Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 14-05-2019, 18:23   #256
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
"China actually is dealing with its carbon emissions. The Chinese government has made a commitment not just to the world by signing the Paris climate agreement, but to its own people."

Well now, I'm convinced! We'd better get busy trying to catch up! Too bad for the Chinese people that their proud nation is run by a totalitarian govt that isn't accountable to them, routinely violates its commitments to the rest of the world, has no freedom of speech or the press, and is exporting the highest emitting form of energy production around the world purely for profit. Yeah, let's ignore all that and focus on imposing carbon taxes here at home. Yeah, that'll fix it.

It's already been said, but this has got to be the silliest, most malleable, and most self-righteous group of liberals that have been inflicted upon us yet.
__________________

Exile is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:26   #257
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,429
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
Its about time people in Europe started waking up to the agw mythos .
https://www.theguardian.com/environm...climate-denial

The AfD is hard-right, populist, anti-immigrant, and CC deniers. They even have ties to the Heartland Institute. What's not to like, right?
__________________

Lake-Effect is online now  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:31   #258
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
The AfD is hard-right, populist, anti-immigrant, and CC deniers. They even have ties to the Heartland Institute. What's not to like, right?
sure seems to hit all of your triggers to be against it without actually looking at any of the possible relevant datum that may or may not be in the article .

The mere fact that they say anti agw is enough for you.

Btw the heartland institute is more often than not proven to be correct.
What hasn't been proven hasn't happened yet.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:35   #259
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,429
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
"China actually is dealing with its carbon emissions. The Chinese government has made a commitment not just to the world by signing the Paris climate agreement, but to its own people."

Well now, I'm convinced! We'd better get busy trying to catch up! Too bad for the Chinese people that their proud nation is run by a totalitarian govt that isn't accountable to them, routinely violates its commitments to the rest of the world, has no freedom of speech or the press, and is exporting the highest emitting form of energy production around the world purely for profit. Yeah, let's ignore all that and focus on imposing carbon taxes here at home. Yeah, that'll fix it.
No sh1t, Sherlock.

Thank God that the west has already created the next generation of cleaner, safer, more economical generation systems, and is making it available to the developing world at favourable terms, so that they don't have to look to the totalitarian Chinese regime for dirty generation.

Oh wait, we didn't.

But at least you'll never again say "But, China!" when defending your reticence to doing anything, right?
Lake-Effect is online now  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:38   #260
cruiser

Join Date: Jan 2017
Boat: Retired from CF
Posts: 13,304
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
The AfD is hard-right, populist, anti-immigrant, and CC deniers. They even have ties to the Heartland Institute. What's not to like, right?
The party’s symposium at the Bundestag is backed by the European Institute of Climate and Energy (EIKE), a group that rejects mainstream scientific consensus that climate change is man-made and has links to prominent conservative groups in the US.

EIKE’s annual climate conference is co-sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a fossil fuel industry-funded US thinktank that has a history of funding projects aimed at weakening public confidence in climate science, the investigation found. EIKE’s president, Holger Thuss, co-founded the European branch of another US climate change denial pressure group, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

CFACT Europe received financial support from its US counterpart, according to documents seen by the Guardian.

Thuss acknowledged to Greenpeace Unearthed that he was “one of Heartland’s many experts”, and did not deny financial links between Heartland and EIKE but was keen to stress he was a member of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats and not the AfD.

He told Greenpeace Unearthed that CFACT Europe had been disbanded, although he did not say when, and denied that EIKE was supporting the AfD’s symposium, despite it promoting it on the homepage of its website as as an opportunity to “set facts against CO2 hysteria and climate activism”.

EIKE’s vice-president, Michael Limburg, who has previously run as a candidate for the AfD, has insisted EIKE was not politically affiliated, but admitted “loose ties” between EIKE, Heartlands and CFACT.

Among the scheduled speakers at the AfD event are the Tirolean glaciologist Gernot Patzelt, the Danish atmospheric physicist Henrik Svensmark, and*Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, a former Ukip candidate described as a hereditary peer, hobby mathematician and former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, who claims models used to measure climate change are flawed.

Promotional materials for the event cite Greta as someone placed on the frontline of climate activism “by PR professionals seeking to bedevil the plant-nutrient carbon dioxide” and describe the AfD as “the only party in Germany not willing to back the supposed climate consensus”.

The AfD did not respond to requests for comment.

Karsten Smid, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace Germany, told the Guardian: “The AfD is using the Bundestag as a stage for its dissemination of climate lies. They invite fake experts to a so-called symposium on climate change to generate content for mass dissemination via social media channels and stir up hatred and anger on the internet.

“We are experiencing a shift to the right on social media and in society. In a short period of time, the new right has established its own counter-society on climate issues. With troll armies, agitating magazines and the support of climate sceptics like EIKE, it has created its own sphere that is massively underestimated.”
john61ct is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:39   #261
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
No sh1t, Sherlock.

