T1B

House Science Committee now getting its "science" from Breitbart.

The House of Representatives' Committee on Science, Space and Technology sent a tweet on Thursday linking to an article on the conservative media outlet Breitbart, saying that Earth's temperatures are in a "plunge."

http://www.businessinsider.com/house-sc ... rd-2016-12

Next up:

Dinosaurs roamed the earth up until 5,000 years ago.
Dogs flew spaceships
Indians can be in two places at once
The Aztecs invented the wire recorder
Your brain is not the boss!

Congratulations assholes - you fuckers own this.

Which part do you dispute?

The end of El Nino has caused quite a drop... which is a great disappointment to those who were citing the high temps of mid-2016 as "proof" of their (laughably) incrrect "theory."

Whole buncha grant-whores are going to have to eat a ton of crow... or keep doing what they do, and go alter some more observed data.

It isn't even a strong La Nina. But Breitbart is strongly full of shit

BSmack wrote:It isn't even a strong La Nina. But Breitbart is strongly full of shit

Uhm... it isn't officially a La Nina event yet (I'll let you know... has a BIG impact around these parts).

But we're coming out of an extremely strong El Nino.

Are you taking lessons from Mikey or something? Don't like the subject matter(you know... facts), so you try to change the subject midstream?

Dude -- use your brain. Apparently, your burning desire to be a leftist and be "on the right side of history" has removed any ability to reason that you might have had.

You let a political ideology* rule your life... which makes you a fucking idiot.



* -- And for some reason, "science" has become a political ideology.

Dins,

Maybe you should check with NASA before you start making statements about actual scientific facts.

https://www.climate.gov/enso

OK, I'll take it back, since they recently upgraded it (trust me, I hear a bunch about El Nino/La Nina where I live), but it's weak, and low-confidence to last for any significant period.

I guess I'll check with NASA about simple things. When it comes to actual scientific "facts" -- NASA was the crackpots (sup Hansen) who threw out a laughably retarded "theory," which was proven to be laughable over time... so they went back and altered observed data to make their stupidity not look so bad, and keep the gravy train rolling.

That is the exact opposite of "science."

Don't get me wrong -- I'm quite interested in the science. Too bad very, very little of it exists.


BTW -- you meant NOAA, not NASA, although they're both equally corrupt.

I actually first heard about it from a Rochester weatherman. We're big fans of El Nino back east.

Roach wrote:
Pops, your thoughts?

He doesn't know -----> how old the earth is.

Roach wrote:Pops, your thoughts?

A hearty bipartisan RACK.

Papa Willie wrote:
Then again - they know that there's only .0001% of the population (who are assholes like me) that will go back and review predictions. Y'all should try it. It's always hilarious.

Yeah, there is no need. Their hurricane and temp models are so broken that when they go back and put in a decade of actual numbers it still can't replicate what actually happened the next year. Rather than fix their models and see future predictions that don't match their narrative, they give a string of excuses and tell us the models are fine.

Dinsdale wrote:

* -- And for some reason, "science" has become a political ideology.

Ironic that you'd bring that up. Seeing as how it was the knuckledraggers who politicized this issue from the start.

So pointing out that "scientist" were altering data to support their hypothesis is politicizing science.

Got it, I will update the spreadsheet.

Dinsdale wrote:
That is the exact opposite of "science."

Don't get me wrong -- I'm quite interested in the science. Too bad very, very little of it exists.

This...coming from the genius who cleans sewage ponds for a living. Did you even graduate from HS?

Impressive that you're "interested" in science. Maybe you should learn some. Believe it or not, being the loudest bullshitter on the block doesn't make you an expert on anything besides being the loudest bullshitter on the block. Otherwise you'd already be in the MENSA hall of fame.

Even though I'm "interested" I don't claim to be an expert on atmospheric chemistry or physics. I'm pretty sure you think you are but, believe me, you're not. I do happen to know one, though, or at least I did until he, sadly, passed away a few years ago. And he was an expert on this stuff for 50 years or so. For some reason I'm a lot more inclined to believe his research than yours, or Jim Inhofe's or Breitbart's or Rick (I'm no scientist) Scott's. You can yell all you want about "partisan hacks" and "grant whores" but that doesn't make the science wrong.

