in the case of reno specifically, the area there is powered by a geothermal plant. if theres enough capacity in it to also supply the factory, then that would also offest it some. (note that I havent been back in sometime, and its grown a lot since then, so the plant may not have capacity left)
you're a fool. the ends and the means both matter. but then youre one of those idiots who think the point of environmentalism is to kill freedom and impose tyranny on the world.
germany has always burned lignite as its what they have there in their local rock strata. that said, they have not, as you implied, has to turn to more lignite. in face, the fact that they have one of hte biggest solar penetrations in the world should be an indication that you dont have to be the sahara desert before you can install solar. its a phenomenal success story for solar.
no one knows how to handle roundabouts. and the general rule for construction work always seems to be "ignore the signs, and hope you dont hit anyone".
yes, this post absolutely was flamebait. by using cited csources with actualy data and math to refute a baseless lie it is the textbook defintion of flamebait.
science doesnt work if scientists dont have integrity. if most scientists were liars our advanced scientific society would not exist. it couldnt. nothing would be valid. its as simple as that.
if you dont see this, then youre an idiot and not worth my time
hmm. that looks more like a localized event, like the medieval warm period. you'd need a matching ice core (or other record) from elsewhere on the globe to corroborate it and make it global
No. No it is not. You are lying. You are spreading myths.
Assuming that oil companies fund studies that disprove man-made global warming and governments fund studies that prove it, you would expect to see a 10-to-1 ratio in the number of studies published for AGW versus against. And that's pretty much what you see out there.
No it is not what you see out there. Your statement belies a belief that who pays determines the outcome. Believe it or not, most scientists have a tremendous amount of integrity and follow the rigor required by the scientific method. That's why you dont see many of them working for oil companies. Some scientists have worked for oil companies (or any company) and gotten the "wrong results" and ceased to work for those companies. The gentleman who did research on herbicides re: frogs is one such. Other scientists found themselves massaging data and keeping their jobs. They are in the minority however. And among government funded scientists you can find both flavors of scientist, those for and against. The key difference is, no one has had funding cut off due to results.
are there examples of >7C global changes? a global change of 7C occuring in a decade would wipe out most life on earth. the permian extinction that i mentioned was an 8C rise, and not over mere decades. global changes of only a degree mask a tremendous amount of variance and extremes of weather.
Your prof then didnt understand, and made the same mistake most people make in misusing the words "consensus", "theory", hypothesis", etc, in a scientific setting.
Scientific consensus is the natural end result of the scientific process.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion. A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility.
It is the natural result of the scientific process, specifically part dealing with verification and reproducibility.
The problem is much like the public's misuse of the words "theory" and "hypothesis". Laypeople have no clue what those words actually mean in a scientific setting. Likewise with the concept of "scientific consensus". They think its a dogma or rote belief. It's not.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him. It has nothing to do with pushing your opinion on others at all.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion. A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility.
right. and the best part is, if your results of reproducible, you found the key ingredient that no one thought of before, you reate a new consensus.
Scientific consensus is a misunderstood word in the nonscientific public. it is shorthand for the concept of "a bunch of scientists each independently verified X, and all reached the same conclusion".
The problem is much like the public's misuse of the words "theory" and "hypothesis". Laypeople have no clue what those words actually mean in a scientific setting. Likewise with the concept of "scientific consensus". They think its a dogma or rote belief. It's not.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion. A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility. And if some plucky underdog does find something new, and the community at large is able verify it, that then is the new consensus.
A scientific consensus is thus not an abomination of science, but the ultimate end result of all science. A consensus is not a dogma or rote belief, but the natural end result of the scientific process.
The problem is much like the public's misuse of the words "theory" and "hypothesis". Laypeople have no clue what those words actually mean in a scientific setting. Likewise with the concept of "scientific consensus".
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion. A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility. And if some plucky underdog does find something new, and the community at large is able verify it, that then is the new consensus.
A scientific consensus is thus not an abomination of science, but the ultimate end result of all science. A consensus is not a dogma or rote belief, but the natural end result of the scientific process.
No. you fail to understand what a scientific consensus represents. You think its a simple vote. That's why youre wrong.
What it really represents is a bunch of scientists, each working on their own, follows the evidence, Each scientist then arrives at the same conclusion. It's parallel developement x100000.
THATS what makes it a consensus. Its not that one person said something, and then persuaded 30000 other scientists. Its that each of those 30000 performed their own research and each got the same results.
That is in fact the very purest form of scientific rigor, repeatability, and advancement.
