FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Rawlemon's solar crystal ball

Rawlemon's solar crystal ball

(3:27) The future is transparent. Introduction to Rawlemon's spherical solar energy generator that is designed to concentrate and track diffuse sunlight on to a small photovoltaic cell without the need of expensive sun-tracking technology. facebook.com/Rawlemon

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1630 days ago)
I like it. I also like that as we begin to stop taking energy and resources for granted, our innovation is being applied.
ReplyVote up (192)down (125)
Original comment
I like it. I also like that as we begin to stop taking energy and resources for granted, our innovation is being applied.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1631 days ago)
that thing is HUGE!!! and it's definitely not the future; the future is nuclear.
ReplyVote up (233)down (210)
Original comment
that thing is HUGE!!! and it's definitely not the future; the future is nuclear.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
The future won't matter if we don't get off oil, asap.
ReplyVote up (149)down (221)
Original comment
The future won't matter if we don't get off oil, asap.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1630 days ago)
Why? Are you trying to tell us all life on this planet will die if we don't stop using oil?
ReplyVote up (83)down (101)
Original comment
Why? Are you trying to tell us all life on this planet will die if we don't stop using oil?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
James Hansen talking about the Canadian Tar Sands: "The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth's history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control." LINK Don't forget, when we burn oil, we are ADDING CO2 that would normally remain locked up underground, thereby changing the natural balance.
ReplyVote up (119)down (104)
Original comment
James Hansen talking about the Canadian Tar Sands: "The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 280 parts per million to 393 p.p.m. over the last 150 years. The tar sands contain enough carbon — 240 gigatons — to add 120 p.p.m. Tar shale, a close cousin of tar sands found mainly in the United States, contains at least an additional 300 gigatons of carbon. If we turn to these dirtiest of fuels, instead of finding ways to phase out our addiction to fossil fuels, there is no hope of keeping carbon concentrations below 500 p.p.m. — a level that would, as earth's history shows, leave our children a climate system that is out of their control." LINK Don't forget, when we burn oil, we are ADDING CO2 that would normally remain locked up underground, thereby changing the natural balance.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1630 days ago)
i'm not a denier nor am i a shale gas propagandist, but i have to disagree with that statement. A global concentrated effort will fix the problem but it's gonna cost a lot of money, which is exactly what some want.
ReplyVote up (161)down (179)
Original comment
i'm not a denier nor am i a shale gas propagandist, but i have to disagree with that statement. A global concentrated effort will fix the problem but it's gonna cost a lot of money, which is exactly what some want.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
The cost of NOT stopping oil will be much higher. According to a study in 2012: "Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP". LINK 400,000 deaths a year are also attributed to climate change. And these are the figures today. Imagine in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, if the planet just keeps getting warmer.
ReplyVote up (217)down (162)
Original comment
The cost of NOT stopping oil will be much higher. According to a study in 2012: "Economic impact of global warming is costing the world more than $1.2 trillion a year, wiping 1.6% annually from global GDP". LINK 400,000 deaths a year are also attributed to climate change. And these are the figures today. Imagine in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, if the planet just keeps getting warmer.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1630 days ago)
one man's loss is another man's gain. That 1.2 trillion that is lost creates scarcity which is desirable in a capitalist economy, scarcity which will make the prices for desired goods go up, which will probably compensate for the loss. It is exactly what some people want.
ReplyVote up (205)down (129)
Original comment
one man's loss is another man's gain. That 1.2 trillion that is lost creates scarcity which is desirable in a capitalist economy, scarcity which will make the prices for desired goods go up, which will probably compensate for the loss. It is exactly what some people want.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
The climate doesn't care about what is desirable in a capitalist system. It just reacts to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
ReplyVote up (210)down (148)
Original comment
The climate doesn't care about what is desirable in a capitalist system. It just reacts to the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1630 days ago)
perhaps i haven't been clear enough. What i'm trying to say is: the effects you fear are very welcome by some people. There's a lot of money to be made off of fear and there's a lot of money to be made off of human suffering.The climate getting hotter is something that a lot of people want, so trying to scare them about how hot it will get is not gonna get you anywhere.
ReplyVote up (144)down (174)
Original comment
perhaps i haven't been clear enough. What i'm trying to say is: the effects you fear are very welcome by some people. There's a lot of money to be made off of fear and there's a lot of money to be made off of human suffering.The climate getting hotter is something that a lot of people want, so trying to scare them about how hot it will get is not gonna get you anywhere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1630 days ago)
Seems he has changed his tactic and is telling people that it's going to get colder too. Interesting isn't it?
ReplyVote up (126)down (114)
Original comment
Seems he has changed his tactic and is telling people that it's going to get colder too. Interesting isn't it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
Survival is a more powerful force than politics. I hope that the world gets together to "fight" climate change rather than each other, in a similar spirit that a nation gets together to fight a war. Playing politics won't work, but fighting for survival may. It's not me making stuff up, runaway global warming is a very definite possibility if we continue as we are. That's what the experts are telling us. I agree that there are powerful forces that don't want change, but the 99% are also a powerful force if mobilised. You can't make money from oil if no one buys any.
ReplyVote up (161)down (187)
Original comment
Survival is a more powerful force than politics. I hope that the world gets together to "fight" climate change rather than each other, in a similar spirit that a nation gets together to fight a war. Playing politics won't work, but fighting for survival may. It's not me making stuff up, runaway global warming is a very definite possibility if we continue as we are. That's what the experts are telling us. I agree that there are powerful forces that don't want change, but the 99% are also a powerful force if mobilised. You can't make money from oil if no one buys any.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1629 days ago)
nobody is gonna make oil&gas illegal, people are going to continue buying it. As far as i can tell, the solution to our problems will b nuclear LINK combined with graphene supercapacitor technology LINK . So until the oil&gas companies and the global banks don't secure the patents for graphene derived tech and nuclear tech ,and until they harshen up the patent laws at a global level through trade agreements, the anti climate change propaganda will continue.
ReplyVote up (118)down (109)
Original comment
nobody is gonna make oil&gas illegal, people are going to continue buying it. As far as i can tell, the solution to our problems will b nuclear LINK combined with graphene supercapacitor technology LINK . So until the oil&gas companies and the global banks don't secure the patents for graphene derived tech and nuclear tech ,and until they harshen up the patent laws at a global level through trade agreements, the anti climate change propaganda will continue.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1629 days ago)
The climate isn't waiting around for oil companies and banks. Nuclear, wind or solar will have no effect on climate change if we are still pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year by burning oil. I love new and green technologies, but these have to REPLACE oil, not just add to it. I think the only practical way to do that is to use the collective spending power of the 99% to drive the market. My solution is simple - forget getting angry at corporations, get well informed and care about what your money is supporting when you spend it. The market will do the rest. If you want to be more pro-active, get informed and spread the word - it worked for god, so why not for a global green spring.
ReplyVote up (180)down (119)
Original comment
The climate isn't waiting around for oil companies and banks. Nuclear, wind or solar will have no effect on climate change if we are still pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year by burning oil. I love new and green technologies, but these have to REPLACE oil, not just add to it. I think the only practical way to do that is to use the collective spending power of the 99% to drive the market. My solution is simple - forget getting angry at corporations, get well informed and care about what your money is supporting when you spend it. The market will do the rest. If you want to be more pro-active, get informed and spread the word - it worked for god, so why not for a global green spring.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1629 days ago)
So you're advocating a religiously inspired movement for propagating to the masses the idea that climate change is hear and it will bring the end of the world as we know it? i'm asking this because you mentioned that it worked for god. I think this proposition is unrealistic. First off, you can't get the 99% to agree on anything seeing that the humanity is divided in different national, religious, political, whatever else groups. Secondly, it will be especially hard to get the 99% of the people on earth to agree on climate change seeing that half of the people on earth thinks climate change isn't real even though the scientific community has reached a consensus on the topic. Thirdly, this hole idea of "the markets will do the rest" is puerile if you think of the fact that "markets" are actually people trading with each other under the rules set by other people and all the people involved want to make a profit. Again, i'm not a denialist, but your suggested solution seems a bit unrealistic to me. Did i mention international trade agreements who that focus on toughening patent and copyright laws?
ReplyVote up (130)down (114)
Original comment
So you're advocating a religiously inspired movement for propagating to the masses the idea that climate change is hear and it will bring the end of the world as we know it? i'm asking this because you mentioned that it worked for god. I think this proposition is unrealistic. First off, you can't get the 99% to agree on anything seeing that the humanity is divided in different national, religious, political, whatever else groups. Secondly, it will be especially hard to get the 99% of the people on earth to agree on climate change seeing that half of the people on earth thinks climate change isn't real even though the scientific community has reached a consensus on the topic. Thirdly, this hole idea of "the markets will do the rest" is puerile if you think of the fact that "markets" are actually people trading with each other under the rules set by other people and all the people involved want to make a profit. Again, i'm not a denialist, but your suggested solution seems a bit unrealistic to me. Did i mention international trade agreements who that focus on toughening patent and copyright laws?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1629 days ago)
