The ethical question no climate denier will answer

And that changes the quote how? It doesn't...SO what? A scientist isn't supposed to worry about politics he's supposed to worry about truth.

Science has replaced religion in many ways in most advanced countries. We don't for the most part, pray for healing and wait for god to cure us anymore. We go to a doctor or hospital and hope they can cure or treat us. We don't pray for god to save us from storms, we usually watch or listen to the reports. Science has made this so. And we trust them for it and well we should. But now we have a bunch of scientists who are just as political as they are analytical, just as eager to be famous and correct as they are to be correct or brilliant.

So when scientists act like politicians or social workers, who do we turn to for truth? It's a dangerous game those men are playing, and it will lead to mistrust in science. And that will be bad for everybody.

 

Please do, and be sure to wake me up if you find anything false or fraudulent in actual peer-reviewed science. I could care less what politicians say, or even what a scientist says in his private life.

 

So then Schnedfer wasn't a scientist? The IPPCC assessment wasn't to be trusted after all? Good of you to admit. Al gore's movie didn't misrepresent the science, and many scientists didn't support it anyway? Okay thanks for the admission...

 

Nonsense the left off last line changed nothing. Now you're trying to defend your blatant quote editing of a quoted post by pointing a missing last sentence? Okay, I'll fix it..

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology

All better.. Now it's as you liked it and I apologize for leaving off the last sentence... Good now we can see you fix your edited quote of me and apologize?

 

Wait till fossil fuels are too expensive to compete with the alternatives, and are thus no longer being burned in significant quantities, then wait a few million years while trees turn the CO2 back into coal, shellfish turn it into limestone, etc.

 

Mysterious, honestly. You have a team of professionals on either side of the argument that will pile up "scientific" arguments against one another to prove their point. Being the average citizen, and if we are honest, there's no way we can no whether what we are reading is real or not. Proverbially, concerning stuff like that, our head is up our a**. The only thing that seems definitive in this argument is confusion, and the only way I could make a decision is by taking a deeper look into what each side is asking for. Probably a more certain path to truth than any...

 

Really? Make twice the oil you need, and put the excess in empty oil wells.

Exactly my point.

Your solution?

 

Myself, I often wonder what these individuals have been doing themselves to "save the planet".

How many take public transit on a regular basis?

How many drive low fuel low emissions vehicles?

How many actually try to "spend time with nature"?

This is the kind of hypocrisy that has always bothered me to death. Driving by a Forde Gigantoexpedition LTE Deluxe with "SAVE THE PLANET" stickers all over it. Seeing a Lexuse Elite with "FUR IS DEAD" stickers, knowing that the person driving has their butt sitting in a leather seat, is likely wearing leather shoes, and if is female has a leather handbag (of which leather is nothing but shaved fur).

Most of these people simply preach to others to try and salve their own guilty conscience. And their idea of "going camping" is like to take the 45' RV out to Yosemite after paying big bucks for a reservation months in advance.

Meanwhile, myself, one of those that does not accept "Man made global warming" has been taking public transit for months (and walk almost a mile each way to and from the ferry building to where I work), and 98% of the time takes a motorcycle anywhere else I need to go. Less fuel, less emissions, and a fraction of the raw materials to make then even most "low emission vehicles". My idea of camping is to hook my tent trailer on the back of my bike and head off somewhere in the mountains, where I do not even build a fire for cooking but eat my food cold. And normally pack out far more trash then I entered with.



I defy many "global warming" types to try and claim that they have a "lower carbon footprint" then I do.

And BTW, this is nothing new for me. 10 years ago I camped pretty much the same way, minus the Goldwing and trailer.



For most of the last 35 years, my primary transportation has been a motorcycle. For a great many reasons, part of which in that I consider myself a "Conservationist". I try to conserve and preserve nature as much as possible.

 

I never wonder how many(zero) deniers do absolutely nothing to reduce their carbon footprint, because that would be a direct contradiction to what they believe

millions, but it has to be available in societies developed for cars the transportation infrastructure is missing, I live in denierland central the corporate oil heartland of canada and demand for more public transport is constant...

we can only drive what is available on the market, fuel consumption is clearly important factor is sales literature...

and that has what to do with the price of rice in china? irrelevant..

cows and pigs are a food source, leather is just a bonus byproduct the animal is going to be dead regardless...we don't eat fox, mink, big cats so trapping/killing them for their fur is senseless...

that's a wild assumption, you don't like RV's because you ride a cycle so therefore all RV owners must be hypocritical "save the world types"..that's quite the leap of logic...

come to where i live and ride a cycle during winter, motorcycles are not for everyone they're dangerous, should I load my 4 kids on a cycle and go camping? ...ya I've had my cycle license for 40 yrs and owned many so don't tell me different...