Mikey wrote:You can yell all you want about "partisan hacks" and "grant whores" but that doesn't make the science wrong.

No... this does:

Left Seater wrote:"scientist" were altering data to support their hypothesis

Dinsdale wrote:

Mikey wrote:You can yell all you want about "partisan hacks" and "grant whores" but that doesn't make the science wrong.

No... this does:

Left Seater wrote:"scientist" were altering data to support their hypothesis

So, one (or even two) scientists altering data invalidates all of the other research (see Exxon)?

Nice try. Go back to school, dunce.

Mikey wrote:
So, one (or even two) scientists altering data invalidates all of the other research (see Exxon)?

Huh? If by "one (or even two)," you meant "multiple government agencies," then you're not as blinded by your masters as you look.

SCIENCE!!!!!


And before you launch into your ad hominem SOP, many, many, many scientists (real ones) and statisticians came to the same conclusions. And the folks at NASA were too stupid to figure that outside interested parties would actually save the data independently before NASA destroyed it.

Dinsdale wrote:SCIENCE!!!!!


And before you launch into your ad hominem SOP, many, many, many scientists (real ones) and statisticians came to the same conclusions. And the folks at NASA were too stupid to figure that outside interested parties would actually save the data independently before NASA destroyed it.

Yeah, there's a realiable news source! Principia Scientifica.

Dinsdale wrote:Which part do you dispute?

The end of El Nino has caused quite a drop... which is a great disappointment to those who were citing the high temps of mid-2016 as "proof" of their (laughably) incrrect "theory."

Whole buncha grant-whores are going to have to eat a ton of crow... or keep doing what they do, and go alter some more observed data.

You forgot to put up your hockey stick representation that the earth is cooling......of course, anybody with half a brain knows it's not but climate change isn't just about the earth heating up, it has an effect on all weather patterns....storms becoming more and more severe, weird temperature patterns around the globe, etc. all of the things that are indicators of climate change.....

the sad thing about most deniers is that they believe if they can convince someone the earth isn't heating up, that disproves all climate change.....but that's not the way it works, climate change has never been just about global warming.....

Dinsdale wrote:SCIENCE!!!!!


And before you launch into your ad hominem SOP, many, many, many scientists (real ones) and statisticians came to the same conclusions. And the folks at NASA were too stupid to figure that outside interested parties would actually save the data independently before NASA destroyed it.

I never had you pegged for a conspiracy guy but tell me why would NASA destroy data....they know there are other people that keep the same statistics so why would they "destroy" information?

Don't try to reason with Dr. Dinsdale, or even mention the difference between "weather" and "climate." He'll start throwing out insults, sputtering about partisan hacks and fake science, and probably have to change his shirt.

Dinsdale wrote:SCIENCE!!!!!


And before you launch into your ad hominem SOP, many, many, many scientists (real ones) and statisticians came to the same conclusions. And the folks at NASA were too stupid to figure that outside interested parties would actually save the data independently before NASA destroyed it.

LOL. Herr Prof. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert - retired geololgist.

Now there's a reputable climate scientist. Is that the best you can do?

Felix wrote: climate change ....storms becoming more and more severe...climate change.....climate change.....climate change has never been just about global warming.....

Yeah, climate change. Something that has been happening since the damn near forever. Remember, when the climate alarmists had to change from "global warming" to "climate change" since their dire predictions of massive temperature increases and super hurricanes and tornadoes didn't happen? Yeah, I remember that as well. The climate has been changing for millions of years and to think that we can slow or stop that is just idiotic. One Krakatoa makes anything we might do over centuries look like a fart in a hurricane.

So keep running your climate change moniker so that regardless of what happens you can blame it on humans.

So in a discussion of scientific legitimacy, you're claiming bode due to semantics?
Really. That's pretty weak.

Mikey wrote:So in a discussion of scientific legitimacy, you're claiming bode due to semantics?
Really. That's pretty weak.