Climate change is here and scientists are telling us that if we continue as we are, then we will reach the point of no return, i.e. runaway global warming. The only thing the 99% might agree on is survival. Getting informed and caring about where your money goes, is much easier than getting involved in politics. If people realise we pump 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (2014 emissions are estimated to be higher), then maybe they will sit up. If people realise that climate change already costs us $1.2 trillion a year, then maybe they'll care. What I'm suggesting is really a mass education movement. Not everyone has to join in, just enough to sway corporations to act in ways that are beneficial to society and the planet. If millions of people vowed that their next new car would not be fossil-fuelled, and car companies believed them, advances in electric cars, batteries and infrastructure would rocket and fossil-fuelled car sales and investment would plummet. That's what I mean by "the market will do the rest". So it wouldn't be about fighting corporations, it would be about redirecting corporate power for the benefit of all. As for half the population thinking climate change isn't real, their minds may change as the weather gets more difficult year on year on year.
ReplyVote up (119)down (112)
Original comment
Climate change is here and scientists are telling us that if we continue as we are, then we will reach the point of no return, i.e. runaway global warming. The only thing the 99% might agree on is survival. Getting informed and caring about where your money goes, is much easier than getting involved in politics. If people realise we pump 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (2014 emissions are estimated to be higher), then maybe they will sit up. If people realise that climate change already costs us $1.2 trillion a year, then maybe they'll care. What I'm suggesting is really a mass education movement. Not everyone has to join in, just enough to sway corporations to act in ways that are beneficial to society and the planet. If millions of people vowed that their next new car would not be fossil-fuelled, and car companies believed them, advances in electric cars, batteries and infrastructure would rocket and fossil-fuelled car sales and investment would plummet. That's what I mean by "the market will do the rest". So it wouldn't be about fighting corporations, it would be about redirecting corporate power for the benefit of all. As for half the population thinking climate change isn't real, their minds may change as the weather gets more difficult year on year on year.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1628 days ago)
i doubt that runaway global warming will be allowed to happen by the governments and corporations of the world for the simple fact that the end of the world is less profitable than a concentrated global effort for the stopping of it. "if people realise..." , "then maybe they will.." , "if people realisee..." , "maybe they'll..." , "if millions of...", "they'r minds may..."". I see a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" .People don't realise things on their own, people don't really care unless it affects them personally, the 99% don't educate themselves they get educated by someone else, but if they do educate themselves they usually do it to obtain knowledge that benefits them and their loved ones in the near future. A mass education program is feasible only if funded by the people through taxes payed to the state, OR through donations made by powerful interest groups, to institutions that have the means of spreading information (oil&gas companies + banks donating to religious institutions and buying up media outlets, to spread denialist propaganda), OR volunteer work done by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, aiming to get the politicians to fear they won't get re-elected and change the laws in a way that may incentivise the people and businesses to act in a climate aware fashion. Which ever way you put it... it costs A LOT of money. So you could start a political party from scratch and try to get to power, you could start a foundation similar to ALEC but which is made by companies that stand to lose from climate change and that gain benefits from climate friendly legislation, you could get a climate conscious billionaire to fund lobbying campaigns LINK , etc. Your idea of a "mass education movement" isn't worth much without a well thought plan of attack. There are a lot of people doing the things i mentioned above and then some, but they're all doing their own thing they are not united, so maybe you can start with the following: identify all of the climate conscious NGOs, doctors, scientists, institutions, political parties, companies, etc who are already doing something positive about climate change AND get them to unite in such a way that their leaders won't be susceptible to corruption. The denialists don't just dream about it, they put some sweat into it.
ReplyVote up (187)down (104)
Original comment
i doubt that runaway global warming will be allowed to happen by the governments and corporations of the world for the simple fact that the end of the world is less profitable than a concentrated global effort for the stopping of it. "if people realise..." , "then maybe they will.." , "if people realisee..." , "maybe they'll..." , "if millions of...", "they'r minds may..."". I see a lot of "ifs" and "maybes" .People don't realise things on their own, people don't really care unless it affects them personally, the 99% don't educate themselves they get educated by someone else, but if they do educate themselves they usually do it to obtain knowledge that benefits them and their loved ones in the near future. A mass education program is feasible only if funded by the people through taxes payed to the state, OR through donations made by powerful interest groups, to institutions that have the means of spreading information (oil&gas companies + banks donating to religious institutions and buying up media outlets, to spread denialist propaganda), OR volunteer work done by hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, aiming to get the politicians to fear they won't get re-elected and change the laws in a way that may incentivise the people and businesses to act in a climate aware fashion. Which ever way you put it... it costs A LOT of money. So you could start a political party from scratch and try to get to power, you could start a foundation similar to ALEC but which is made by companies that stand to lose from climate change and that gain benefits from climate friendly legislation, you could get a climate conscious billionaire to fund lobbying campaigns LINK , etc. Your idea of a "mass education movement" isn't worth much without a well thought plan of attack. There are a lot of people doing the things i mentioned above and then some, but they're all doing their own thing they are not united, so maybe you can start with the following: identify all of the climate conscious NGOs, doctors, scientists, institutions, political parties, companies, etc who are already doing something positive about climate change AND get them to unite in such a way that their leaders won't be susceptible to corruption. The denialists don't just dream about it, they put some sweat into it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
The scary bit about runaway global warming is the 'runaway' bit. We might not be able to do anything about it if feedback loops kick in. I don't think mass education need cost a lot of money. The internet, social networks and word of mouth are all free (and we better make sure they stay that way!). Plenty of things go viral, or become fashionable, from an individual or a small group at little or no cost. Who knows, maybe this conversation can start the ball rolling. Often if people find out more about something, they get interested - and how our world works and its future is interesting.
ReplyVote up (129)down (118)
Original comment
The scary bit about runaway global warming is the 'runaway' bit. We might not be able to do anything about it if feedback loops kick in. I don't think mass education need cost a lot of money. The internet, social networks and word of mouth are all free (and we better make sure they stay that way!). Plenty of things go viral, or become fashionable, from an individual or a small group at little or no cost. Who knows, maybe this conversation can start the ball rolling. Often if people find out more about something, they get interested - and how our world works and its future is interesting.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1628 days ago)
that's not much of a plan now, is it?
ReplyVote up (106)down (94)
Original comment
that's not much of a plan now, is it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
You're right, it's not much of a plan, but that's why it might just work. There was no plan behind the Arab Spring, and no plan behind Occupy. Occupy fizzled out because people got distracted by other things, as people do. But in the case of a global Green Spring, the weather won't let us get distracted as every year gets progressively worse.
ReplyVote up (158)down (98)
Original comment
You're right, it's not much of a plan, but that's why it might just work. There was no plan behind the Arab Spring, and no plan behind Occupy. Occupy fizzled out because people got distracted by other things, as people do. But in the case of a global Green Spring, the weather won't let us get distracted as every year gets progressively worse.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1628 days ago)
there was definitely a plan behind occupy and behind the Arab spring as there was one behind the "syrian arab spring" but in syria it backfired. i'm not gonna link you right now to the sources because i have some troll abuse to attend to, but i'm sure you'll find some articles about how those movements started.
ReplyVote up (119)down (109)
Original comment
there was definitely a plan behind occupy and behind the Arab spring as there was one behind the "syrian arab spring" but in syria it backfired. i'm not gonna link you right now to the sources because i have some troll abuse to attend to, but i'm sure you'll find some articles about how those movements started.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1627 days ago)
I'm old enough to remember how those movements started. Occupy emerged on the swell of a public feeling when people started to understand what was behind the financial meltdown of 2008. There was no plan behind Occupy, except that it would have no leaders or specific objectives, just a more general "make the world a fairer place" focus. Occupy was a great mass education movement - it just didn't quite have the momentum for world revolution. But it will come back again in some form because not enough has changed since 2008. When we had the Brazilian riots in June 2013, I thought that maybe that would spark off Occupy 2.0, but alas it didn't. The problem with revolution on the streets is that it is usually met with brutal force. I think there's a simpler and more peaceful way to force change - vote with your money. Get informed, and really care where your money goes, after all, isn't money the root of power? Isn't money what makes the world go round? Even a small fraction of 7 billion people is a lot of spending power to support companies and projects that are beneficial to society, forcing less desirable companies to change or go out of business. It's how competition is supposed to work - where the consumer dictates the success of a company by buying or shunning its products.
ReplyVote up (95)down (105)
Original comment
I'm old enough to remember how those movements started. Occupy emerged on the swell of a public feeling when people started to understand what was behind the financial meltdown of 2008. There was no plan behind Occupy, except that it would have no leaders or specific objectives, just a more general "make the world a fairer place" focus. Occupy was a great mass education movement - it just didn't quite have the momentum for world revolution. But it will come back again in some form because not enough has changed since 2008. When we had the Brazilian riots in June 2013, I thought that maybe that would spark off Occupy 2.0, but alas it didn't. The problem with revolution on the streets is that it is usually met with brutal force. I think there's a simpler and more peaceful way to force change - vote with your money. Get informed, and really care where your money goes, after all, isn't money the root of power? Isn't money what makes the world go round? Even a small fraction of 7 billion people is a lot of spending power to support companies and projects that are beneficial to society, forcing less desirable companies to change or go out of business. It's how competition is supposed to work - where the consumer dictates the success of a company by buying or shunning its products.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1627 days ago)
