Global warming?

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

It could be read as a possible concerted effort to deceive via coercion rather than putting all the data out in the public scientific community and allow it to be peer reviewed by any interested party.

Sure...it COULD be read as POSSIBLE

I dont dispute that.

I just dont think it is hard evidence of anything as some skeptics are claiming...or very earth shattering until there is more conclusive evidence.

[classicman]

Kinda like smoke pouring out the windows of a house. . . It's "possible" there is a fire in there. <shrug>

[ZenGum]

It's amazing how this tiny little drab of media-beat-up evidence about a single laboratory is enough to convince you it is all a fraud, yet a huge amount of widespread, published, peer-reviewed evidence wasn't enough to convince you that humans are changing the planet's climate.

It is always easy to convince a man of what he wants to believe, but that doesn't mean it is correct.

[TheMercenary]

I have no doubt that man has affected the climate. The problem I have is that when other learned peoples call into question the validity of the studies or how they were conducted they are minimized or worse. Let all the data become public and allow their peers to examine the evidence and replicate it in similar experiments.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

There is a difference, in that with hydrogen, we put the energy in there deliberately, but with the others it was there already, but ... so what?

The fuel used, and pollution created, to store energy in the form of hydrogen, is higher than if that fuel was used to do the work in the first place. Using hydrogen as a storage medium for photovoltic might work out someday, but rfn it's not practical and not done. Don't forget you need a hellatious compressor to concentrate that hydrogen, and compressors are super energy hogs.

[ZenGum]

True dat. Burning oil to produce hydrogen would be stupid.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Some people feel it's a justifiable way to move the pollution out of highly congested cities, to the country, by using it to power public transportation. But it doesn't look good in the big picture.

[ZenGum]

...and using "oil shale" ... bloody filthy.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

...and using "oil shale" ... bloody filthy.

I have seen reports and read stories about how the Oil Shale business in Canada has created some ecological disasters.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

is enough to convince you it is all a fraud,

Excuse me, are you referring to me here?

[wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

No horse has overdrive.

They are called quarterhorses.

They just can't sustain it for much more than the quarter-mile they're named after.

[spudcon]

The most efficient and prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, not CO2. Using hydrogen as a fuel would put much more water vapor in the air, and that really could cause global warming.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Major, major global warming news today.

A group of Russian hackers broke into systems at a Climate Research lab in East Anglia. Today they released 162 megs of data, code, and emails. One of the lab directors has said the documents are genuine.

So far only the emails have been documented by people getting into it all, and they seem to indicate that the environmental scientists there have engaged in quite a bit of FRAUD.

= manipulated evidence;
= had doubts about warming;
= suppressed evidence;
= expressed violent fantasies about GW skeptic scientists;
= attempted to disguise the Medieval Warm Period by framing it out in time;
= discussed how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process

Does this mean warming is not happening? I still think it is, based on the measurements other than instrumental. If we go back to this chart from Wikipedia, I think it's the black line that's suspect, that's the instrumental line, which comes from that data:



The other measurements show warming too, just not as wickedly ramped up.

Why doesn't anyone want to show the temperature charts from 2000 onward? Here's what Ive been finding.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Why doesn't anyone want to show the temperature charts from 2000 onward?

perhaps because it doesn't support their theories. On the other hand. The change in temps seems more erratic in the last few decades...
<shrug>

[morethanpretty]

Originally Posted by spudcon

Why doesn't anyone want to show the temperature charts from 2000 onward? Here's what Ive been finding.

Why didn't you post a temperature chart showing the climate from before major industrialization?

Originally Posted by classicman

perhaps because it doesn't support their theories. On the other hand. The change in temps seems more erratic in the last few decades...
<shrug>

Yeah, just a bit erratic...