No, and like most idiot deniers you dont know what consensus represents. You think its a simple vote or conspiracy. That's why youre dumb.
What it really represents is a bunch of scientists, each working on their own, follows the evidence, Each scientist then arrives at the same conclusion. It's parallel developement x100000.
THATS what makes it a consensus. Its not that one person said something, and then persuaded 30000 other scientists. Its that each of those 30000 performed their own research and each got the same results.
That is in fact the very purest form of scientific rigor, repeatability, and advancement.
No, it is NOT a step back to the dark ages. Trying to use science against itself is dispicable btw.
Unless Joe the Plumber has a climatology degree we dont know about, he's not really qualified to offer an opinion on the subject. Likewise, Michael Mann isnt the guy I'd first ask to install new water lines in my house.
Qualifications do matter. No one is running around demanding that the Higgs Bosun team release all their data so it can be verified by people off the street with no idea what they are looking at. Yet deniers do it to climatologisits ALL THE TIME. You use relativity as an example. For most people, their opinion of it HAS NOTHING to do with with the evidence. It has do with the fact the experts, whom wehope know what they are all talking about, have followed the evidence and reached that conclusion. Likewise, the evidence for GW is extremely clear, extremely strong....if anything its even MORE approachable for the layperson than relativity theory. yet folks like you get up and say "well we all need to make our opinion"....horse manure.
think parallel develpoement. consensus isnt a vote. there isnt a concensus because people got together and held a vote. there is a consensus because all these scientists, each working independently, has been performing research, observation and experimentation, and each has arrived at the same conclusion.
THATS what makes it a scientific consensus. THATS where the validity and weight of a consensus comes from. theyve ALL been looking at the evidence. theyve all arrived at the same conclusion.
Slashdot Mirror
in the case of reno specifically, the area there is powered by a geothermal plant. if theres enough capacity in it to also supply the factory, then that would also offest it some. (note that I havent been back in sometime, and its grown a lot since then, so the plant may not have capacity left)
you say that as if one leads to the other.
hint: they don't.
you're a fool. the ends and the means both matter.
but then youre one of those idiots who think the point of environmentalism is to kill freedom and impose tyranny on the world.
germany has always burned lignite as its what they have there in their local rock strata. that said, they have not, as you implied, has to turn to more lignite. in face, the fact that they have one of hte biggest solar penetrations in the world should be an indication that you dont have to be the sahara desert before you can install solar. its a phenomenal success story for solar.
no one knows how to handle roundabouts.
and the general rule for construction work always seems to be "ignore the signs, and hope you dont hit anyone".
yes, this post absolutely was flamebait.
by using cited csources with actualy data and math to refute a baseless lie it is the textbook defintion of flamebait.
spineless mod cowards.
no. 0.2C would be significant.
0.2% of 1-2C is 0.002C - 0.004C.
nothing extreme or significant about it.
science doesnt work if scientists dont have integrity.
if most scientists were liars our advanced scientific society would not exist.
it couldnt. nothing would be valid.
its as simple as that.
if you dont see this, then youre an idiot and not worth my time
prove it
Accusations that climate science is money-driven reveal ignorance of how science is done
http://arstechnica.com/science...
hmm. that looks more like a localized event, like the medieval warm period. you'd need a matching ice core (or other record) from elsewhere on the globe to corroborate it and make it global
No. No it is not.
You are lying.
You are spreading myths.
Assuming that oil companies fund studies that disprove man-made global warming and governments fund studies that prove it, you would expect to see a 10-to-1 ratio in the number of studies published for AGW versus against. And that's pretty much what you see out there.
No it is not what you see out there.
Your statement belies a belief that who pays determines the outcome. Believe it or not, most scientists have a tremendous amount of integrity and follow the rigor required by the scientific method. That's why you dont see many of them working for oil companies. Some scientists have worked for oil companies (or any company) and gotten the "wrong results" and ceased to work for those companies. The gentleman who did research on herbicides re: frogs is one such. Other scientists found themselves massaging data and keeping their jobs. They are in the minority however. And among government funded scientists you can find both flavors of scientist, those for and against. The key difference is, no one has had funding cut off due to results.
In short: you are full of it.
i knew one of the idiots would say this.
and thats what it is: idiocy. unsupported by reality.
are there examples of >7C global changes?
a global change of 7C occuring in a decade would wipe out most life on earth.
the permian extinction that i mentioned was an 8C rise, and not over mere decades.
global changes of only a degree mask a tremendous amount of variance and extremes of weather.
i keep saying precambrian when i mean permian. bah.