see this LINK . The "pre-occupy section is incomplete. A lot of stuff happened before august 2nd , someone had to think this up to start a snowball effect. And no, money isn't the root of power, money is paper in which the people have been conditioned to believe that it has purchasing power, and since everybody believes it then it must be true. It's the trust and faith of the people that makes the current economic system to function, not money. Companies don't just go out of business, they buy and they merge and they lobby for copyright/patent laws. When you spend your money on something "ethical" be sure that, in the end, the money is going to go to the banks and companies that made the world the way it is today. To get them to hurt you need something more radical than buying paper instead of plastic, maybe something like alternative currencies?? which will be made illegal as soon as it becomes a threat for the current system.
ReplyVote up (119)down (111)
Original comment
see this LINK . The "pre-occupy section is incomplete. A lot of stuff happened before august 2nd , someone had to think this up to start a snowball effect. And no, money isn't the root of power, money is paper in which the people have been conditioned to believe that it has purchasing power, and since everybody believes it then it must be true. It's the trust and faith of the people that makes the current economic system to function, not money. Companies don't just go out of business, they buy and they merge and they lobby for copyright/patent laws. When you spend your money on something "ethical" be sure that, in the end, the money is going to go to the banks and companies that made the world the way it is today. To get them to hurt you need something more radical than buying paper instead of plastic, maybe something like alternative currencies?? which will be made illegal as soon as it becomes a threat for the current system.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1628 days ago)
I think the feedback loopy water vapour thingy aint happening so please stop wetting your pants. yours
ReplyVote up (113)down (136)
Original comment
I think the feedback loopy water vapour thingy aint happening so please stop wetting your pants. yours
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
It happened on Venus.
ReplyVote up (107)down (108)
Original comment
It happened on Venus.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1628 days ago)
no it didn't, venus has a high surface temperature due to the high surface pressure (approx 90 atmospheres) . this is due to the very high mass and volume of the venusian atmosphere.
ReplyVote up (156)down (104)
Original comment
no it didn't, venus has a high surface temperature due to the high surface pressure (approx 90 atmospheres) . this is due to the very high mass and volume of the venusian atmosphere.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
The process that created Venus' atmosphere today was runaway global warming. Google it.
ReplyVote up (100)down (124)
Original comment
The process that created Venus' atmosphere today was runaway global warming. Google it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
Your point does not help your case. This shows that it was a natural occurrence and humans were not the cause of it on Venus.
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Your point does not help your case. This shows that it was a natural occurrence and humans were not the cause of it on Venus.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1628 days ago)
Stay out of this buddy, you're out of your depth.
ReplyVote up (140)down (165)
Original comment
Stay out of this buddy, you're out of your depth.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1628 days ago)
There's a lot rubbish on the internet. The surface temp of venus can be quite accurately calculated using the gas laws, go find and study some physics
ReplyVote up (104)down (110)
Original comment
There's a lot rubbish on the internet. The surface temp of venus can be quite accurately calculated using the gas laws, go find and study some physics
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
Sure we know the surface temperature of Venus - NASA's Pioneer probe visited Venus in 1978 and continued to transmit data until 1992 - the question is, how did it get so hot? Here's the explanation: "It’s believed that plate tectonics on Venus stopped billions of years ago. And without plate tectonics burying carbon deep inside the planet, it was able to build up in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide built up to the point that any oceans on Venus boiled away. And then the Sun’s solar wind carried the hydrogen atoms away from Venus, making it impossible to ever make liquid water again. The concentration of carbon dioxide just kept increasing until it was all in the atmosphere." LINK That is one version of runaway global warming.
ReplyVote up (110)down (106)
Original comment
Sure we know the surface temperature of Venus - NASA's Pioneer probe visited Venus in 1978 and continued to transmit data until 1992 - the question is, how did it get so hot? Here's the explanation: "It’s believed that plate tectonics on Venus stopped billions of years ago. And without plate tectonics burying carbon deep inside the planet, it was able to build up in the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide built up to the point that any oceans on Venus boiled away. And then the Sun’s solar wind carried the hydrogen atoms away from Venus, making it impossible to ever make liquid water again. The concentration of carbon dioxide just kept increasing until it was all in the atmosphere." LINK That is one version of runaway global warming.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1628 days ago)
Its the sheer mass of the atmosphere combined with gravity plugged into the gas laws, you do know that the explanation you have given is just speculation.
ReplyVote up (104)down (132)
Original comment
Its the sheer mass of the atmosphere combined with gravity plugged into the gas laws, you do know that the explanation you have given is just speculation.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
Venus is similar in size, density and internal composition to Earth, except its atmosphere is 96% CO2. That is why the temperature is 467C (CO2 traps heat, and 96% is a lot of CO2). Unless you are a creationist, you'll understand that planets don't just appear - they evolve, and the atmosphere forms after the solid/liquid bit in the middle. So the CO2 content went from zero to 96% over a very long period of time due to some natural process. We have 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere, a tiny proportion compared to Venus, but the balance is just right for us. We are adding 30 billion tons of CO2 every year that would otherwise remain locked up in the rocks. We are increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, thereby warming it. Unfortunately, we can only handle a few degrees rise, not hundreds like on Venus. Therefore we need to stop pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. I keep repeating myself because the facts don't change yet you still don't seem to get it. It's so obvious if you just zoom out and look at the bigger picture.
ReplyVote up (199)down (106)
Original comment
Venus is similar in size, density and internal composition to Earth, except its atmosphere is 96% CO2. That is why the temperature is 467C (CO2 traps heat, and 96% is a lot of CO2). Unless you are a creationist, you'll understand that planets don't just appear - they evolve, and the atmosphere forms after the solid/liquid bit in the middle. So the CO2 content went from zero to 96% over a very long period of time due to some natural process. We have 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere, a tiny proportion compared to Venus, but the balance is just right for us. We are adding 30 billion tons of CO2 every year that would otherwise remain locked up in the rocks. We are increasing the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, thereby warming it. Unfortunately, we can only handle a few degrees rise, not hundreds like on Venus. Therefore we need to stop pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. I keep repeating myself because the facts don't change yet you still don't seem to get it. It's so obvious if you just zoom out and look at the bigger picture.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1628 days ago)
I think you need to go away and study some physics and chemistry for a couple of years before commenting you deluded gnoramous.
ReplyVote up (104)down (91)
Original comment
I think you need to go away and study some physics and chemistry for a couple of years before commenting you deluded gnoramous.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
Just tell me where I'm wrong.
ReplyVote up (91)down (101)
Original comment
Just tell me where I'm wrong.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1627 days ago)
just go away and study chemistry and physics for a couple of years and you will understand
ReplyVote up (108)down (87)
Original comment
just go away and study chemistry and physics for a couple of years and you will understand
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1627 days ago)
If you bother to actually check out the gas laws you will find they dont differentiate by the presence of carbon dioxide, any old molecule will do. the surface temp of venus is calculated purely from the mass of the atmosphere, the mass of venus, the radius at the surface, and the incoming solar radiation. that is all.
ReplyVote up (72)down (157)
Original comment
If you bother to actually check out the gas laws you will find they dont differentiate by the presence of carbon dioxide, any old molecule will do. the surface temp of venus is calculated purely from the mass of the atmosphere, the mass of venus, the radius at the surface, and the incoming solar radiation. that is all.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1628 days ago)
well if it isn't the fekin denialist shale gas propagandist scum troll of boreme that keeps changing his fekin nicknames , FU*K YOU! by that fekin logic you SHOULD SHUT THE FU*K UP when it comes to discussions on climate change because you're not a fekin climate scientist, you stupid, shale gas, denialist piece of horse sheit, FU*K YOU! we're just regurgitating the sheit that NASA and other reputable institutions have put on the net for everyone to read, assuming they're not a fekin propagandist piece of sheit like you, and whe push comes to shove we can provide our sources, YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHEIT, FU*K YOU! you, on the other hand, have nothing but propaganda and insults to add on ANY topic, SO FU*K YOU AND THAT STUPID SOW YOU CALL MOTHER! you want to play the insult abuse game and the character assassination game, you manipulative propagandist piece of sheit?? here i am you fu*K! let's do this! and, oh yeah, FU*K YOUR DAD TOO!
ReplyVote up (93)down (104)
Original comment
well if it isn't the fekin denialist shale gas propagandist scum troll of boreme that keeps changing his fekin nicknames , FU*K YOU! by that fekin logic you SHOULD SHUT THE FU*K UP when it comes to discussions on climate change because you're not a fekin climate scientist, you stupid, shale gas, denialist piece of horse sheit, FU*K YOU! we're just regurgitating the sheit that NASA and other reputable institutions have put on the net for everyone to read, assuming they're not a fekin propagandist piece of sheit like you, and whe push comes to shove we can provide our sources, YOU STUPID PIECE OF SHEIT, FU*K YOU! you, on the other hand, have nothing but propaganda and insults to add on ANY topic, SO FU*K YOU AND THAT STUPID SOW YOU CALL MOTHER! you want to play the insult abuse game and the character assassination game, you manipulative propagandist piece of sheit?? here i am you fu*K! let's do this! and, oh yeah, FU*K YOUR DAD TOO!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1627 days ago)
I beg your pardon ?
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
I beg your pardon ?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1627 days ago)
Ha, of all the people to make a comment like that it's you. The person that changes aliases more often than anyone.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
Ha, of all the people to make a comment like that it's you. The person that changes aliases more often than anyone.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1629 days ago)
Did you buy a non-fossil-fueled car already? If not, is your next one going to be? You can get the cheapest Tesla for only $63,570 after $7,500 federal tax incentives (USA). I doubt most people can afford a car like that but I'm glad you can. Also, are you aware that even a fully battery operated car like the Tesla needs to be charged and that charge comes from the electric company and that electric company uses mostly coal to generate that power?
