38 PM   #70
owebo
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '11, '16
 
owebo's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2006
Location: Washigton, DC
Posts: 85,584
Thanked 27 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud View Post
I criticize people that use blogs as their sole source of information when the bloggers themselves know nothing about the subject matter.

Nice try.




To have a reasonable debate with me, you have to use reason.

For example-- aren't you the one that constantly references "natural cycles" without ever explaining what specifically those are? Because, you know, science studies natural cycles.
How does one win a debate over settled science?
owebo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 07:33 PM   #71
PeterK
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '12
2012 Election Contest Winner
 
PeterK's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2000
Location: Ellicott city KarlK is my brother
Posts: 63,673
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VITE1 View Post
Bullshit. It was done to buy the AMA off so they'd go a long with Hillary care.
It was a one time saving for medicare which has cost up a massive amount more in HC cost due to lack of competition.
No, it was done strictly as a federal money saving measure
PeterK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 07:55 PM   #72
30YR W8T
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
30YR W8T's Avatar
 
Member Since: Mar 2006
Location: "Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong." Calvin Coolidge
Posts: 25,073
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
And now we have the most rabid anti-science administration in history.
What? Because it called out your liberals little money grubbing greenhouse sham?
30YR W8T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 08:07 PM   #73
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 13,972
Thanked 23 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud View Post
If we stop making CO2 tomorrow, then over the next couple centuries or so, atmospheric CO2 concentration would go back down to the equilibrium point it's been at for millenia prior (just around 280ppm, or down to 180ppm during ice ages).

Isn't anybody here capable of producing a serious argument?
Thud, how did you calculate that? And why did you use 1,000 years out of 4.5 billion during the period of the lowest volume of CO2 in the planet's history?

1,000 years/4,500,000,000 years = 0.00000022222222 x 100 = 0.000022222222% of the age of the Earth

It would be like telling everyone the average temperature for the day was calculated from less than 1 second sometime in the morning before the Sun rose.

Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

http://forces.si.edu/Atmosphere/02_02_01.html

Quote:
As Earth cooled, an atmosphere formed mainly from gases spewed from volcanoes. It included hydrogen sulfide, methane, and ten to 200 times as much carbon dioxide as today’s atmosphere. After about half a billion years, Earth’s surface cooled and solidified enough for water to collect on it.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Ca...s_climate.html

Quote:
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were theonly geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.
​​​​​​​

Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 04-20-2017 at 08:12 PM.
ifitgoesfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 08:08 PM   #74
jasper711
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rharker View Post
I don't know about Jane Fonda but I do know that we have had at least 3 major nuclear disasters since then -- 3 mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi.

No we didn't run out of fossil fuels, but what do we do to get it now? Pollute many of the wells and water sources of the country trough fracking, the Gulf of mexico still hasn't recovered from the deep water horizon spill. Numerous pipeline leaks and untold number of underground gas tank leaks.

Our oceans are contaminated from over 8 millions tons of plastic dumped per year which takes centuries to degrade. https://www.plasticoceans.org/the-facts/

There may be enough food to feed everyone yet almost a billion people go hungry everyday.

Science is not left or right. It's simply the messenger, take it or leave it and it won't change the truth.
Time to put the hooka pipe away, or step away from the internet; you are loosing it, in recognizing all those crisis that never happened. And thinking that Science leads to one "correct" answer is juvenile.

Last edited by jasper711; 04-20-2017 at 08:10 PM.
jasper711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 08:11 PM   #75
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 13,972
Thanked 23 Times in 23 Posts
Default

Thud, every time you claim a historical average temperature, or historic equilibrium point of CO2, using only 1,000 years of lowest CO2 out of 4.5 billion years of CO2 10 to 200 times higher than today, I'll remind people of this.

Why do you repeatedly do this?
ifitgoesfast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2017, 08:15 PM   #76
jasper711
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Posts: 10,695
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
I only agree to that if we cut 100% of the federal defense funding. After all, illnesses kill more americans daily than foreign enemies. Why should we lower our defenses against the enemy that kills thousands americans every day to pay for a trumpanzee wasting money on military posturing.
My goodness, what flawed thinking you employ. So by your analogy, mechanization which saves more lives than medicine should be higher subsidized??

And the very REASON that more Americans are not killed by foreign enemies, is the maintenance of a strong defense. If not for that defense system few would survive long enough to become sick.
jasper711 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 01:29 AM   #77
Mr turbo rotary
CF Senior Member
 
Mr turbo rotary's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Va. Beach Va.
Posts: 43,223
Thanked 19 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud View Post
I criticize people that use blogs as their sole source of information when the bloggers themselves know nothing about the subject matter.

Nice try.


To have a reasonable debate with me, you have to use reason.

For example-- aren't you the one that constantly references "natural cycles" without ever explaining what specifically those are? Because, you know, science studies natural cycles.
So tell us Thud, where did you get your "vast" education on climate? For some reason you run when asked if you even hold a college diploma.

I think we know who has the internet education.
Mr turbo rotary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 09:21 AM   #78
Vitoc
CF Senior Member
St. Jude Donor '15-'16-'17
 
Vitoc's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 2007
Location: Boise Idaho
Posts: 33,018
Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thud View Post
I criticize people that use blogs as their sole source of information when the bloggers themselves know nothing about the subject matter.

Nice try.




To have a reasonable debate with me, you have to use reason.

For example-- aren't you the one that constantly references "natural cycles" without ever explaining what specifically those are? Because, you know, science studies natural cycles.
Because someone doesn't agree with your belief, does not mean they don't know what they're talking about.

You are exactly like the religious zealot right now coming down on the non-believers. Anybody that doesn't believe YOUR gospel is blasphemous. You're _that_ guy.
Vitoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 04:49 PM   #79
Mr turbo rotary
CF Senior Member
 
Mr turbo rotary's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2000
Location: Va. Beach Va.
Posts: 43,223
Thanked 19 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr turbo rotary View Post
So tell us Thud, where did you get your "vast" education on climate? For some reason you run when asked if you even hold a college diploma.

I think we know who has the internet education.
Just as I said.
Mr turbo rotary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2017, 08:26 PM   #80
Trainman-2
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
Trainman-2's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2004
Location: Bunnell FL
Posts: 35,168
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Default

All this video has done is change "consensus" to "emerging truth!"


All of these years and climate scientists have not yet come up with a climate theory that they can prove beyond all doubt!
Trainman-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Go Back   CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion >
Reload this Page
  • Science in America
  •  
     
    Reply

    Related Topics
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    If you are fans of Bill Nye and believe in all 37 genders, you will love this! HyperX Off Topic 9 04-25-2017 02:17 PM
    Bill Nye the Science guy SJW has lost his mind. You won't believe this The JOe Politics, Religion & Controversy 7 04-25-2017 10:47 AM
    SCIENCE! Holding An Explosion @ 20K FPS Over9K Off Topic 14 06-30-2016 11:03 AM
    Women in science bubba68ss Politics, Religion & Controversy 1 05-08-2016 06:24 PM


    Thread Tools Search this Thread
    Search this Thread:

    Click for Advanced Search

    Posting Rules
    You may not post new threads
    You may not post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are Off
    Pingbacks are Off
    Refbacks are Off

    Forum Jump


    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:46 PM.


     
    • Ask a Question
      Get answers from community experts
    What's your question?
    Send