The Hull Truth - Boating and Fishing Forum

Go Back   >
Search


Like Tree114Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-13-2017, 12:13 PM   #121
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstang1988 View Post
Nice try, but not quite.

The "proof of impossibility" you reference in the wikipedia article, particularly with natural science, references ideas or theories that violate the laws of physics, e.g. perpetual motion.

Attempting to prove a negative about causation in terms of mans influence on the global climate, with countless known and unknown variables, is absolutely not possible.
ebbtideandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 01:08 PM   #122
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville, 'Merica!
Posts: 1,290
Default

What kind of "scientist" references Wikipedia to begin with? Hell, my school aged kids aren't even allowed to reference that nonsense for book reports.
Marlin308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 01:23 PM   #123
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,546
Default

Here is a graph created by an actual hurricane scientist showing 50 years of hurricane data (the satellite era)


dell30rb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 05:59 PM   #124
KVH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 132
Default

Bryan A. likes this.
KVH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 07:47 PM   #125
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KVH View Post
China is one of the world's leaders in accepting global warming as fact and going towards 0% carbon based power.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_China
China is the world's leading country in electricity production from renewable energy sources, with over double the generation of the second-ranking country, the United States.[citation needed] In 2013 the country had a total capacity of 378 GW of renewable power, mainly from hydroelectric and wind power. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity.

Although China currently has the world's largest installed capacity of hydro, solar and wind power, its energy needs are so large that in 2013 renewables provided just a little over 20% of its power generation, with most of the remainder provided by traditional coal power facilities.[1] Nevertheless, the share of renewable sources in the energy mix had been gradually rising from 2013.
Chinese government position: Let's take control of this emerging economy and become the world leaders in creating tens of thousands of jobs through innovation, experimentation and implementation.

US government position: It's just a Chinese made hoax. We need to get those 500 coal workers back in the mines and maga.

Just saying.
Koocanusa Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:20 PM   #126
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville, 'Merica!
Posts: 1,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koocanusa Sam View Post
Chinese government position: Let's take control of this emerging economy and become the world leaders in creating tens of thousands of jobs through innovation, experimentation and implementation.

US government position: It's just a Chinese made hoax. We need to get those 500 coal workers back in the mines and maga.

Just saying.
So you agree it's all about the money?
Marlin308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:42 PM   #127
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin308 View Post
So you agree it's all about the money?
No, not at all. It's about the environment, about continuing comfortable lifestyles, maybe even at the most extreme alarmist viewpoint our survival. But whether it's true or not, why not lead the parade and make a lot of money instead of of fighting like two spoiled kids watching the parade go by on the way to somebody else's town?
Koocanusa Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 09:48 PM   #128
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airbrush View Post
I say burn coal.
Interesting position to take. Why not also bring back coal burning steamships, or any number of historical inventions that led the world markets during their time? I have in previous posts been accused of wanting to turn back the clock, when it is not I that is suggesting a return to outmoded and soon to be limited or useless technologies.

America has been the leading innovator for the last many decades. So sad to see that baton being passed off to others while we fight amongst ourselves.
Koocanusa Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 10:20 PM   #129
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville, 'Merica!
Posts: 1,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koocanusa Sam View Post
No, not at all. It's about the environment, about continuing comfortable lifestyles, maybe even at the most extreme alarmist viewpoint our survival. But whether it's true or not, why not lead the parade and make a lot of money instead of of fighting like two spoiled kids watching the parade go by on the way to somebody else's town?
So we should create an entire industry, complete with research and development centers, manufacturing plants, assembly operations, workforce training, and god knows what all else to lead the world in an arena that you admit "may be true or not"? Keeping in mind the funding for such an enterprise will almost certainly come from tax dollars in one way or another. All to try and stop something that is happening naturally as it has for billions of years...long before our arrogant species started walking upright.

While we're at it, should we also slow the rotation of the earth to make our days last longer? Or perhaps study how to make every sunset spectacular? Or reduce the effects of gravity so we can all jump higher? All of these seem as plausible as attempting to stop the natural warming of the planet as it nears the end of its most recent ice age. What a joke.

Follow the money. Always. Thanks for proving this point.
Marlin308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 10:48 PM   #130
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ebbtideandy View Post
Nice try, but not quite.

The "proof of impossibility" you reference in the wikipedia article, particularly with natural science, references ideas or theories that violate the laws of physics, e.g. perpetual motion.

Attempting to prove a negative about causation in terms of mans influence on the global climate, with countless known and unknown variables, is absolutely not possible.
I think this is the important part of the link:

"While an impossibility assertion in science can never be absolutely proved, it could be refuted by the observation of a single counterexample. Such a counterexample would require that the assumptions underlying the theory that implied the impossibility be re-examined."

Science and scientific theories can be used to produce the counterexample. Imagine to our surprise that most climate change scientists are doing this.

More importantly please dig up the definition of scientific theory. A scientific theory does not have to be proven, rather it can be confirmed through observations and experiments. That is something like the theory of gravity hasn't been "proven" yet it is considered fact.
mstang1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 11:02 PM   #131
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin308 View Post
What kind of "scientist" references Wikipedia to begin with? Hell, my school aged kids aren't even allowed to reference that nonsense for book reports.
A study by EPIC and Oxford in 4 languages has shown Wikipedia to be of high quality and similar to encyclopedias.