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
Did you buy a non-fossil-fueled car already? If not, is your next one going to be? You can get the cheapest Tesla for only $63,570 after $7,500 federal tax incentives (USA). I doubt most people can afford a car like that but I'm glad you can. Also, are you aware that even a fully battery operated car like the Tesla needs to be charged and that charge comes from the electric company and that electric company uses mostly coal to generate that power?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
I do not own a car, but if I needed one, I would not buy a new fossil-fuelled car if I couldn't afford an electric one - I would buy secondhand. I ride a motorbike, which is fossil-fuelled, but my next one will be electric. I urge everyone to do the same - vow that their next vehicle will be non-fossil-fuelled, otherwise buy a secondhand fossil-fuelled vehicle. Don't support a market for new fossil-fuelled vehicles.
ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment
I do not own a car, but if I needed one, I would not buy a new fossil-fuelled car if I couldn't afford an electric one - I would buy secondhand. I ride a motorbike, which is fossil-fuelled, but my next one will be electric. I urge everyone to do the same - vow that their next vehicle will be non-fossil-fuelled, otherwise buy a secondhand fossil-fuelled vehicle. Don't support a market for new fossil-fuelled vehicles.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
As for power from the grid, that is more difficult for an individual to use their spending power effectively. Ideas are welcome. The point is to stop pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year - and CO2 from coal makes up almost half of that. The obvious route is via the ballot box, but most governments are bought by powerful corporations with vested interests. Maybe you can suggest something?
ReplyVote up (101)down (71)
Original comment
As for power from the grid, that is more difficult for an individual to use their spending power effectively. Ideas are welcome. The point is to stop pumping 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year - and CO2 from coal makes up almost half of that. The obvious route is via the ballot box, but most governments are bought by powerful corporations with vested interests. Maybe you can suggest something?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
My suggestion is that you stop saying that governments are bought by powerful corporations. You make that statement all the time but you have no proof. Any politician caught accepting bribes are immediately terminated and prosecuted. Maybe things are different in your country where your Queen appoints your prime minister. She has regular meeting with the prime minister and gives her views on political issues. The Queen is not an elected official so she should not have any political power. At least our president and congressmen are elected by the citizens.
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
My suggestion is that you stop saying that governments are bought by powerful corporations. You make that statement all the time but you have no proof. Any politician caught accepting bribes are immediately terminated and prosecuted. Maybe things are different in your country where your Queen appoints your prime minister. She has regular meeting with the prime minister and gives her views on political issues. The Queen is not an elected official so she should not have any political power. At least our president and congressmen are elected by the citizens.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
I'm not the only person who thinks that. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (86)
Original comment
I'm not the only person who thinks that. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
Multiple people claiming they saw big foot doesn't make it true either.
ReplyVote up (101)down (85)
Original comment
Multiple people claiming they saw big foot doesn't make it true either.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
You ignored a major component of my last message. Even an electric vehicle needs to be charged and that uses coal. Even an electric motorbike is expensive. "The Saietta R is expected to hit US streets next year with a price around the US$22,600 mark. " That's a lot of money for a motorbike. Was there a cheaper alternative you were looking at? Do you care that those batteries contain toxic chemicals and are bad for the environment?
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
You ignored a major component of my last message. Even an electric vehicle needs to be charged and that uses coal. Even an electric motorbike is expensive. "The Saietta R is expected to hit US streets next year with a price around the US$22,600 mark. " That's a lot of money for a motorbike. Was there a cheaper alternative you were looking at? Do you care that those batteries contain toxic chemicals and are bad for the environment?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
My bike should last at least 5 more years. By then I expect electric motorbikes will be more affordable. The point is, I'm not in the market for a new fossil-fuelled vehicle, period. So any company only offering a fossil-fuelled vehicles will never sell anything to me. You could do the same so easily. Just vow that your next car will not be a NEW fossil-fuelled vehicle.
ReplyVote up (85)down (143)
Original comment
My bike should last at least 5 more years. By then I expect electric motorbikes will be more affordable. The point is, I'm not in the market for a new fossil-fuelled vehicle, period. So any company only offering a fossil-fuelled vehicles will never sell anything to me. You could do the same so easily. Just vow that your next car will not be a NEW fossil-fuelled vehicle.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1628 days ago)
You expect that an electric motorbike will be cheaper in the future? Ever hear of inflation? Regarding me buying a non fossil-fueled car, I don't think so. I currently have a hybrid and that costs about 7,000 more than the non-hybrid version. I get a couple miles per gallon more in efficiency but it will take me about 30+ years (I use 180 gallons per year @ $3.50 per gallon). I will not have this car for that long. I get a new car every 7 years. So my next car will probably not even be a hybrid vehicle unless there are some tax incentives or I can make my money back in fuel savings. The Tesla is the only real non fossil-fueled car that is reasonable to drive. All the others have such a short range that you cannot visit friends or relatives with them. The Tesla is too expensive and I would be better buying the fuel again. A motorbike is not practical. First, they are more dangerous than a standard car. Secondly, you have little cargo space so buying groceries, lumber, or any other cargo is nearly impossible. They also suck when it's raining or cold weather. It's also difficult to carry passengers on a bike. You can only bring one passenger and women don't like to wear helmets because it messes up their hair.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
You expect that an electric motorbike will be cheaper in the future? Ever hear of inflation? Regarding me buying a non fossil-fueled car, I don't think so. I currently have a hybrid and that costs about 7,000 more than the non-hybrid version. I get a couple miles per gallon more in efficiency but it will take me about 30+ years (I use 180 gallons per year @ $3.50 per gallon). I will not have this car for that long. I get a new car every 7 years. So my next car will probably not even be a hybrid vehicle unless there are some tax incentives or I can make my money back in fuel savings. The Tesla is the only real non fossil-fueled car that is reasonable to drive. All the others have such a short range that you cannot visit friends or relatives with them. The Tesla is too expensive and I would be better buying the fuel again. A motorbike is not practical. First, they are more dangerous than a standard car. Secondly, you have little cargo space so buying groceries, lumber, or any other cargo is nearly impossible. They also suck when it's raining or cold weather. It's also difficult to carry passengers on a bike. You can only bring one passenger and women don't like to wear helmets because it messes up their hair.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1628 days ago)
how about you fo*k off?
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
how about you fo*k off?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1628 days ago)
on that bombshell, i'll buy a second hand bike. Any suggestions?
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
on that bombshell, i'll buy a second hand bike. Any suggestions?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No warming to you. (1628 days ago)
Yawn. Experts are not telling us this. It's you and your likes who spread those lies. Some out of naivity. Others out of gullible ignorance. Still others - out of a clearly calculated profiteering. Global Warming is a scam.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
Yawn. Experts are not telling us this. It's you and your likes who spread those lies. Some out of naivity. Others out of gullible ignorance. Still others - out of a clearly calculated profiteering. Global Warming is a scam.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
You don't even understand what you think, which is: experts ARE warning us about global warming, but they are lying or stupid. So prove it.
ReplyVote up (101)down (98)
Original comment
You don't even understand what you think, which is: experts ARE warning us about global warming, but they are lying or stupid. So prove it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No warming to you. (1627 days ago)
And once again: experts are NOT saying that. This is your imagination. Next: If you are unable to figure out what others (me in this case) say - that's your limitation. Don't try to tell ME what I think. Next: Prove it? Why? You came up with some absurd claim - you prove it. I'll stay with the "null hypothesis" (ever heard of that?) That's scientific method, not what some mythical "expert" allegedly say.
ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment
And once again: experts are NOT saying that. This is your imagination. Next: If you are unable to figure out what others (me in this case) say - that's your limitation. Don't try to tell ME what I think. Next: Prove it? Why? You came up with some absurd claim - you prove it. I'll stay with the "null hypothesis" (ever heard of that?) That's scientific method, not what some mythical "expert" allegedly say.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1627 days ago)
Experts are not warning us of AWG? Really? I bet you're a science teacher at a creationist school.
ReplyVote up (101)down (75)
Original comment
Experts are not warning us of AWG? Really? I bet you're a science teacher at a creationist school.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
He's right, scientists are not warning us about global warming. Some scientists, that are paid for by the government, published papers that correspond with what the government expects or they will lose their funding. Many of the IPCC scientists disagree and it's published in thousands of pages. Of course the government summarized it and, in the process, made people scared that we are all doomed. Remember, nearly all climate research is funded by governments. Those few people that are not funded by the government and have tenure (safety from being fired) are outspoken and deny being alarmed about a problem. Those scientists that are afraid to lose their funding go with what will keep them their job.
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
He's right, scientists are not warning us about global warming. Some scientists, that are paid for by the government, published papers that correspond with what the government expects or they will lose their funding. Many of the IPCC scientists disagree and it's published in thousands of pages. Of course the government summarized it and, in the process, made people scared that we are all doomed. Remember, nearly all climate research is funded by governments. Those few people that are not funded by the government and have tenure (safety from being fired) are outspoken and deny being alarmed about a problem. Those scientists that are afraid to lose their funding go with what will keep them their job.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fedup (1451 days ago)