I put serious dollars into reducing my footprint and I'm not alone...you do what you do because it's a lifestyle choice that works for you not practical reality for those with families...

and I've seen people who live in a cardboard box should we congratulate them on their small footprint?

 

I have asked the same question. I have spent a lot of money on greening my lifestyle, because as an engineer, I like to stay at the cutting edge.

I even go beyond the talking points and think for myself on such topics as how much CO2 would we sequester if we stopped recycling paper (which is more expensive that growing new trees - save money and reduce CO2). Or, being CO2 reflects IR, then we should also reduce the amount of light we are converting to heat - how much global warming is the result of asphalt roads, and tarred roofs (which converts 95+% of light to heat)? I have a huge driveway which was asphalt, is now light colored pavers.

But, the religion of "man made global warming", like other religions, has a belief in the unseen. In their case, they seem to believe those the call deniers (any not drinking to koolaid) are stopping them from saving the planet. Except, there is no solution, or even combination of solutions. Not now, or even on the horizon.


I'll be interested to see if any warmers respond to your question.

 

Wow, most of that is pretty funny to be honest, and this is really a riot.

Actually, I also own a 24' Winnebago that I take when I go out with the wife (motorcycle trailer camping is a bit to primitive for her, plus she has medical needs). We even lived in it for the first 2 months after we moved back to California. I also own a 5.3 litre Silverado, so it is not like the bike is my only means of transportation. On average, I use the truck 1-2 times a month (enough to keep the lubes flowing and battery charged).

Look, I am not one of those that goes around screaming "Ban SUVs". However, I find it hypocritical when people who scream that we need to do things like use less fuel and the like actually make no effort to do so themselves. But as usual, when I ask such questions I am criticized or ignored, which is not surprising. I have long found that the concept of "log in your own eye" makes most people uncomfortable.

 

Ya know you have a poster over a barrel when you see the "quote every line and play the pedantic game".. It's just a fine example of the mentality involved...

 

You make the false assumption that what you call deniers "believe" making as much CO2 as possible is a good thing. I'll bet most make the same choices you do on appliance, cars, home upgrades.

"Transportation infrastructure" works pretty well in large, high rise, cities like NYC. Works lousy when things are spread out - even in a big city like Los Angeles.

Running empty busses every 15 minutes on the odd chance someone is at the stop is pretty wasteful. Not running the busses makes it so people buy a car. No win.

How serious? I have spent north of $100K on energy savings, CO2 neutral energy, CO2 absorption, and reducing the albedo of my property.

Isn't that your goal, to put everyone in a cardboard box?

If not, what is your solution?

 

this coming from the guy who likes to quote the "2nd law of thermodynamics" but doesn't know how a thermos bottle works or how fur/feathers keeps animals warm...sorry you have no relevance here...

 

that's not an assumption the entire premise of denierworld is anthropogenic CO2 does not cause CC it's all natural right? ...if CO2 doesn't cause CC why would a denier worry about producing it? it's plant food after all

duh! that kind of what I said...

no different than myself and odds are unless you live in a northern border state my home cost significantly more per sq ft because our homes are more energy efficient from day one...I can buy a much larger home in the US than I have now for the same dollar value...

stupid remark

to steal all your money and give it to the great socialist world government...

 

Really? You mean the thread you ran away from once your pedantic pal embarrassed himself? LOL,please you two embarrassed yourselves and he edited quotes, that was the highpoint of your arguments there.. You both tried to claim that air being a good insulator as long as convection and conduction are controlled, is a good insulator in the atmosphere. That was until you realized it contradicted your claim that GH gases (parts of air) are a good conductor of heat. So which is it now? Is it insulating against heat loss, or is it re-heating the already warmer surface beyond its own current level? A good insulator would require it to be a poor emitter. Yet you seem to think GH gases are both..

http://physics.csustan.edu/Marvin/HeatLightSound/Summaries/Chapter_16%20Heat_flow.htm

You can claim whatever you like but that doesn't make it true...

