Global Warming Study Flawed

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

18Million has been spent by "big business" to try to discredit Global Warming. 50million has been spent to promote it...

Who exactly is buying the scientists?

i could be wrong.. the millions might actually be billions.. read the article aboutit a few days ago.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

18Million has been spent by "big business" to try to discredit Global Warming. 50million has been spent to promote it...

Who exactly is buying the scientists?

i could be wrong.. the millions might actually be billions.. read the article aboutit a few days ago.

If we assume that factoid is correct - Lets just say it is true as initially stated is and that none of this money is actually spent on research but just on "awareness/promotion" which i think is the idea there:

The raw $$ spent on something makes no intrinsic argument about the right or wrong of something.

Could easily make up any random arguments we wanted in either direction about why one number is bigger than the other.

[ttogreh]

You know, this whole "is there global warming? If so, what can be done about it?" debate is really truly pointless.

Pollution is bad. No matter what, drilling into the earth, pulling up goop, refining it, and burning it... POLLUTES!

I heard somewhere that there is enough electrical capacity in North America right now to replace 70 percent of all transportation vehicles with electric cars. Sure, half of the electricity comes from coal, BUT COAL PLANTS CAN BE MADE TO EMIT ZERO CARBON DIOXIDE. Moreover, you can feed that CO2 to algae, and then use the algae as food for cattle, or fertilizer, or... as diesel fuel.

I ran the numbers a couple of days ago. there are 2,050,000 households in metro Detroit, right? I am counting the nine-county wide Combined Statistical Area. Let's say 65 per cent of those households are single family dwellings. That's about 1,332,500 houses. Let's say each house uses about 750 kilowatt hours a month, or 25 kilowatts a day.

That's 999,375,000 kilowatts a month, or 33,312,500 kilowatts a day.

If ten per cent of the house in Metro Detroit put 25 solar panels on their roofs, a 3 and a half megawatt coal plant could either be shut down or used to power electric vehicles.

Forget about saving the earth. Let's frame the argument in a way that will save our communities.

Edited for correct energy savings...

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

Personally I think we should focus more on alternate energy sources than using up the rest of our natural resources i.e. coal. There's got to be a way to use the sun in more ways than one. Couldn't some sort of lens be utilized to boil water and produce steam? Fusion would be a huge step for us. I wonder if there are any materials that can withstand the heat of the sun if some sort of device was sent to the sun. Could we find a way to transfer energy back using satellites? I know this is probably way impossible and hardly the point of anything. The point is if something isn't done, we'll be back in the stone age one day or at least most of the human population will be. I don't completely see this as a bad thing though....

[Troy Spiral (13)]

You know, this whole "is there global warming? If so, what can be done about it?" debate is really truly pointless.

I'd have to disagree there. This is an important subject that should be discussed. A lot more important than probably 98% of everything else that people waste time talking about. No?

The rest of your post does raise some interesting things to think about though. *ponders*

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Personally I think we should focus more on alternate energy sources than using up the rest of our natural resources i.e. coal. There's got to be a way to use the sun in more ways than one. Couldn't some sort of lens be utilized to boil water and produce steam? Fusion would be a huge step for us. I wonder if there are any materials that can withstand the heat of the sun if some sort of device was sent to the sun. Could we find a way to transfer energy back using satellites? I know this is probably way impossible and hardly the point of anything. The point is if something isn't done, we'll be back in the stone age one day or at least most of the human population will be. I don't completely see this as a bad thing though....

Tesla could have figured out a way to sap the Sun directly.

What we could tap, are Solar winds. Microwave emitions and such. Beam the energy down in a microwave laser.

[torn asunder]

Tesla could have figured out a way to sap the Sun directly.

What we could tap, are Solar winds. Microwave emitions and such. Beam the energy down in a microwave laser.

tesla was a fucken genius!!

[Msterbeau]

tesla was a fucken genius!!

He can't be the only one out there...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

There was that guy.. bought all those old air force computers. Hooked them all together randomly. Turn it all on and started turning dials. Weirdness happened. Noone has ever been able to duplicate what he did though. He filmed most of it. prolly out there on the internet if i could think of his name.

[GARGOYLE FUSIC]

There is no serious scientific controversy within the scientific community about the fact of global warming. Global warming is only politically controversial. The random scientists that big business pulls out of their pocket ( but we usually see via backing from their political puppets) are in the extreme, nearly non-existent minority of scientists who study such things by comparison.

There is no serious scientific controversy about the fact of global warming. Controversy about some of the nitty-gritty details? Yeah sure. But not about the subject as a whole. Pointing out random problems with random points here and there is an error in logic to extrapolate it to mean the whole subject is in error.

The scientific evidence against global warming as a man-influenced phenomenon is very weak. The arguments heavily rely on people "believing what they want to believe" rather than actually basing it on widespread, tested again and again research.

You can always find some random factoids or studies that will follow along with what you already prefer to believe. Basically the exact same deal as evolution just with a different (although related) set of pundits. Until i started doing some hardcore research about such things i was easily confused by the political/media show business. A handful of articles can always be found in one direction or the other, which should not sway anyone. The entire body of evidence needs to be looked at.

This is absolutely false and I have serious questions about your research methods if that is what you concluded.

There has been several polls amongst scientist about global warming and there has never been one overwhelming consenus.

I would suggest reading this on your second round of research

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fus...ec-6880767e7966