That is simply wrong. You are making broad and sweeping statements Fox news style, and they are not backed up by real facts. Not to mention, scientists are not slaves. They are not "afraid to speak up and lose their moneys." Perhaps it's you who are getting paid to post such crap on public forums? And most University funding comes from Koch brothers, not from the Government. you're wrong about that, too. Check your facts if you want to have an intelligent conversation

ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment

That is simply wrong. You are making broad and sweeping statements Fox news style, and they are not backed up by real facts. Not to mention, scientists are not slaves. They are not "afraid to speak up and lose their moneys." Perhaps it's you who are getting paid to post such crap on public forums? And most University funding comes from Koch brothers, not from the Government. you're wrong about that, too. Check your facts if you want to have an intelligent conversation

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1626 days ago)
So you think 97% of climate scientists (it was actually 97% of peer-reviewed climate research papers between 1991 and 2011) published nonsense? 20 years of climate research was made up? Why didn't you say that at the beginning and save me going on about the 30 billion tons of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year.
ReplyVote up (41)down (139)
Original comment
So you think 97% of climate scientists (it was actually 97% of peer-reviewed climate research papers between 1991 and 2011) published nonsense? 20 years of climate research was made up? Why didn't you say that at the beginning and save me going on about the 30 billion tons of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere each year.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
The climate scientists organized the Climate Action Network, the central body on climate. There are meetings to tell them what the party line is for the year. Skeptics, on the other hand, are more scattered across disciplines and continents. As such, they have a much harder time getting their message across. Also, as stated before, these climate scientists are funded by the government so they produce results that the government tells them to publish. Also as someone stated (I believe it was mad), surveying an opinion is not the way to conduct science. I say you keep bringing up this survey because that's all the proof you have and there is nothing else.
ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment
The climate scientists organized the Climate Action Network, the central body on climate. There are meetings to tell them what the party line is for the year. Skeptics, on the other hand, are more scattered across disciplines and continents. As such, they have a much harder time getting their message across. Also, as stated before, these climate scientists are funded by the government so they produce results that the government tells them to publish. Also as someone stated (I believe it was mad), surveying an opinion is not the way to conduct science. I say you keep bringing up this survey because that's all the proof you have and there is nothing else.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1626 days ago)
Climate skeptics are scattered across disciplines and continents because there aren't many of them. Why do you think mad goes under different names - to make it look like there's more than one of course. Considering the tiny proportion of skeptics, they get their message across just fine with the help of the Koch brothers and others. The problem is the message - it's wrong. As for mad's comment about "surveying an opinion…" The survey he referred to was not "surveying an opinion". No climate scientist was asked for their opinion. The survey looked at 20 years of peer-reviewed climate research that had already been done. Here's how the survey worked: LINK The reason why this survey is important is because it shows that there is a massive consensus among the experts. Who is more likely to be right - someone with even less knowledge about climate science than me, or 97% of peer reviewed climate research papers over 20 years? You turned before but you seem to have had a relapse.
ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment
Climate skeptics are scattered across disciplines and continents because there aren't many of them. Why do you think mad goes under different names - to make it look like there's more than one of course. Considering the tiny proportion of skeptics, they get their message across just fine with the help of the Koch brothers and others. The problem is the message - it's wrong. As for mad's comment about "surveying an opinion…" The survey he referred to was not "surveying an opinion". No climate scientist was asked for their opinion. The survey looked at 20 years of peer-reviewed climate research that had already been done. Here's how the survey worked: LINK The reason why this survey is important is because it shows that there is a massive consensus among the experts. Who is more likely to be right - someone with even less knowledge about climate science than me, or 97% of peer reviewed climate research papers over 20 years? You turned before but you seem to have had a relapse.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
But those papers were written buy scientists that were funded by the government to write those papers. That's already skewed results. It's interesting to find that the scientists that do not fear losing their jobs/funding have opposite opinions.
ReplyVote up (43)down (110)
Original comment
But those papers were written buy scientists that were funded by the government to write those papers. That's already skewed results. It's interesting to find that the scientists that do not fear losing their jobs/funding have opposite opinions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fedup (1451 days ago)

Grants by governments are reviewed by a panel of scientists and awarded according to that panel's vote: they are not awarded by government officials. The fact that you don't know this shows that you're not a scientist and have no idea how scientific research works. None whatsoever. Moreover there is plenty of privately funded science: which is funneled through Universities. This is easily verifiable and any scientist in any University will confirm as much. You seem to go to great length to justify an absurd construction that sounds more like Fox News soundbite from scientifically ignorant scientists than a scientific view. And you can provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for debunking solid scientific claims, only insults and great rants on vast conspiracies formed on hear say (as in, it's the government that funds all these grants and the public can't find out who wrote those papers.) Don't be a lazy ass and find out. It's public information. All peer reviewed article are publically available through your library. Before you codnemn the whole planet to doom based on your hypothesis, you really should gather some straight facts and drop the propaganda.

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

Grants by governments are reviewed by a panel of scientists and awarded according to that panel's vote: they are not awarded by government officials. The fact that you don't know this shows that you're not a scientist and have no idea how scientific research works. None whatsoever. Moreover there is plenty of privately funded science: which is funneled through Universities. This is easily verifiable and any scientist in any University will confirm as much. You seem to go to great length to justify an absurd construction that sounds more like Fox News soundbite from scientifically ignorant scientists than a scientific view. And you can provide NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER for debunking solid scientific claims, only insults and great rants on vast conspiracies formed on hear say (as in, it's the government that funds all these grants and the public can't find out who wrote those papers.) Don't be a lazy ass and find out. It's public information. All peer reviewed article are publically available through your library. Before you codnemn the whole planet to doom based on your hypothesis, you really should gather some straight facts and drop the propaganda.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1626 days ago)
Here's an article well worth a read entitled: "Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done". LINK It certainly helped me to understand better about how climate science funding works and where the money actually goes. Let me know what you think.
ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment
Here's an article well worth a read entitled: "Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done". LINK It certainly helped me to understand better about how climate science funding works and where the money actually goes. Let me know what you think.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)

That whole article is all about debunking the graph. What the author says is that the little bit spent on climate science is on the bottom of the graph which is very little. Well, 8,000 million dollars is a lot of money in my opinion. He then goes on to say that the governemnt is not funding the scientists but I have scientists that tell me otherwise. They get paid by grants the government gives them for the research. The author never discloses where he "thinks" the scientists get the money.

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

That whole article is all about debunking the graph. What the author says is that the little bit spent on climate science is on the bottom of the graph which is very little. Well, 8,000 million dollars is a lot of money in my opinion. He then goes on to say that the governemnt is not funding the scientists but I have scientists that tell me otherwise. They get paid by grants the government gives them for the research. The author never discloses where he "thinks" the scientists get the money.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
The article isn't debunking the graph, it is explaining it. 2 of the 8 billion goes to actual climate science - the other 6 billion goes to climate technology, e.g. wind/solar power, biofuels etc. Of the 2 billion, that doesn't just go into scientists' pockets, it also pays for some of NASA's Earth monitoring satellites and land/ocean temperature monitoring. Compare with medical research funding - about 31 billion a year. The article also explains how science funding actually works, which is quite interesting in itself. Of course you choose to ignore all that because it destroys your premise that scientists are making stuff up to please governments so they can get research grants.
ReplyVote up (86)down (101)
Original comment
The article isn't debunking the graph, it is explaining it. 2 of the 8 billion goes to actual climate science - the other 6 billion goes to climate technology, e.g. wind/solar power, biofuels etc. Of the 2 billion, that doesn't just go into scientists' pockets, it also pays for some of NASA's Earth monitoring satellites and land/ocean temperature monitoring. Compare with medical research funding - about 31 billion a year. The article also explains how science funding actually works, which is quite interesting in itself. Of course you choose to ignore all that because it destroys your premise that scientists are making stuff up to please governments so they can get research grants.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)
I meant 2,000 million (or two billion). That's still a lot of money each year. And it's very suspicious that he doesn't tell us where the scientists get their money if it's not the government. And it doesn't matter the actual dollar amounts that are involved. It's about the individual scientists and who they have to please in order to keep their jobs. In this case, if you go against what your funder is paying you to research, the funding will stop. To put this money into perspective, 2 billion can hire over 33,000 scientists at $65,000/year. That's a lot of people and money.
ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment
I meant 2,000 million (or two billion). That's still a lot of money each year. And it's very suspicious that he doesn't tell us where the scientists get their money if it's not the government. And it doesn't matter the actual dollar amounts that are involved. It's about the individual scientists and who they have to please in order to keep their jobs. In this case, if you go against what your funder is paying you to research, the funding will stop. To put this money into perspective, 2 billion can hire over 33,000 scientists at $65,000/year. That's a lot of people and money.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1624 days ago)

Do you just skim read and not take any of it in? Even I explained where that 2 billion goes in the comment before: "Of the 2 billion, that doesn't just go into scientists' pockets, it also pays for some of NASA's Earth monitoring satellites and land/ocean temperature monitoring."

Here's a part of an answer to a question on Yahoo: "Do climate scientists earn lots of money?" - "It is certainly true that scientists can make very good money, and senior researchers typically make between $100-200K. However, that's actually small potatoes to what they can make in the financial sector. It's amazing how ignorant people are of the value of climate data and forecasts - traders would LOVE to get their hands on government data before it's released to the public. The weather derivative market is in the tens of billions of dollars and if a climate researcher wants to work in the finance industry he or she can make many times what they can doing academic research." LINK

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Do you just skim read and not take any of it in? Even I explained where that 2 billion goes in the comment before: "Of the 2 billion, that doesn't just go into scientists' pockets, it also pays for some of NASA's Earth monitoring satellites and land/ocean temperature monitoring."

