A Different Slant on Global Warming...

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones We need a radical improvement in battery technology. There is some recent research that I understand looks really promising. The decisive issue with electric cars is how the electricity to charge them is produced. If it’s from coal-burning power plants, then we really and truly haven’t achieved very much.

Yes, and we very likely will see rapid improvement in battery technology when there is a viable market for batteries capable of powering cars. It's unlikely we'll see it before then.

Even if electric cars get their energy from coal plants, they still use far less energy than combustion engines, and CO2 isn't the only pollutant produced by combustion engines. There's also the energy/pollution savings in steel/aluminum/other metals necessary for producing piston motors, radiators, mufflers, etc.

It's not a cure all of course — it still takes energy and produces pollution to create electric motors and batteries — but it is a step in the right direction.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam I'm beginning to wonder if you don't understand or if you have an incentive to misunderstand.

Whenever you find yourself asking this question, it's time to stop. the fact that you can't tell whether the person you're arguing with is being stupid or being cagy means - without a doubt - that the other person is trolling: i.e., they are not interested in taking the discussion seriously, but are simply trying to irritate you. if they were taking the discussion seriously, this question would never arise; honest advocates either expose their ignorance early on or make convincing arguments. Only trolls consistently confuse the issue in the hopes of scoring 'emotional' points.

Wilbert has no argument to make, keeps dodging the fact that he has no argument to make, and keeps making absurd and outlandish statements in order to stir things up: classic polit-troll behavior. unfortunately that's a condition of modern political issues in the US: ideology at all costs. no wonder idiots like Rush Limbough are successes.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw Whenever you find yourself asking this question, it's time to stop. the fact that you can't tell whether the person you're arguing with is being stupid or being cagy means - without a doubt - that the other person is trolling: i.e., they are not interested in taking the discussion seriously, but are simply trying to irritate you. if they were taking the discussion seriously, this question would never arise; honest advocates either expose their ignorance early on or make convincing arguments. Only trolls consistently confuse the issue in the hopes of scoring 'emotional' points. Wilbert has no argument to make, keeps dodging the fact that he has no argument to make, and keeps making absurd and outlandish statements in order to stir things up: classic polit-troll behavior. unfortunately that's a condition of modern political issues in the US: ideology at all costs. no wonder idiots like Rush Limbough are successes.

The Famous troll attacks as usual. No science to back up the theory behind AGW so we attack the person. I do not dodge facts I try to stay as close as possible to what "ArcticStones" keep asking to do. I showed earlier some peer reviewed papers and they are not pro AGW. I asked to show the science without computer models to back up AGW.
I see that the black soot is the scare of the week...

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam Yes, and we very likely will see rapid improvement in battery technology when there is a viable market for batteries capable of powering cars. It's unlikely we'll see it before then. Even if electric cars get their energy from coal plants, they still use far less energy than combustion engines, and CO2 isn't the only pollutant produced by combustion engines. There's also the energy/pollution savings in steel/aluminum/other metals necessary for producing piston motors, radiators, mufflers, etc. It's not a cure all of course — it still takes energy and produces pollution to create electric motors and batteries — but it is a step in the right direction.

Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:- Carbon dioxide (CO2)- Nitrogen (N2)- Water vapor (H2O)
Pollutants:- Carbon monoxide (CO) - Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic compounds (VOCs) - Nitric oxide (NO)- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2)- Particulate matter (PM-10)- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Your car's Catalytic Converter removes about 95% of these pollutants by converting them to Water and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam So let me get this straight: You claim that scientists who are generally paid far less than $1/4 million per year are skewing their data and conclusions towards Global Warming for the money! You make this conclusion while completely ignoring the fact that oil companies like Exxon make around $1 Billion per week in profits and that these profits give them an absolutely enormous incentive to deny Global Warming. You conclude that pointing this out is an ad homonym! Can you explain this?

US government 30 billion for pure scientific climate research from 1989-2007 vs Exxon 23 million.

[wilbert]

[QUOTE=cwtnospam;533337]
The overwhelming majority of scientists say that Global Warming is real.
"anthropogenic"
Proof of GW is not proof that Greenhouse gases are the cause.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert The Famous troll attacks as usual. No science to back up the theory behind AGW so we attack the person. I do not dodge facts I try to stay as close as possible to what "ArcticStones" keep asking to do. I showed earlier some peer reviewed papers and they are not pro AGW. I asked to show the science without computer models to back up AGW. I see that the black soot is the scare of the week...

thank you for demonstrating my point. this post does nothing except re-enter articles that other posters have already dismissed as irrelevant, and accuse me of attacking you. you're not offering anything factual or scientific: you're just trying to grab some kind of moral high-ground (as though that proved anything, ever).

If you don't want me to call you a troll, don't act like one. that's simple enough to do:

• don't keep bringing up the same points after other posters have dismissed them (not unless you can show why they shouldn't have been dismissed).
• don't keep talking about people. talk about the topic, not the people who promote or oppose the topic, and not the other people posting.
• don't substitute emotional statements for reasons (e.g. your 'scare of the week' comment above).
• admit when other editors make good points, and work with what they've said. sure sign of a troll is that s/he behaves as though absolutely nothing anyone says has any merit or worth.

if you want to act like a troll, then don't bitch about it when I call you one. trust me, when I use the term I use it analytically, not as an insult, so I don't feel one iota of guilt if you're insulted by it. learn to interact better, and I'll never see fit to to use the term on you again.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam The overwhelming majority of scientists say that Global Warming is real. "anthropogenic" Proof of GW is not proof that Greenhouse gases are the cause.