Thank God that the west has already created the next generation of cleaner, safer, more economical generation systems, and is making it available to the developing world at favourable terms, so that they don't have to look to the totalitarian Chinese regime for dirty generation.

Oh wait, we didn't.

But at least you'll never again say "But, China!" when defending your reticence to doing anything, right?
actually they are working on it its called SMR.
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:47   #262
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by SailOar View Post
The vast majority of the posts I've made regarding methane have been synopsis of scientific studies by those most knowledgeable in the relevant disciplines. The fact that you would make such a comment is why it is more accurate to describe you as a denier, not a skeptic.

When I first noticed your posting on AGW topics I felt you were making an honest attempt to be a skeptic, and I appreciated that about you even though I didn't always agree with you. At some point you gravitated away from being an honest skeptic and mostly became a champion for the anti-AGW crowd. You nit-pick over the slightest inaccuracy that an "alarmist" makes, yet completely ignore the whoppers that "deniers" make.



You complain most eloquently when the term "denier" is used, yet seem to have no understanding that using the term "alarmist" is equally insulting.

EDIT:
For the record, I would be happy to have you call me an "alarmist" if you would extend me the same courtesy when I call you a "denier".
I wasn't permitted to merely be a "skeptic." There is no tolerance for anything other than full immersion, total conformity, pure adherence to the selected ideology in today's monolithic liberal world. The sincerity of my stated skepticism has been constantly challenged, doubted, shamed and ridiculed, and the denier label quickly substituted whenever myself or anyone else challenges the scripted meme. It's silly and pathetic, especially since none of us really have no idea what any of us believes, how we think, or why our opinions have evolved.

Once again, deniers are most commonly associated with neo-Nazi's, Iranian mullahs, anti-Semites, and other well liked, caring people who deny the Holocaust for their own hateful & twisted reasons. Alarmism as used in the present context is a negligent or deliberate attempt to heighten the fears of people concerned about CC in order to manipulate them into believing the same way you do. Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with either group, whether I was a strong believer in CC, a skeptic, or thought it was all BS.

P.S. Did you see Newhaul's posts re: the analysis done over the past 10 years on the release of methane in the production of natural gas? Why don't you respond to that on its merits rather than wasting everyone's time with these silly labels?
Exile is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:55   #263
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I wasn't permitted to merely be a "skeptic." There is no tolerance for anything other than full immersion, total conformity, pure adherence to the selected ideology in today's monolithic liberal world. The sincerity of my stated skepticism has been constantly challenged, doubted, shamed and ridiculed, and the denier label quickly substituted whenever myself or anyone else challenges the scripted meme. It's silly and pathetic, especially since none of us really have no idea what any of us believes, how we think, or why our opinions have evolved.

Once again, deniers are most commonly associated with neo-Nazi's, Iranian mullahs, anti-Semites, and other well liked, caring people who deny the Holocaust for their own hateful & twisted reasons. Alarmism as used in the present context is a negligent or deliberate attempt to heighten the fears of people concerned about CC in order to manipulate them into believing the same way you do. Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with either group, whether I was a strong believer in CC, a skeptic, or thought it was all BS.

P.S. Did you see Newhaul's posts re: the analysis done over the past 10 years on the release of methane in the production of natural gas? Why don't you respond to that on its merits rather than wasting everyone's time with these silly labels?
he responded with an article about methane from a couple of high arctic lakes in Canada that the scientists themselves said the methane released was not significant. Compared to mans emissions and they have been stagnant. So what does that tell you ?

Nothing directly related to the methane from the oil fields which is being captured compressed and sold so not just being flashed off
__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 18:56   #264
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
No sh1t, Sherlock.

Thank God that the west has already created the next generation of cleaner, safer, more economical generation systems, and is making it available to the developing world at favourable terms, so that they don't have to look to the totalitarian Chinese regime for dirty generation.

Oh wait, we didn't.

But at least you'll never again say "But, China!" when defending your reticence to doing anything, right?
My reticence to "doing something" is a manufactured figment of your imagination, a strawman, and simply dishonest. It's also ironic given that you've already made it clear that you haven't made the slightest effort to reduce emissions in your own life. For once try responding to the substance of the debate and not who's doing the debating. Your inability to defend your positions with logic & reason has not gone unnoticed, and only shows how personal, biased, and vacuous your outlook really is. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're smarter than this.
Exile is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 19:02   #265
Registered User
 
Exile's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Land of Disenchantment
Boat: Bristol 47.7
Posts: 4,790
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
he responded with an article about methane from a couple of high arctic lakes in Canada that the scientists themselves said the methane released was not significant. Compared to mans emissions and they have been stagnant. So what does that tell you ?