Here's a part of an answer to a question on Yahoo: "Do climate scientists earn lots of money?" - "It is certainly true that scientists can make very good money, and senior researchers typically make between $100-200K. However, that's actually small potatoes to what they can make in the financial sector. It's amazing how ignorant people are of the value of climate data and forecasts - traders would LOVE to get their hands on government data before it's released to the public. The weather derivative market is in the tens of billions of dollars and if a climate researcher wants to work in the finance industry he or she can make many times what they can doing academic research." LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1626 days ago)
Papers by 2nd rate pop sociologists have no place in real science. your arguement is redundant
ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment
Papers by 2nd rate pop sociologists have no place in real science. your arguement is redundant
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1626 days ago)
Nothing to do with sociologists. These were peer-reviewed climate research papers. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (68)
Original comment
Nothing to do with sociologists. These were peer-reviewed climate research papers. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1626 days ago)
As i said papers, written by 2nd rate pop sociologists have no place in real science, your arguement is redundant
ReplyVote up (100)down (83)
Original comment
As i said papers, written by 2nd rate pop sociologists have no place in real science, your arguement is redundant
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1626 days ago)
Pwnd again by Walter the Unflappable. You need a new day job.
Original comment
Pwnd again by Walter the Unflappable. You need a new day job.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1626 days ago)
these surveys are done by 2nd rate sociologists like stephan lewdansky and his students like jonh cook. they are collectively known as "lew papers". they aren't real science and they cannot used to prove or disprove real science. they exist purely so that 3rd grade morons like walterego and wellhungarian can quote them on the internet in the mistaken belief that they are contributing to a debate by quoting something relevent.
ReplyVote up (101)down (79)
Original comment
these surveys are done by 2nd rate sociologists like stephan lewdansky and his students like jonh cook. they are collectively known as "lew papers". they aren't real science and they cannot used to prove or disprove real science. they exist purely so that 3rd grade morons like walterego and wellhungarian can quote them on the internet in the mistaken belief that they are contributing to a debate by quoting something relevent.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He helped form the survey. Stephan Lewandansky is a cognitive scientist and his work involves studying the results of the survey (that 97% climate papers support AGW) would have on the attitudes of the public. It was not their papers that were surveyed. The papers surveyed were peer-reviewed climate research papers worldwide between 1991 to 2011. There were 12,000 papers found by a keyword search. Only 4,000 had any relevance specifically to AGW (not all climate research is about AGW). Of those 4,000, 97% supported AGW. That's about as solid a survey that you'd get in anything. I keep on posting the same link, but it's important because it details the survey. LINK
Original comment
John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He helped form the survey. Stephan Lewandansky is a cognitive scientist and his work involves studying the results of the survey (that 97% climate papers support AGW) would have on the attitudes of the public. It was not their papers that were surveyed. The papers surveyed were peer-reviewed climate research papers worldwide between 1991 to 2011. There were 12,000 papers found by a keyword search. Only 4,000 had any relevance specifically to AGW (not all climate research is about AGW). Of those 4,000, 97% supported AGW. That's about as solid a survey that you'd get in anything. I keep on posting the same link, but it's important because it details the survey. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)
Again, you miss the point. When writing a paper about climate change, how many papers are written by the same authors? If you use 12,000 papers, were those written by the same 10 scientists? You don't know. They are all anonymous to the public that wants to look at the credentials of those scientists. Who did the peer review on those papers? Additionally, that is the percentage of papers endorsing AGW but there is no indication on why those papers were published to begin with. Did the government fund the scientist to do that research and that was the expected outcome? In summary, you keep bringing up this one flawed statistic because that's the only evidence you have of AGW. Why can't you provide some actual facts other than all the papers agree on something? That's because you don't have any facts to back that up.
Original comment
Again, you miss the point. When writing a paper about climate change, how many papers are written by the same authors? If you use 12,000 papers, were those written by the same 10 scientists? You don't know. They are all anonymous to the public that wants to look at the credentials of those scientists. Who did the peer review on those papers? Additionally, that is the percentage of papers endorsing AGW but there is no indication on why those papers were published to begin with. Did the government fund the scientist to do that research and that was the expected outcome? In summary, you keep bringing up this one flawed statistic because that's the only evidence you have of AGW. Why can't you provide some actual facts other than all the papers agree on something? That's because you don't have any facts to back that up.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
If you just bothered to read the page, you'll find the answers to your questions. The public can look and rate for themselves all the papers and details of the survey: LINK Also check out the FAQ before coming up with more objections. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (65)
Original comment
If you just bothered to read the page, you'll find the answers to your questions. The public can look and rate for themselves all the papers and details of the survey: LINK Also check out the FAQ before coming up with more objections. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Fedup (1451 days ago)

There are such a thing as experts = peole who know a lot about a discipline and publish a lot.

Also, academics have tenure precisely because it protects them from such things as "we don't like the results of your research so sc*ew you you're fired" Tenured professors have the freedom to publish scientific results that go against the grain of what is acceptable. That is what is known as "academic freedom" and it is fiercely protected by tenure. Of course it's always harder to publish something that discredits the work of the rest of the scientific community: for good reason. If you're going to throw to the wind hundreds of years of meticulous research, you had better prove yourself, your research methods, your findings, and your credentials. Otherwise, every late idiot who has an interesting and controversial idea gets a forum - something that happens a lot on Fox News and the likes, but doesn't and shouldn't happen in academic journals.

The only scientists I've seen who argue that the science in climate change is wrong don't do any original research but rather review other people's literature and argue against the logic of the finding - which is the reason why their "findings" aren't academic. They're just arguments, talk. NOt science.

So far, not too many have had much to say that can meet the rigorous standards that need to be in place to ensure academic integrity. That is what is meant by the scientific community being 97% in agreement. You are suggesting that we can discard the integrity of 97% of people who have made this their life work because of some nebulous notion that these people are attracted to government grants? How laughable. You don't get rich on government grants: as one who has filed many, many grants, I can tell you that 90% of those go to the University for using the laboratory, equipment, etc. The scientist him/herself gets a stipend, what the University calls "justifying their salaries." You can also look up academic salaries as this is public information and see that people who have studied for years and years make surprisingly laughable piddle salaries. Scientists can make 100 times their academic salaries working for private corporations or for think thanks if money is what they want. Most of the deniers that are so-called scientists are not scientists at all but statisticians from Republican Think Tanks. This is also an easily verifiable fact.

Don't be lazy and look things up.

As one who has applied for many grants I can also tell you that grants are not awarded based on the result of the finding, but based on the need for knowledge in that particular area and on the method used to obtain it. You can easily download a grant application from a government site and verify this for yourself.

But you seem to just like arguing without following up on the many sources others have given you, so I think you're just not interested in having a conversation. You just want to be right.

Original comment

There are such a thing as experts = peole who know a lot about a discipline and publish a lot.

Also, academics have tenure precisely because it protects them from such things as "we don't like the results of your research so sc*ew you you're fired" Tenured professors have the freedom to publish scientific results that go against the grain of what is acceptable. That is what is known as "academic freedom" and it is fiercely protected by tenure. Of course it's always harder to publish something that discredits the work of the rest of the scientific community: for good reason. If you're going to throw to the wind hundreds of years of meticulous research, you had better prove yourself, your research methods, your findings, and your credentials. Otherwise, every late idiot who has an interesting and controversial idea gets a forum - something that happens a lot on Fox News and the likes, but doesn't and shouldn't happen in academic journals.

The only scientists I've seen who argue that the science in climate change is wrong don't do any original research but rather review other people's literature and argue against the logic of the finding - which is the reason why their "findings" aren't academic. They're just arguments, talk. NOt science.

So far, not too many have had much to say that can meet the rigorous standards that need to be in place to ensure academic integrity. That is what is meant by the scientific community being 97% in agreement. You are suggesting that we can discard the integrity of 97% of people who have made this their life work because of some nebulous notion that these people are attracted to government grants? How laughable. You don't get rich on government grants: as one who has filed many, many grants, I can tell you that 90% of those go to the University for using the laboratory, equipment, etc. The scientist him/herself gets a stipend, what the University calls "justifying their salaries." You can also look up academic salaries as this is public information and see that people who have studied for years and years make surprisingly laughable piddle salaries. Scientists can make 100 times their academic salaries working for private corporations or for think thanks if money is what they want. Most of the deniers that are so-called scientists are not scientists at all but statisticians from Republican Think Tanks. This is also an easily verifiable fact.

Don't be lazy and look things up.

As one who has applied for many grants I can also tell you that grants are not awarded based on the result of the finding, but based on the need for knowledge in that particular area and on the method used to obtain it. You can easily download a grant application from a government site and verify this for yourself.

But you seem to just like arguing without following up on the many sources others have given you, so I think you're just not interested in having a conversation. You just want to be right.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1451 days ago)

" You are suggesting that we can discard the integrity of 97% of people who have made this their life work " Actually, that is 97% of peer-reviewed papers which could represent 0.05% of scientists. The part about making it their life work is also in question. We don't know what their life work is. They may not even be climate scientists at all. Their specialty might be in agriculture but we don't know that.

What we do know is 750 scientists that stated their names and credentials to the senate committe and explained why they do not agree with AGW. They are not hiding anything but it's clear that 97% number is.