Your prof then didnt understand, and made the same mistake most people make in misusing the words "consensus", "theory", hypothesis", etc, in a scientific setting.
Scientific consensus is the natural end result of the scientific process.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion.
A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility.
It is the natural result of the scientific process, specifically part dealing with verification and reproducibility.
Bzzt. Wrong.
The problem is much like the public's misuse of the words "theory" and "hypothesis". Laypeople have no clue what those words actually mean in a scientific setting.
Likewise with the concept of "scientific consensus". They think its a dogma or rote belief. It's not.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him. It has nothing to do with pushing your opinion on others at all.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion.
A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility.
It is most definitely an important distinction.
right. and the best part is, if your results of reproducible, you found the key ingredient that no one thought of before, you reate a new consensus.
Scientific consensus is a misunderstood word in the nonscientific public. it is shorthand for the concept of "a bunch of scientists each independently verified X, and all reached the same conclusion".
this is what i keep saying to people!
The problem is much like the public's misuse of the words "theory" and "hypothesis".
Laypeople have no clue what those words actually mean in a scientific setting.
Likewise with the concept of "scientific consensus".
They think its a dogma or rote belief. It's not.
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion.
A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility.
And if some plucky underdog does find something new, and the community at large is able verify it, that then is the new consensus.
A scientific consensus is thus not an abomination of science, but the ultimate end result of all science.
A consensus is not a dogma or rote belief, but the natural end result of the scientific process.
The problem is much like the public's misuse of the words "theory" and "hypothesis".
Laypeople have no clue what those words actually mean in a scientific setting.
Likewise with the concept of "scientific consensus".
A scientific consensus is not an opinion poll. Its not person who found something, and then persuaded a bunch of others to agree with him.
A scientific consensus is the result of a bunch of investigators working independently, all folliwng the evidence, and all arriving at the same conclusion.
A scientific consensus is the natural result of that very reproducibility.
And if some plucky underdog does find something new, and the community at large is able verify it, that then is the new consensus.
A scientific consensus is thus not an abomination of science, but the ultimate end result of all science.
A consensus is not a dogma or rote belief, but the natural end result of the scientific process.
No.
you fail to understand what a scientific consensus represents.
You think its a simple vote. That's why youre wrong.
What it really represents is a bunch of scientists, each working on their own, follows the evidence,
Each scientist then arrives at the same conclusion.
It's parallel developement x100000.
THATS what makes it a consensus.
Its not that one person said something, and then persuaded 30000 other scientists.
Its that each of those 30000 performed their own research and each got the same results.
That is in fact the very purest form of scientific rigor, repeatability, and advancement.
No, and like most idiot deniers you dont know what consensus represents.
You think its a simple vote or conspiracy.
That's why youre dumb.
What it really represents is a bunch of scientists, each working on their own, follows the evidence, Each scientist then arrives at the same conclusion. It's parallel developement x100000.
THATS what makes it a consensus.
Its not that one person said something, and then persuaded 30000 other scientists.
Its that each of those 30000 performed their own research and each got the same results.
That is in fact the very purest form of scientific rigor, repeatability, and advancement.
No, it is NOT a step back to the dark ages. Trying to use science against itself is dispicable btw.
Unless Joe the Plumber has a climatology degree we dont know about, he's not really qualified to offer an opinion on the subject.
Likewise, Michael Mann isnt the guy I'd first ask to install new water lines in my house.
Qualifications do matter.
No one is running around demanding that the Higgs Bosun team release all their data so it can be verified by people off the street with no idea what they are looking at. Yet deniers do it to climatologisits ALL THE TIME. You use relativity as an example. For most people, their opinion of it HAS NOTHING to do with with the evidence. It has do with the fact the experts, whom wehope know what they are all talking about, have followed the evidence and reached that conclusion. Likewise, the evidence for GW is extremely clear, extremely strong....if anything its even MORE approachable for the layperson than relativity theory. yet folks like you get up and say "well we all need to make our opinion"....horse manure.
think parallel develpoement.
consensus isnt a vote. there isnt a concensus because people got together and held a vote.
there is a consensus because all these scientists, each working independently, has been performing research, observation and experimentation, and each has arrived at the same conclusion.
THATS what makes it a scientific consensus.
THATS where the validity and weight of a consensus comes from.
theyve ALL been looking at the evidence.
theyve all arrived at the same conclusion.
so much stupid.
no wait. i was wrong.
miscounted my zeroes.
my bad.
volcanoes arent 3 billion tons.
they only do 0.3 billion tons.
so we emit >100x the amount that volcanoes do.