Nothing directly related to the methane from the oil fields which is being captured compressed and sold so not just being flashed off
SailOar's response concerned future projected methane emissions from those lakes, and not the past 10 years specifically from natural gas production. It tells me nothing, and I was frankly surprised by the studies you posted. I wasn't sure about its impacts, but thought that methane releases from fracking were a legitimate issue. Is this an example of the published research findings SailOar posted about this in all these threads being false?
Exile is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 19:20   #266
Registered User
 
SailOar's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 616
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
I wasn't permitted to merely be a "skeptic." There is no tolerance for anything other than full immersion, total conformity, pure adherence to the selected ideology in today's monolithic liberal world. The sincerity of my stated skepticism has been constantly challenged, doubted, shamed and ridiculed, and the denier label quickly substituted whenever myself or anyone else challenges the scripted meme. It's silly and pathetic, especially since none of us really have no idea what any of us believes, how we think, or why our opinions have evolved.

Once again, deniers are most commonly associated with neo-Nazi's, Iranian mullahs, anti-Semites, and other well liked, caring people who deny the Holocaust for their own hateful & twisted reasons. Alarmism as used in the present context is a negligent or deliberate attempt to heighten the fears of people concerned about CC in order to manipulate them into believing the same way you do. Personally, I wouldn't want to be associated with either group, whether I was a strong believer in CC, a skeptic, or thought it was all BS.
Confusingly, many words have multiple meanings, and the intended meaning has to be inferred from the context. When we are having a discussion regarding AGW and I call someone a "denier", I mean that they are a climate science denier, not a holocaust denier. I think you, in fact, already understand that, but for some reason feel the need to defend your painful sensitivity.

Quote:
P.S. Did you see Newhaul's posts re: the analysis done over the past 10 years on the release of methane in the production of natural gas? Why don't you respond to that on its merits rather than wasting everyone's time with these silly labels?
So now we are using the term "silly labels". I hope you understand that you are as guilty as any of using unnecessarily provocative language.

And yes, I did see Newhaul's post regarding methane released in the production of natural gas. I did respond to it, somewhat indirectly, by posting research that indicates that certain types of arctic thermokarst lakes may be generating far more methane than previously thought, and may do so even with reduced CO2 emmisions. Newhaul subsequently posted some more links and made (questionable) assertions regarding methane, which I did not respond to. There is more I could say about his posts, but this thread wasn't suppose to be about AGW, so I've refrained from further comments about methane. I could be persuaded to change my mind if enough of this thread's participants want to make this YET ANOTHER AGW THREAD. I've bookmarked loads more studies I'd love to post.

What do you think, GordMay?

Naaaa... It's too much work. The deniers are just going to keep doing what they do best.
__________________
The greatest deception men suffer is their own opinions.
- Leonardo da Vinci -
SailOar is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 19:21   #267
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,429
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exile View Post
My reticence to "doing something" is a manufactured figment of your imagination, a strawman, and simply dishonest. It's also ironic given that you've already made it clear that you haven't made the slightest effort to reduce emissions in your own life. For once try responding to the substance of the debate and not who's doing the debating. Your inability to defend your positions with logic & reason has not gone unnoticed, and only shows how personal, biased, and vacuous your outlook really is. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure you're smarter than this.

Fine. Knock me over with your suggestions for how to moderate the growth of fossil-fuel extraction and use, or reducing the amount of single use plastics we discard.


You don't know what I do re emissions in my own life, and I like it that way.
Lake-Effect is online now  
Old 14-05-2019, 19:26   #268
Registered User

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Lake Ont
Posts: 5,429
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by newhaul View Post
actually they are working on it its called SMR.

SMRs are still 10+ years out, though.


* * *

For the benefit of the long-suffering moderators, and in the slim but still possible chance that anyone wants to continue discussing “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”, I am butting out. Cheers.
Lake-Effect is online now  
Old 14-05-2019, 20:01   #269
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2003
Boat: Dragonfly 1000 trimaran
Posts: 6,879
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Die Thread, DIE !!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleye s:
senormechanico is offline  
Old 14-05-2019, 20:12   #270
Senior Cruiser
 
newhaul's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: puget sound washington
Boat: 1968 Islander bahama 24 hull 182, 1963 columbia 29 defender. hull # 60
Posts: 8,550
Re: “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lake-Effect View Post
SMRs are still 10+ years out, though.

.
actually they are not 10 years out they are currently in studies for deployment

https://www.powermag.com/nuscale-gai...mr-deployment/

Just because your Canadian source is behind the curve doesn't mean everyone is.

SMR proposals progress through Canadian process - World Nuclear News

Then there is the resurgence for molten salt reactor technology
And the modernization thereof.
__________________

__________________
Non illigitamus carborundum
newhaul is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
arc, research

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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 Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Help analyze personal inspection findings (1 of 5) pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 5 24-09-2018 13:01
Help analyze personal inspection findings (4 of 5) - coolant deposits pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 0 07-09-2018 10:57
Help analyze personal inspection findings (3 of 5) - chainplate alignment pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 13 31-08-2018 20:26
Help analyze personal inspection findings (2 of 5) - rudder corrosion pillars Construction, Maintenance & Refit 8 30-08-2018 16:30
Findings Issued in Block Island Ferry Collision Soundbounder General Sailing Forum 11 14-06-2011 06:01

Advertise Here


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:26.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.