TexasCHLforum.com

I suggest reading Dr. Roy Spencer might lend some food for thought. He certainly makes good points. And his final concluding paragraph is telling.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-w ... r-dummies/

Edit:

Try to think macro rather than micro.

Give us your scientific evidence that proves it is macro rather than micro.

esxmarkc wrote: Because what appears to be bold text does not show up on my screen with enough difference to notice so your injected statement appeared entirely out of context. Your attempt to insult my reading comprehension however, is duly noted.

I included your quote. You created the context, not me. You had no trouble reading it when I wrote it the second time.

esxmarkc wrote: Why would I try to run one without electricity? Your're really loosing me here. Do you believe there is only one way to create electricity? Ever seen a windmill? A hydroelectric power plant?

I'm loosing you (sic)? Are you seriously suggesting covering the entire country with windmills? Exactly where would you propose additional hydro electric plants be built? You're going to need a lot of them. And we haven't even gotten to how to conduct mining operations for raw materials without petroleum or how to have beautiful wooden grips by cutting down trees and hauling them by hand. I'm done here.

As to your first question. Here is your quote:
"Very little good science is ever done attempting to prove a pre-conceived outcome."
To which I replied that an immense amount of good science is done trying to prove or disprove pre-conceived outcome hypotheses. (Such as Einstein's hypotheses - which should be well known). I'm not sure why you have trouble understanding that, but misdirection is hardly a winning argument.

esxmarkc wrote: Are we ever going to be able to mine and source the raw materials without the use of fossil fuels? That sir, is the billion dollar question.

Will we ever be able to machine it without the use of fossil fuels? That sir, is on our horizon: https://blog.solidconcepts.com/industry ... metal-gun/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Be interesting to see how the 3D printer works minus electricity. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on your future green utopia. Have a great day.

"So you're throwing peer review out the window? Doesn't work like that. And you don't get grants based on who you preach to. Just not how it works. Been there, seen that. You get grants based on the research you are proposing, not the outcome you intend to prove. Very little good science is ever done attempting to prove a pre-conceived outcome.

That sentence alone tells me you have never attempted to submit scientific research papers or even been a part of the process of peer review. Not unless you are in charge of defining what is "good science.

Edit to add: I suppose all the countless thousands of hours of research attempting to prove Einstein's (and many others) theories were correct don't count.

"Completely disagree. But let's "follow the money": The largest ever, irreversibly bloated, cash rich corporations have EVERYTHING to loose if it is proven that the cause is anthropogenic. And they are the LARGEST contributors to the rhetoric attempting to debunk global warming. Every last energy company has a lobbiest in the game and a scientist in the pocket.

So yea..... follow the money.... and once you have sorted through and thrown out the totally biased rhetoric generated by the energy industry as well as any other gibberish created by strictly liberal snare banging what you are left with is a pretty good body of peer-reviewed research that everyone (even you) has direct access to. Feel free to peruse it and make your educated decisions. This is all I urge any good tax-paying American to do."

I'm not sure what part you think I didn't read here. You off hand dismiss any energy company efforts as completely biased along with the loonie farm, and accept the peer review process as gospel. It is as if you really believe there is no money to be made in "green energy" and the practitioners of it are simply living hand to mouth begging alms at the city gate. If they have an idea that will work, let them develop it and sell it - with their own money. That, by voting with their hard earned dollars and at the polls, is what good tax paying Americans should do.

By the way. You really need to journey to West Texas and see the many thousands of wind mills that have covered the countryside for hundreds of square miles. All to provide 20% of the energy required for a metro area of one quarter million people. That, in my opinion, would be a much better investment in your education than reading papers about green energy.

As for your most recent post, you've gone off on a tangent. I, and many others here I suspect, have heard that tired cliche of "bleeding Texas dry" of oil since the 1960's. Maybe we'd be better to just stick to how you can buy a "green" gun that has no petroleum products in it.

esxmarkc...You seem to have it all figured out. I guess you have figured out how to make the Russians, Chinese, and let's shoot for the moon, the Mexicans, help save the planet by cutting out all non-green energy sources. I'd sure be interested to hear your plan for global compliance.

Just for the record, I bet you consume way more of the product from the "major energy companies" than you think. In fact, I bet you are even wearing some. You surely ate what they provided to your table tonight. I expect you are enjoying the cool inside your home tonight? You think maybe any guns you own came into existence without input from them? I really want to hear what "unsettled science" you think can currently replace them. While you're at, it would sure be nice if you could manage to calm any hurricanes that come up in the Gulf this year. You spoke of destroying the planet. No one has suggested otherwise. But I must have missed the part about really changing planetary evolution back to a previous state. How exactly would you do that? Because you see, if man is really totally in charge, then it follows that such positive planetary modification would be well within reach. If he is not, then that is a pipe dream for the foreseeable future.

Now surely I intend none of this as personal toward you. But you do sound like you have a bone to pick with our current way of life. I think that before anyone advocates ending it they should have some kind of plan in hand.

One last thing. If you truly believe the peer review process guarantees uniformity of thought, research, and conclusion among the entire body scientific, then you have missed a major lesson in the influence of the body politic.

Oldgringo...stop with the thoughts of snow..."oh the bells, the bells."

As usual, TAM you hit the nail on the head. "Lint-brained idiot". I love it. I always have to shake my head in wonder when I hear the "well settled scientific fact" that humans are responsible for climate change. It surely happens, so logically we humans must be responsible. After all, we have 150 years of data to back up our "scientific" conclusions.

I submit that every student graduating high school should be required to take a semester of geology concluding with a field trip or two. The science of planetary geology clearly teaches us that Texas was almost entirely covered with a warm sea teeming with life. The remnants of that time are easily seen in core samples from thousands of feet beneath the surface. In a later epoch, Pleistocene to be exact, much of North America was covered with glaciers thousands of feet thick. When they melted, the runoff created rivers and canyons that changed the very face of the earth and are still seen today. Arguing that planetary climate change doesn't exist flies in the face of history and most of us know what happens when we ignore history.

However, implying that humans caused that change is simply ludicrous. The earth has been changing for eons in both meso and micro cycles without human help, thank you very much. Call me what you will, but my clear understanding is that much of what passes for "science" today, and in particular "global warming", is nothing more than human greed driven by government grants - pay checks - doled out to those who arrive at the required conclusions (by whatever political agenda happens to control the purse strings). Results-oriented "science" is nothing more than tom foolery. Or maybe stated another way, theft of the treasury.

It reminds me of folks like Bloombergie opening the pocketbooks to achieve gun control at the expense of truth and the Republic.