Wrong again. I am pointing out the fact that the climate alarmists have changed their rallying slogan since the original was too narrow and wasn't happening anywhere close to their predictions. So given their batting average of zero on their predictions, they changed the narrative to keep themselves and their money flowing.

Left Seater wrote:
Yeah, climate change. Something that has been happening since the damn near forever. Remember, when the climate alarmists had to change from "global warming" to "climate change" since their dire predictions of massive temperature increases and super hurricanes and tornadoes didn't happen?

Show me an example of a climate scientist predicting cataclysmic events? Let me save you the time, it isn't out there......the only people that were saying that kind of shit were not scientists, they were just people who chose to take the scientific information and use it for their own personal agenda (s'up Al Gore)....scientists merely report what the evidence shows and base their conclusions on measurements and information.....

Felix wrote: ...scientists merely report what the evidence shows and base their conclusions on measurements and information.....

That or they alter data to support the outcome they want. Real scientific.

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote:So in a discussion of scientific legitimacy, you're claiming bode due to semantics?
Really. That's pretty weak.

Wrong again. I am pointing out the fact that the climate alarmists have changed their rallying slogan since the original was too narrow and wasn't happening anywhere close to their predictions. So given their batting average of zero on their predictions, they changed the narrative to keep themselves and their money flowing.

You pretty much just defined "semantics."

Left Seater wrote:

Mikey wrote: Wrong again. I am pointing out the fact that the climate alarmists have changed their rallying slogan since the original was too narrow and wasn't happening anywhere close to their predictions.

If you take out your bais language, you are describing science.

Right, global warming wasn't supported. Glad we agree.

Screw_Michigan wrote:
Yeah, there's a realiable news source! Principia Scientifica.

Dinsdale wrote:And before you launch into your ad hominem SOP

That's a good look for you... if you're into KYOA.

Felix wrote:anybody with half a brain knows it's not but climate change isn't just about the earth heating up, it has an effect on all weather patterns....storms becoming more and more severe

Ohhhh reeeelllly?

I know that was the prediction, based on a theory.

So, got a link yo back that up?

Let me help -- you don't have a link, because those predictions never happened.

Ergo (Latin)... the theory is wrong. Every single prediction based upon the theory has been wrong. The forces behind the theory are bating .000. Full stop, a zero batting average.

And since you're a fan of science (as we all are)... guess what? THE THEORY IS WRONG.

No longer up for debate. And science dictates that when your theory is proven wrong, you go back to the drawing board, and study more, and come up with a new theory/equations/correlations. Basic. Fucking. Science.

But that's not what these "every scientist says..." folks are doing, is it? Because they're grantwhores. If they admit to a mistake, the largess of the Producers of society dries up. They actually have the gall to go back and alter actual, observed data, then claim they were right (which means they need more money they didn't earn).

Pretty disgusting perversion of science, really.

yes dims oil is clean and should be used as much as possible. Did a grant whore tell you that?

Moving Sale wrote:yes dims oil is clean and should be used as much as possible. Did a grant whore tell you that?

Shit... did the quick brown fox jump over the lazy dog and the wet moose walk backward after midnight again?


I notice you didn't actually quote where I said "DRILL BABY DRILL!," or any other such thing.

And I know why you didn't quote me on that... because you made it up in an attempt to change the subject, since what I was addressing is irrefutable.


New energy sources are the future, beyond doubt. And if we want to see that transition in our lifetimes, one of two things needs to happen -- 1) WW3 or 2) Keep the fucking government and the grantwhores the fuck out of it. The person who builds a better mousetrap and reinvents this wheel will be the wealthiest person who ever lived. The only time in human history that government intervention ever accelerated technology has been when it made it easier to kill a bunch of people.


Yes, dumbfuck -- I can be pro-alternative energy, strongly pro-environment (I'm a member of an activist group that's very influential in regional environmental policy, albeit focusing on issues of salmon/steelhead/fish-in-general habitat. And earlier this year, I participated in a town hall to protest coal trains coming through the Columbia Gorge... and we won this round), and still have the ability to smell bullshit when I'm standing in a pile of bullshit. And the Cult Of Alarmist is spewing some serious bullshit... like the opposite of "science."