Additionally, that 97% number has been known to be a fraud. The cherry picked papers is another issue. The fact they had to be peer-reviewed and are papers is a statistical anomaly that should be fixed. Why not ask the scientists directly? Well, that has been done and many of the scientists stated that "survey" part of the analyzing of their paper does not reflect their views or the views of what was written in the paper. It seems if a scientist mentioned that humans produce CO2, they automatically went into the category of supporting AGW.

ReplyVote up (101)down (54)
Original comment

" You are suggesting that we can discard the integrity of 97% of people who have made this their life work " Actually, that is 97% of peer-reviewed papers which could represent 0.05% of scientists. The part about making it their life work is also in question. We don't know what their life work is. They may not even be climate scientists at all. Their specialty might be in agriculture but we don't know that.

What we do know is 750 scientists that stated their names and credentials to the senate committe and explained why they do not agree with AGW. They are not hiding anything but it's clear that 97% number is.

Additionally, that 97% number has been known to be a fraud. The cherry picked papers is another issue. The fact they had to be peer-reviewed and are papers is a statistical anomaly that should be fixed. Why not ask the scientists directly? Well, that has been done and many of the scientists stated that "survey" part of the analyzing of their paper does not reflect their views or the views of what was written in the paper. It seems if a scientist mentioned that humans produce CO2, they automatically went into the category of supporting AGW.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1451 days ago)
Latest comment:

you're an idiot so STFU

LOL

Original comment
Latest comment:

you're an idiot so STFU

LOL

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1451 days ago)

Utter bullshit, your not a "scientist" you are a complete moron, As someone who has sat in a lecture in advanced elementary particle physics and had the lecturer turn up late peturbed and announce that what he has been lecturing has been TOTALLY DISPROVED by results from cern, you will know real science is dictated by reality. Its really a problem with the lesser sciences that they dont have the short sharp shock that comes from clear conclusive disproving evidence in the hard sciences, that forces you to abandon conjectures and to start again from scratch, and dont have to go through the long process of arrogantly clinging on (for 17+ years by god) to a delusional intellectual groupthink bubble that routinely filters out those warning signs that the idea is diverging from reality,( unfortunately so characteristic of the lesser soft sciences) until people start lauging at you in public.

ReplyVote up (27)down (126)
Original comment

Utter bullshit, your not a "scientist" you are a complete moron, As someone who has sat in a lecture in advanced elementary particle physics and had the lecturer turn up late peturbed and announce that what he has been lecturing has been TOTALLY DISPROVED by results from cern, you will know real science is dictated by reality. Its really a problem with the lesser sciences that they dont have the short sharp shock that comes from clear conclusive disproving evidence in the hard sciences, that forces you to abandon conjectures and to start again from scratch, and dont have to go through the long process of arrogantly clinging on (for 17+ years by god) to a delusional intellectual groupthink bubble that routinely filters out those warning signs that the idea is diverging from reality,( unfortunately so characteristic of the lesser soft sciences) until people start lauging at you in public.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: SATANIC DILDO (1451 days ago)

you just got owned mate and you're pissed about it.

he he he

ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment

you just got owned mate and you're pissed about it.

he he he

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1625 days ago)
I think the 97% paper is useful in the sense it acts like a combined iq/general science knowledge question. Its like asking the question Are you a moron ? and if you say i believe the 97% nonsensus paper is relevant and john cook is my hero, then the answer is YES
Original comment
I think the 97% paper is useful in the sense it acts like a combined iq/general science knowledge question. Its like asking the question Are you a moron ? and if you say i believe the 97% nonsensus paper is relevant and john cook is my hero, then the answer is YES
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)

Good to know that 'mad', 'originalmad', 'the earth', 'No warming to you' and 'guest123456789' are all the same person. Did I miss any? You really have lost the plot. You are now talking to yourself! I'm curious, what is your day job?

ReplyVote up (101)down (70)
Original comment

Good to know that 'mad', 'originalmad', 'the earth', 'No warming to you' and 'guest123456789' are all the same person. Did I miss any? You really have lost the plot. You are now talking to yourself! I'm curious, what is your day job?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)
And you are wrong again. I am only one of those. See what happens when you make assumptions?
Original comment
And you are wrong again. I am only one of those. See what happens when you make assumptions?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)

So why did you answer for 'the earth' a few comments back (started with "Again, you miss the point...")?

Original comment

So why did you answer for 'the earth' a few comments back (started with "Again, you miss the point...")?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dick Johnson (1625 days ago)

satanic dildo, il culo, thorny prick, dick johnosn, etc etc (you know the drill) : told you so... it's why i stopped arguing like an adult; there's obiously no interest in that on the "deniar" side, SO FU*K THEM AND THEIR MUMS!!

Original comment

satanic dildo, il culo, thorny prick, dick johnosn, etc etc (you know the drill) : told you so... it's why i stopped arguing like an adult; there's obiously no interest in that on the "deniar" side, SO FU*K THEM AND THEIR MUMS!!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)

Because I keep having to tell you how wrong you are about bringing up a survey result as a scientific result. So that's why I said "Again"

ReplyVote up (84)down (101)
Original comment

Because I keep having to tell you how wrong you are about bringing up a survey result as a scientific result. So that's why I said "Again"

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
Yeah right, you ***** up and then tried to cover it up by talking to yourself. But that's OK. I don't mind how many versions of you I'm talking to, you're all wrong - which is why it's so easy for me to destroy every single point you come up with. 5 minutes research and the answers are there. You should try it before you embarrass yourself.
Original comment
Yeah right, you ***** up and then tried to cover it up by talking to yourself. But that's OK. I don't mind how many versions of you I'm talking to, you're all wrong - which is why it's so easy for me to destroy every single point you come up with. 5 minutes research and the answers are there. You should try it before you embarrass yourself.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)
I don't know who the other people you mentioned are and I really don't care if you don't believe me or not. There's no way for me to prove it so you either believe or don't believe. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.
ReplyVote up (38)down (108)
Original comment
I don't know who the other people you mentioned are and I really don't care if you don't believe me or not. There's no way for me to prove it so you either believe or don't believe. I'm not going to lose any sleep over this.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1625 days ago)

who are mad and originalmad ?

ReplyVote up (83)down (100)
Original comment

who are mad and originalmad ?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dick Johnson (1625 days ago)

FU*K YOU , that's who!

Original comment

FU*K YOU , that's who!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: the earth (1625 days ago)

Im sorry, who are you

ReplyVote up (100)down (84)
Original comment

Im sorry, who are you

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dick Johnson (1625 days ago)

i'm your daddy! now shut the fu*k up and blow me!

ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment

i'm your daddy! now shut the fu*k up and blow me!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1626 days ago)
So you think climate scientists are incompetent - guest123456789 thinks there's massive corruption within climate research - and I think 30 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere every year will change the climate. This is a good point for us to agree to disagree.
Original comment
So you think climate scientists are incompetent - guest123456789 thinks there's massive corruption within climate research - and I think 30 billion tons of CO2 added to the atmosphere every year will change the climate. This is a good point for us to agree to disagree.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1626 days ago)
The planet goes through a lot of bad things such as earthquakes, volcanoes, continental drifts, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, magnetic pole reversals, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment of comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, worldwide floods, worldwide erosion, forest fires, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and you think some CO2 is going to be what kills us all. CO2 is essential to life on this planet. Without it, plants would die and without plants, all the other animals will die. Yes it has been shown in a laboratory that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas but your models are wrong about how much effect it has on the warming of the planet. I claim it has little effect compared to other things such as water vapor which is a natural occurring product.
Original comment
The planet goes through a lot of bad things such as earthquakes, volcanoes, continental drifts, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, magnetic pole reversals, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment of comets, asteroids, and meteoroids, worldwide floods, worldwide erosion, forest fires, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages, and you think some CO2 is going to be what kills us all. CO2 is essential to life on this planet. Without it, plants would die and without plants, all the other animals will die. Yes it has been shown in a laboratory that CO2 does act as a greenhouse gas but your models are wrong about how much effect it has on the warming of the planet. I claim it has little effect compared to other things such as water vapor which is a natural occurring product.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1625 days ago)
And you know better than climate scientists because they are paid by governments to make up their research? Is that your position?
Original comment
And you know better than climate scientists because they are paid by governments to make up their research? Is that your position?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1625 days ago)
I know better than SOME climate scientists. There are those that are subservient to their peers and funders and do not do any original research themselves. If we cannot accurately predict if it will rain tomorrow, how can our science be good enough to predict what will happen 100 years from now? I claim that the science is not good enough to make those predictions. At least the scientists are trying but their models are flawed. They say the temperature is rising but have no explanation for the 16 year (and counting) period where there is no rise in average temperature but the CO2 levels continue to rise. If CO2 is as important to the environment as they claimed, you would see a 1:1 ratio between the CO2 levels and our temperature but you do not see that ratio.
Original comment
I know better than SOME climate scientists. There are those that are subservient to their peers and funders and do not do any original research themselves. If we cannot accurately predict if it will rain tomorrow, how can our science be good enough to predict what will happen 100 years from now? I claim that the science is not good enough to make those predictions. At least the scientists are trying but their models are flawed. They say the temperature is rising but have no explanation for the 16 year (and counting) period where there is no rise in average temperature but the CO2 levels continue to rise. If CO2 is as important to the environment as they claimed, you would see a 1:1 ratio between the CO2 levels and our temperature but you do not see that ratio.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1629 days ago)
You're right that you can't make money from oil if no one buys any. So stop buying it. You're the hypocrite that tells everyone else to stop using it but you're still using it. Practice what you preach.
ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment
You're right that you can't make money from oil if no one buys any. So stop buying it. You're the hypocrite that tells everyone else to stop using it but you're still using it. Practice what you preach.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1629 days ago)
shut the fu*k up!
ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment
shut the fu*k up!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1630 days ago)
Those 400,000 deaths per year will leave more available resources for those of us that don't die and adapt. This seems to solve the over population issue people think we are having. Kills two birds with one stone. Also, those people in Boston are still waiting for their global warming to happen. They are freezing over there with record low temperatures.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
Those 400,000 deaths per year will leave more available resources for those of us that don't die and adapt. This seems to solve the over population issue people think we are having. Kills two birds with one stone. Also, those people in Boston are still waiting for their global warming to happen. They are freezing over there with record low temperatures.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
Those poor folk in Boston are experiencing what is predicted - more extreme weather with both hot and cold records being broken, only there are more hot records. Australia is in a record breaking heat wave right now and 2013 was their hottest year on record. LINK And don't you remember your 2013 summer?
ReplyVote up (101)down (69)
Original comment
Those poor folk in Boston are experiencing what is predicted - more extreme weather with both hot and cold records being broken, only there are more hot records. Australia is in a record breaking heat wave right now and 2013 was their hottest year on record. LINK And don't you remember your 2013 summer?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1630 days ago)
Nothing special here regarding the 2013 summer. Let me get this straight. Now you're saying that the CO2 traps in the cold during the winter too? Is that what you're saying? How is it possible that winter in one part of the world means it's summer elsewhere and the atmosphere flows around so CO2 created over one piece of land doesn't stay there, it all gets mixed in. So why doesn't your CO2 model show that we should have record high temperatures in winter? Or is it possible that the CO2 is not having as much an impact as you and the scientists thought it would?
Original comment
Nothing special here regarding the 2013 summer. Let me get this straight. Now you're saying that the CO2 traps in the cold during the winter too? Is that what you're saying? How is it possible that winter in one part of the world means it's summer elsewhere and the atmosphere flows around so CO2 created over one piece of land doesn't stay there, it all gets mixed in. So why doesn't your CO2 model show that we should have record high temperatures in winter? Or is it possible that the CO2 is not having as much an impact as you and the scientists thought it would?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
You have a habit of jumping to conclusions from a base of very little understanding. On a simple level, more heat/energy in the atmosphere causes more extreme weather, which means record hot AND cold spells - only there are many more record hot spells, so the overall average is global warming. If you want more detail, try this for starters: LINK Also, Reuters says you had record heat wave in the US Midwest in September 2013: LINK Huffington Post says much of the US had a dangerous heat wave in July 2013: LINK Here in the UK, we are experiencing a warmer than usual winter (so far), but very stormy and very wet.
ReplyVote up (54)down (101)
Original comment
You have a habit of jumping to conclusions from a base of very little understanding. On a simple level, more heat/energy in the atmosphere causes more extreme weather, which means record hot AND cold spells - only there are many more record hot spells, so the overall average is global warming. If you want more detail, try this for starters: LINK Also, Reuters says you had record heat wave in the US Midwest in September 2013: LINK Huffington Post says much of the US had a dangerous heat wave in July 2013: LINK Here in the UK, we are experiencing a warmer than usual winter (so far), but very stormy and very wet.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1630 days ago)
You can believe Reuters if you like but if you actually read the article and use some reasoning, you can see it's not really a record. It was hotter in 1983. So it's actually been cooler between 1983 until 2013. Now it's back to normal. Get it? Also, who said I live in the midwest or even in the USA? I'm not telling you where I live or where I work because I see what you guys did to cengland0. You can find fault with any location or job so I'm remaining silent on that.
Original comment
You can believe Reuters if you like but if you actually read the article and use some reasoning, you can see it's not really a record. It was hotter in 1983. So it's actually been cooler between 1983 until 2013. Now it's back to normal. Get it? Also, who said I live in the midwest or even in the USA? I'm not telling you where I live or where I work because I see what you guys did to cengland0. You can find fault with any location or job so I'm remaining silent on that.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1630 days ago)
Those 400,000 people are likely to be from the developing world, and therefore have a tiny carbon footprint. If you want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, consider the 317 million Americans (4.45% of the world's population) who produce 18% of the world's emissions.
Original comment
Those 400,000 people are likely to be from the developing world, and therefore have a tiny carbon footprint. If you want to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, consider the 317 million Americans (4.45% of the world's population) who produce 18% of the world's emissions.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No warming to you. (1628 days ago)
Walter: With the amount you feverishly post on the subject, the only advice for you is: try not to overheat too much. You contribute to the Global Warming ... even if it only goes on inside your overheated head.
Original comment
Walter: With the amount you feverishly post on the subject, the only advice for you is: try not to overheat too much. You contribute to the Global Warming ... even if it only goes on inside your overheated head.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1628 days ago)
I guess it's my hobby. What's yours?
Original comment
I guess it's my hobby. What's yours?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: No warming to you. (1627 days ago)
Mine is science. It also happens to be my day job but you won't believe it of course, so let's stick with hobbies. You are better at it anyway.
Original comment
Mine is science. It also happens to be my day job but you won't believe it of course, so let's stick with hobbies. You are better at it anyway.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1627 days ago)
You sure don't sound like a scientist.
Original comment
You sure don't sound like a scientist.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1627 days ago)
You're in the wrong job mate.
Original comment
You're in the wrong job mate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1631 days ago)
Another idiot that thinks solar is the way to go. He says if everyone bought a solar charger for their cell phone, we could shut down one nuclear facility. It only costs 41 cents a year to charge a cell phone per year LINK . How much is that solar charger going to cost us? A whole lot more than our savings would be. Even if it only costs $20 per charger, that would still take us 49 years to get our money back in savings and we could only charge our phones in the daylight. As for me, I like charging my phone during the night when I'm sleeping and not using my phone. So you think we could get one that has a battery in the charger? Well, that would cost more and those batteries will not last 49 years so you'll be replacing them frequently which will add more costs and will put more toxic waste in the city dumps.
ReplyVote up (166)down (189)
Original comment
Another idiot that thinks solar is the way to go. He says if everyone bought a solar charger for their cell phone, we could shut down one nuclear facility. It only costs 41 cents a year to charge a cell phone per year LINK . How much is that solar charger going to cost us? A whole lot more than our savings would be. Even if it only costs $20 per charger, that would still take us 49 years to get our money back in savings and we could only charge our phones in the daylight. As for me, I like charging my phone during the night when I'm sleeping and not using my phone. So you think we could get one that has a battery in the charger? Well, that would cost more and those batteries will not last 49 years so you'll be replacing them frequently which will add more costs and will put more toxic waste in the city dumps.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1630 days ago)
He's an idiot? That's not nice or necessary cengland, ad hominem attacks are one sign of a weak argument.
ReplyVote up (97)down (120)
Original comment
He's an idiot? That's not nice or necessary cengland, ad hominem attacks are one sign of a weak argument.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1630 days ago)
I explained why if you would just take the time to read the rest of the comment.
ReplyVote up (97)down (108)
Original comment
I explained why if you would just take the time to read the rest of the comment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: il culo (1630 days ago)
don't listen to him ya fekin codger fu*k terrorist banker! ad hominem attacks are not a sign of fekin weakness! go blow a male duck, ya fekin shale gas propagandist codger terrorist scum! SEE?? ad hominem is not a sign of weakness.
ReplyVote up (101)down (90)
Original comment
don't listen to him ya fekin codger fu*k terrorist banker! ad hominem attacks are not a sign of fekin weakness! go blow a male duck, ya fekin shale gas propagandist codger terrorist scum! SEE?? ad hominem is not a sign of weakness.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
MyName MyName (1629 days ago)
@Boreme. Just FYI, I used to like BoreMe compared to youtube because it was like a digest, 'topical, intelligent fun' as you say. There also weren't the teenage idiotic, abusive and illiterate comments. There is still good debate here but it is ruined somewhat now by certain people (see below) who have nothing but abuse to offer. I've said before that I'm no fan of censorship and I offer no solutions, I just don't feel the need to come here daily like I used to, it's like one of my favourite beauty spots has been discovered and is now covered in litter and dog poo. And like that beauty spot, if the authorities or others who like the beauty spot aren't able to clean it up, time to think about finding a new beauty spot. Just saying..
Original comment
@Boreme. Just FYI, I used to like BoreMe compared to youtube because it was like a digest, 'topical, intelligent fun' as you say. There also weren't the teenage idiotic, abusive and illiterate comments. There is still good debate here but it is ruined somewhat now by certain people (see below) who have nothing but abuse to offer. I've said before that I'm no fan of censorship and I offer no solutions, I just don't feel the need to come here daily like I used to, it's like one of my favourite beauty spots has been discovered and is now covered in litter and dog poo. And like that beauty spot, if the authorities or others who like the beauty spot aren't able to clean it up, time to think about finding a new beauty spot. Just saying..
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Elon Musk - Tesla is more than just a car company
Elon Musk - Tesla is more than just a car company
Elon Musk's game changing battery masterplan
Elon Musk's game changing battery masterplan
Elon Musk on solar power in China
Elon Musk on solar power in China
Elon Musk: Don't compete with China
Elon Musk: Don't compete with China
Why battery packs are winning over hydrogen fuel cells
Why battery packs are winning over hydrogen fuel cells