(May 29, 2014 at 1:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: For all we know one of the tenets might be, "Jello tastes good".....and of course 97% of scientist would agree to that.

I suspect you'd get fewer scientists agreeing on that point than they are on the fact that climate change this go-round is human-engineered. Great persuasive argument, by the way.

(May 29, 2014 at 2:50 pm)Raeven Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 1:40 pm)Heywood Wrote: For all we know one of the tenets might be, "Jello tastes good".....and of course 97% of scientist would agree to that.

I suspect you'd get fewer scientists agreeing on that point than they are on the fact that climate change this go-round is human-engineered. Great persuasive argument, by the way.

I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone of anything. I am only explaining that there are reasons to be skeptical of a number like 97% .

If I was supreme dictator, I would have spent the billions that went to TARP and Healthcare reform on fusion and battery technology research. We have it our means to make the world a better place regardless if global warming is leading to catastrophe or not.

(May 29, 2014 at 3:22 pm)Heywood Wrote: I'm not trying to persuade you or anyone of anything. I am only explaining that there are reasons to be skeptical of a number like 97% .

Go back and look at the link I posted for skeptical science. It talks about a survey of not just the scientists but also of about 14000 scientific papers related to climate. It explains the methodology they used and the results which were 97% of the scientists that responded to survey and 97% of the published papers that took a position one way or another agreed that humans were causing this planet to warm.

As far as fusion goes right now that's a pipe dream, and it may never be a viable option for energy production. It is good for increasing the yield of a nuclear bomb, but with current technology it takes more energy to contain the reaction than can be reclaimed.

(May 29, 2014 at 3:46 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: As far as fusion goes right now that's a pipe dream, and it may never be a viable option for energy production. It is good for increasing the yield of a nuclear bomb, but with current technology it takes more energy to contain the reaction than can be reclaimed.

This is untrue.

Quote:LIVERMORE, Calif. - Ignition -- the process of releasing fusion energy equal to or greater than the amount of energy used to confine the fuel -- has long been considered the "holy grail" of inertial confinement fusion science. A key step along the path to ignition is to have "fuel gains" greater than unity, where the energy generated through fusion reactions exceeds the amount of energy deposited into the fusion fuel.

Though ignition remains the ultimate goal, the milestone of achieving fuel gains greater than 1 has been reached for the first time ever on any facility. In a paper published in the Feb. 12 online issue of the journal Nature, scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) detail a series of experiments on the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which show an order of magnitude improvement in yield performance over past experiments.

https://www.llnl.gov/news/aroundthelab/2...4eShLlOViy

This TED talks contains information about our progress toward practical fusion.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michel_laberge_...ear_fusion

Doing it in a lab is a far cry from making it a viable energy source.

Did you check the skeptical science link?

(May 29, 2014 at 4:09 pm)popeyespappy Wrote: Doing it in a lab is a far cry from making it a viable energy source.

Did you check the skeptical science link?

I did, they took 12,000 papers from climate change researchers and from that cherry picked 4000 papers that dealt with human caused climate change to come up with the 97% figure.

If we cherry picked papers about the non human caused climate change we would come up with a different consensus figure.

I have a 900 foot driveway. I am thinking of paving part of it. If I do the black asphalt will absorb more heat then the gravel that is there now. Since less heat is reflected, my asphalting the driveway will contribute to climate change. Is it going to be enough to lead us to a catastrophe? I doubt it. Is the totality of human endeavors going to be enough to lead us to catastrophe? That's really the question and this survey doesn't give me any information whatsoever that allows me to answer that question.

It makes a good talking point for someone pushing an agenda on the non-thinking but other than that its useless piece of information.

I have an idea, Heywood. Since you obviously know more than anyone else on the forum, why don't you tell me the percentage of climate change scientists who agree that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused? Then you can tell me why I should accept it or reject it. Clearly I'm just a drooling idiot who wouldn't understand "facts" if they bit me in the ass. I'm sure you don't mind enlightening me.

The most interesting part of the climate change debate isn't so much the denial of science as it is the resistance to change. We know that we overwhelmingly use finite energy resources, so it's eventually going to become a problem anyway. Our lifestyle just isn't sustainable, and regardless of climate change, it needs to be dealt with. Anything less is just doing what John Oliver said in the video, "Fuck 'em."

(May 29, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Raeven Wrote: I have an idea, Heywood. Since you obviously know more than anyone else on the forum, why don't you tell me the percentage of climate change scientists who agree that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused? Then you can tell me why I should accept it or reject it. Clearly I'm just a drooling idiot who wouldn't understand "facts" if they bit me in the ass. I'm sure you don't mind enlightening me.

I would say nearly 100% of scientist would agree that humans are a factor in climate change. But that isn't the important question. The important question is are we humans so much of a factor that we are headed on a path of a humanitarian catastrophe?

You are probably in a better position to answer that question then I am. I don't know...I haven't studied the subject deeply. Right now I'm content with whatever course humanity chooses on this subject.

---

(May 29, 2014 at 5:00 pm)Faith No More Wrote: The most interesting part of the climate change debate isn't so much the denial of science as it is the resistance to change. We know that we overwhelmingly use finite energy resources, so it's eventually going to become a problem anyway. Our lifestyle just isn't sustainable, and regardless of climate change, it needs to be dealt with. Anything less is just doing what John Oliver said in the video, "Fuck 'em."

To me this is a much more convincing argument for change then we cherry picked a pool of scientist and 97% of them agree with our tenets(which I'm still not sure what those tenets are).

(May 29, 2014 at 5:11 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(May 29, 2014 at 4:59 pm)Raeven Wrote: I have an idea, Heywood. Since you obviously know more than anyone else on the forum, why don't you tell me the percentage of climate change scientists who agree that climate change is happening and that it is human-caused? Then you can tell me why I should accept it or reject it. Clearly I'm just a drooling idiot who wouldn't understand "facts" if they bit me in the ass. I'm sure you don't mind enlightening me.

I would say nearly 100% of scientist would agree that humans are a factor in climate change. But that isn't the important question. The important question is are we humans so much of a factor that we are headed on a path of a humanitarian catastrophe?

You are probably in a better position to answer that question then I am. I don't know...I haven't studied the subject deeply. Right now I'm content with whatever course humanity chooses on this subject.

So basically, you're just being a dick, picking nits and wasting people's' time.