Burning fossil fuels is bad. I thik that "science is settled." But I also believe completely tossing out every standard of scientific ethics and integrity "for a good cause" is fucking disgusting, and certain powerful players using the complete horseshit "science" should be punished by the Star Chamber.

A good cause (which it is) doesn't excuse horrifically bad "science"... capisce? Hence my quite correct statement about mixing politics and science. If you don't toe the party line on the complete garbage "scientists" (mostly from academia, who rely on the public coffers for income) spew, you earn the label "Denier." Heck, why stop there? Let's go with "Heretic," like the days when a person didn't believe the Earth was flat (sup.... You Know Who)?

Sorry, bud -- I don't have to buy bullshit hook, line, and sinker. I can believe that fossil fuels are a dead-end and bad for the environment, while also laughing at the crap wannabes are claiming as "science" these days. The two concepts aren't mutually exclusive.

The fucker who will really be rich is the guy who develops high capacity battery storage. Then solar and wind make more sense.

So you are bitching and moaning for no reason. Good job dims.

Left Seater wrote:The fucker who will really be rich is the guy who develops high capacity battery storage. Then solar and wind make more sense.

Except for that pesky issue of ions being ions, and electrons being electrons. Unless someone invents a new periodic table, battery technology is what it is, although there's much room for development.

Hydraulic storage (which IIRC Moving Sale has discussed here... IIRC... help me out if I'm wrong, MS) is the viable technology at this point. Metal/acid storage is what it is, and heavy metals (which is how electrons are stored/transfered... have I mentioned I worked with batteries for most of a decade?) are an environmental problem unto themselves.

Moving Sale wrote:So you are bitching and moaning for no reason. Good job dims.

No, I'm bitching about the utter perversion of science for political and financial gains.

Super hard to scale up but my buddy that lives in mendo pumps water uphill during the day and reclaims the hydro at night.
As for grant whores, i still don't get why you care why fossil fules are phased out. Especially when global climate is so complicated and you just might be wrong.

Dinsdale wrote:

Left Seater wrote:The fucker who will really be rich is the guy who develops high capacity battery storage. Then solar and wind make more sense.

Except for that pesky issue of ions being ions, and electrons being electrons. Unless someone invents a new periodic table, battery technology is what it is, although there's much room for development.

You mean it is what it is, until it isn't?

You'd better believe that battery technology is changing all the time, you probably just don't hear about it much in the MSM because incremental changes don't make good click bait, but they do add up. And it's not just battery chemistry, but how cells are combined into larger system, and how they're dispatched, i.e. how how the energy being stored and released is controlled to serve the intended loads (demand response on the grid is a lot different than powering an electric vehicle). Elon Musk has placed some pretty big bets on batteries being the way of the future, at least the relatively near term future.



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ew-battery


BTW...I'm sort of interested in this stuff.

There are a lot of energy storage technologies out there, including pumped hydro and batteries. Lead acid is not a large scale solution. Li-ion is pretty much the go-to battery technology today, even in the 100 kW to multi-megwatt size range. There are also something called flow batteries which are used in fairly large scale applications.

A typical flow battery consists of two tanks of liquids which are pumped past a membrane held between two electrodes.

All of these technologies have advantages and disadvantages depending on their application. Unfortunately there isn't now, and never will be a single solution for all purposes. But used in combination they can, and eventually will, make a big difference. Sort of like like the various renewable, fossil and nuclear generation technologies. There will never be one that completely displaces all the rest. We just need to come up the the best possible mix.

Off the top of my head, here are a few technologies that are currently being used:

• Batteries (multiple types)
  Pumped Hydro
  Compressed Air
  Flywheels
  Hydrogen
  Eutectic salts (thermal storage)
  Chilled water or ice (thermal storage)

For any body who's interested, here's a decent overview of many of these technologies.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/assessments/ab ... _Study.pdf