The only proof I see here is proof that tw is right.

I can't see how you wouldn't know what you're saying is wrong or completely off the point (What does government research have to do with Exxon's financial incentive to deny man made global warming???) so I must also conclude that you are a troll.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw thank you for demonstrating my point. this post does nothing except re-enter articles that other posters have already dismissed as irrelevant, and accuse me of attacking you. you're not offering anything factual or scientific: you're just trying to grab some kind of moral high-ground (as though that proved anything, ever). If you don't want me to call you a troll, don't act like one. that's simple enough to do: don't keep bringing up the same points after other posters have dismissed them (not unless you can show why they shouldn't have been dismissed). don't keep talking about people. talk about the topic, not the people who promote or oppose the topic, and not the other people posting. don't substitute emotional statements for reasons (e.g. your 'scare of the week' comment above). admit when other editors make good points, and work with what they've said. sure sign of a troll is that s/he behaves as though absolutely nothing anyone says has any merit or worth. if you want to act like a troll, then don't bitch about it when I call you one. trust me, when I use the term I use it analytically, not as an insult, so I don't feel one iota of guilt if you're insulted by it. learn to interact better, and I'll never see fit to to use the term on you again.

"admit when other editors make good points" ....like ? I will agree with science... unless someone can point to any "observations" that show CO2 causes significant warming at 500ppm or 380ppm levels ..i will remain skeptical and will continue to ask questions.If my questions are answered with the same old emotional science then do not show frustration if I happen to bring up observed data.

" you're just trying to grab some kind of moral high-ground (as though that proved anything, ever).".. keep that one in mind.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by cwtnospam The only proof I see here is proof that tw is right. I can't see how you wouldn't know what you're saying is wrong or completely off the point (What does government research have to do with Exxon's financial incentive to deny man made global warming???) so I must also conclude that you are a troll.

30 billion is government research? this to research the debate "that never was" is over and the science is settled?
23 million is financial incentive.
BTW care to review that ...Ad Hominem you so eloquently describe earlier..you know the one were I do not seem to understand the meaning? take a deep breath relax count to 10.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert "admit when other editors make good points" ....like ? I will agree with science... unless someone can point to any "observations" that show CO2 causes significant warming at 500ppm or 380ppm levels ..i will remain skeptical and will continue to ask questions.If my questions are answered with the same old emotional science then do not show frustration if I happen to bring up observed data. " you're just trying to grab some kind of moral high-ground (as though that proved anything, ever).".. keep that one in mind.

yeesh... inveterate troll. nothing more to say here.

[wilbert]

Name calling is that the best you can do? it is a show of desperation. never been asked to show the science before? a simple little request and the converted turns into a spoiled child.

[wilbert]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...pole-by-500km/

care to make a bet on what will be reported?

[ArcticStones]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...pole-by-500km/ care to make a bet on what will be reported?

The blog to which you refer, by Anthony Watts, is nothing more than a continuous rant. The language on the linked page is about as tendentious and unscientific as you can get.

[wilbert]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones The blog to which you refer, by Anthony Watts, is nothing more than a continuous rant. The language on the linked page is about as tendentious and unscientific as you can get.

my mistake I though a site with the best science award winner on it's blog had a better chance to have reliable information.

how about this one?

http://www.climateaudit.org/

or
http://climatesci.org/

Could you direct me to a scientific blog/site and I will gladly read what they have to say.

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones The blog to which you refer, by Anthony Watts, is nothing more than a continuous rant. The language on the linked page is about as tendentious and unscientific as you can get.

Arctic, I hate to say it, but the only cure for this problem is silence. Wilbert will continue to dispute anything and everything, regardless of the content of quality of his dispute, for all of eternity. there is no proper communication going on here, and unless you have lots of time to waste arguing with someone who will never actually listen to what you're saying, best to let it drop.

[wilbert]

TW..... you were born in the wrong century! the spanish inquisition ended a long time ago.

[Woodsman]

First time I've seen silence cited as the weapon of the Spanish Inquisition. I can just see them, laying on an auto-da-fe in the Plaza Mayor, hauling out the secret Jews -- and then hurtfully ignoring them. Ouch. What's next, the Comfy Chair? You're a cruel man, TW.

[cwtnospam]

Quote: Originally Posted by tw Arctic, I hate to say it, but the only cure for this problem is silence. Wilbert will continue to dispute anything and everything, regardless of the content of quality of his dispute, for all of eternity.

Agreed.

Quote: Originally Posted by ArcticStones . Let’s get back to discussing solutions. Concrete suggestions?

While I think that electric cars are a good step in the right direction, every time I see any information about what's being developed, it always strikes me as odd that there is never a solar panel to be found on one. Even if they got just 1% of their energy from the sun, that would be 1% more than cars get now. Wouldn't that be important? I know I'd like to get a free days worth of gas every hundred days!

[tw]

Quote: Originally Posted by wilbert TW..... you were born in the wrong century! the spanish inquisition ended a long time ago.

I told you what you needed to avoid doing if you want to participate civilly. you choose to do those things anyway. you talk, but you don't listen, so why should we waste time on you? I can't stop you from talking, but I can certainly point out to others that it's a pointless exercise.