I'll agree it's not perfect but it was convenient. I'm certain on that particular topic that plenty of non wikipedia articles and papers will concur with it.

If you are going to complain about my "science" background can you enlighten us on yours?
mstang1988 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2017, 11:20 PM   #132
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 273
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlin308 View Post
So we should create an entire industry, complete with research and development centers, manufacturing plants, assembly operations, workforce training, and god knows what all else to lead the world in an arena that you admit "may be true or not"? Keeping in mind the funding for such an enterprise will almost certainly come from tax dollars in one way or another.
Yes, it's only after seeing you put it in writing that I now realize what a colossal folly it would be for America to invest all that effort and expense in some new industry. Let's let the Chinese take all that risk while we stick with something safer. Like coal.
Koocanusa Sam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 01:21 AM   #133
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,498
Default

Its amazing how idiots believe everything they hear.



China consumes more than 4 billion tons of coal each year, compared to less than 1 billion tons in the United States and 600 million tons in the European Union. China surpassed the United States to become the largest global carbon dioxide emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by 2017. By 2040, China’s coal power fleet is expected to be 50 percent larger than it is today and these power plants typically operate for 40 years or more.[vii]
CARV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 05:13 AM   #134
KVH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 132
Default

That fact that China consumes more coal is irrelevant. China has become a global powerhouse with a huge demand for energy. They know it and they have accepted the downside risks of burning coal as a necessary evil while striving to convert as much of their energy production to clean and renewable energy sources. They also currently lead the world in both solar and wind energy.

They don't have their heads stuck in the sand like the members of our current administration.
KVH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 05:27 AM   #135
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: North Central Florida
Posts: 10,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KVH View Post
That fact that China consumes more coal is irrelevant. China has become a global powerhouse with a huge demand for energy. They know it and they have accepted the downside risks of burning coal as a necessary evil while striving to convert as much of their energy production to clean and renewable energy sources. They also currently lead the world in both solar and wind energy.

They don't have their heads stuck in the sand like the members of our current administration.
I don't think the current administration has it's head in the sand, I believe they are just busy cleaning up a mess left behind by an administration that promoted green energy while suppressing other sources of production.

Green energy had much support for 8 years and still never became self sustaining. Now the guru of green, who's become very rich off public subsidies, is digging tunnels.... I don't blame him one bit either... If I had his money, I'd do whatever the Hell I wanted to as well.
BlueRudy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 06:57 AM   #136
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 18,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airbrush View Post
I say burn coal.
And outlaw sheep farting and volcanos from erupting without a permit.
billinstuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 07:01 AM   #137
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sunny florida
Posts: 18,106
Default

ANY! oxidation(burning) of ANY hydrocarbon fuel produces ONLY carbon dioxide and water in a pure reaction. Coal, gasoline, natural gas, you name it. Sometimes you get particulate, which is NOT a chemical. Incomplete combustion produces CO, oxides of nitrogen, etc.
billinstuart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 07:16 AM   #138
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 188
Default

Time to SOLVE THE PROBLEM,and close this Fake thread.So,Nothen if all the Librals would just close their mouths(do the Hilary yoga nostril thing if you have to ) ,and just stop
the nonsense about fake solutions to Fake issues,and stop all their Fake news ,we would all be better off.Het get'n cooler already.
See with these folks it's always a problem with no hunan solution ,you can see the results of.Follow the $,just another mad eup Fake news story to control you & America's wealth.
Sam you know what this really is Fake climate science.
I like HEAT.I need heat.I can't live without heat.
Vinnie
vincentdivincenzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 07:38 AM   #139
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Nashville, 'Merica!
Posts: 1,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstang1988 View Post
A study by EPIC and Oxford in 4 languages has shown Wikipedia to be of high quality and similar to encyclopedias.

I'll agree it's not perfect but it was convenient. I'm certain on that particular topic that plenty of non wikipedia articles and papers will concur with it.

If you are going to complain about my "science" background can you enlighten us on yours?
Oh I'm not a scientist...just a semi-educated redneck with enough common sense to know BS when I see it (regarding man-made climate change). But according to an earlier post, you are a scientist, and therefore should be held to a higher standard of reference IMO. But I will take your argument and use it against my daughters 9th grade science teacher so she can start referencing Wikipedia in future projects.
Marlin308 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 07:44 AM   #140
Admirals Club
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,546
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KVH View Post
They also currently lead the world in both solar and wind energy.

They don't have their heads stuck in the sand like the members of our current administration.
China is possibly the most polluted country in the world, with toxic rivers, streams, horrible smog. An estimated 760,000 premature deaths associated with air and water pollution occur each year in China. Yet they are some kind of world leader, a shining beacon of clean living that we should aspire to, because they put up a couple wind turbines and solar fields? Lipstick on a pig.

Name:  Beijing_smog_comparison_August_2005.png
Views: 89
Size:  151.5 KB
dell30rb is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:28 PM.


©2009 TheHullTruth.com

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.9.3.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.