 

hypocrisy is not a flattering attribute...I own a pick up because my work requires it but I drive only when necessary otherwise it's a 14yr old minivan that gets reasonable mileage and I'll drive that until it dies when it will be replaced by the most fuel efficient vehicle that I can find...

you make broad generalizations attributing them to everyone and no one...

 

ya really, have contacted the HVAC community to inform them of your brilliant revelation? there are trillions of dollars and a Nobel prize awaiting you when you turn the home industry on it's head with insulation genius...

 

The only reason to save energy is because of MMGW? You need to stop listening to the talking points and actually talk to people.

I live in California, no doubt your house was built more energy efficient, but I'll bet mine cost more dollars per square foot, just because it can.

Many a true word said in jest.....

 

Think so? Funny but all I did was search a subject and read.

And your deliberate removal of quoted material from my source as well as the link is noted, and not unexpected. Seems to be a problem with you and your pal. That and your childish "quote every line" routine. And speak of the devil there it is above this post, like a clock.. Is that the standard BS and bury tactic taught at the AL Gore Global Weirding Debate Academy? I bet..

 

"Materials that do not conduct heat very well are called insulators. Materials like glass, most plastics, and wood are thermal insulators. Gasses are usually poor conductors (thought they can convect heat quickly). As a result, materials with lots of small air pockets like Styrofoam and down are very good insulators because the small air spaces inhibit convection so heat must flow by conduction and air is a very good insulator."
From your link!!!!! Which you even quoted!!!
No one can be that dense; no one! You must be trolling!

 

And this is what you are failing to grasp.

Air is a very good conductor, when it is allowed to move freely. This is why for example in your house when you turn on the heater or AC the temperature changes very quickly. It takes the higher or lower temperatures emitted and absorbs it, dispersing it throughout the area.

Air is really not a good insulator, it transferred hear very quickly. That is why convection ovens work as well as they do, and is why other things like evaporation coolers and Lister bags work so well.

However, when air can't flow freely and exchange it's thermal load, it acts as an insulator. Air itself does not keep a person warm in a jacket, or your coffee warm in a Styrofoam cup, it is the trapped air that does so. It is doing exactly what it does, keeping what heat-cold it can until it is able to exchange it with warmer or cooler air. And since it can't circulate, it tries to stay the same temperature.

This is also the principal of ski clothes, or any cold weather clothing. It is why we are all told to "bundle in layers", because each additional layer traps more air, which will stay the same temperature as long as it can.

It is not the air itself that is the insulator, it is the lack of free flow that lets it act as an insulator. You may grasp some of the words there, but you do not seem to understand their meaning.

 

No need to bold the quote I already had bolded silly, all you had to do was NOT edit it...

And you missed the point...

"Materials that do not conduct heat very well are called insulators. Materials like glass, most plastics, and wood are thermal insulators. Gasses are usually poor conductors (thought they can convect heat quickly). As a result, materials with lots of small air pockets like Styrofoam and down are very good insulators because the small air spaces inhibit convection so heat must flow by conduction and air is a very good insulator."

Now the atmosphere doesn't block convection and in fact convection is one of the big reasons we have varied weather.

So which is this time? Is it good insulator or a good emitter? You're the ones who seem to think GH gases can be both a good emitter and at the same time a good insulator which so far has proven impossible. So either it's a good enough emitter to offer near lossless energy transfer and warm the surface, or its a good insulator and does not warm the surface only slows heat loss...

LOL, why not just admit what is blaring at you? Air + Convection = efficient heat dispersion from the surface. It's the most logical and reasonable assumption, and despite the claims warmer cultists it seems to fit.

 

I understand and agree with you. Poor Debater understands and agrees with you. Wyly understands and agrees with you. gslack does not understand and disagrees with you.

To which I replied:

You can go to that conversation and read how poor debater attempts to explain to gslack why air is a poor insulator because of convection and that is the radiative properties of absorption / emission which are the basis of CO2 warming.
One minor quibble about your post: Yes, the properties of air, or any gas, make it a good insulator. It's the convection which prevents the air from acting as an insulator. The closer the contact of the molecules, the poorer the insulation because it's the movement of the molecules brought about by heat that allows conduction. Gases have little contact so do not conduct heat very well.

 

I have nothing to add to poor debater's excellent explanation. If you are unable or unwilling to understand, I cannot force you.