Guns are like Climate change...

[TexasGal]

I used to be in the climate change boat. Then a friend of mine challenged me to not simply drink the koolaid, but to open my eyes and pay attention. The mainstream media has bought the whole thing and doesn't like to report on opposing expert viewpoints and scandals involving falsified data and the suppression of experts who didn't keep quiet etc, but the stories are out there in plenty if one looks for them. Nations in the UN are seeing this as a great bandwagon to make a grab for money. Political powers and the left are using it to motivate and control people. It didn't take long for me to see enough to put me in the "now I'm not so sure" boat. After a couple years, I have come full circle and no longer believe it is a proven fact man is at fault for undesirable weather. I do, however firmly believe man isn't going to do squat to actually control climate. All our efforts over carbon footprints, etc won't do anything to cool the earth or stop anything from melting. Nor will it stop the next ice age. I saw a video a climatologist made where he patiently walked the less educated like me through what it would take to theoretically lower the earth's temperature 1 degree. Holy cow. There simply is no way the masses of the earth and developing nations are going to immediately send everyone back to the stone ages or advance forward to some sci fi world of perfect control of people and resources and stop all population growth. Forget it. Obama isn't going to give up Air Force One nor the fun trips for the family. China isn't going to give up it's new found bonanza of progress into full blown industrialization. Those ethnic groups who live only to murder and destroy each other aren't going to stop that and worry about the climate.

A big red flag for me is no matter how much data has been found to have been manipulated or the fact the model is now proven to be flawed past all credence, or that all predictions have been total failures--those whose paychecks depend on it, continue to scream it's all true and support it. Anyone who disagrees or has evidence to dispute things is run out of town on a rail or persecuted into silence. Yes, this does sound a lot like the left brain determination to make guns evil objects destroying the world. We didn't cause the ice ages to begin nor did we cause them to end. Do we, in our arrogance, even know why they did? They were devastating climate change to be sure. How laughable if cave men had had a meeting and decided they would put out their campfires 3 days a week and it would fix it. When animals were far more numerous upon the earth than they are now, the gas they produced didn't destroy the world then so why should our beef cattle destroy it now? Climate changes normally and changes dramatically sometimes.
Having said that, mankind lives on this ball in space and we need to keep it as clean as possible for all our sake. We need to help one another get through droughts and floods and other natural disasters. Being good stewards of the land and animals and our own health is common sense. That is something we can agree on on both sides. I hope. Until I see the "scientists" of the climate change bandwagon return to using an unbiased scientific method, adhering to ethical handling of data, and giving an open mind and serious respectful consideration of opposing evidence, I will doubt their fervent claims. Scientists aren't angels by default and they really hate to eat crow. They have to earn a living and the entities who hire them often have agendas. If they oppose their peers who are in power, their careers suffer. They are, after all, human.

[C-dub]

Another problem with ethanol is that it is destructive to internal combustion engines and I get worse gas mileage in my vehicles because of it. It's terrible on my lawn mower and 2-stroke Stihl tools. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks that this might have been the plan all along to turn people away from combustion engines, but the realistic side of me thinks that when they began pushing ethanol they had no idea how bad it would be and didn't care anyway.

http://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_pro ... amage.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/s ... ?a=viewall" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have the same thoughts about scientists and guns. Making a smart gun that requires the user to wear either a watch, bracelet, or ring for it to function. I am not a jewelry kind of guy. I wear a watch only for special occasions and the only ring I wear is my wedding ring. Watches come off when I get home and do not sleep with one. The other piece of tech with guns that bothers me is the stamping of some sort of ID onto each round fired. I'm pretty sure we all realize this is a useless idea. The stamp would be on the case, which could be picked up or a revolver used that doesn't drop the cases. And the tech still doesn't exist, but states are starting to write legislation that requires all guns sold in the state require it when it does. Kind of like the smart gun thing where the only functional caliber so far is .22. Government entities are already planning on requiring something that hasn't been proven yet or doesn't even exist. That is also reminiscent of EPA regulations that require certain emission reductions from coal plants where the technology doesn't exist to achieve.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/scien ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Remember that? It is being applied to new plants and the tech doesn't exist. And it is all because

Coal-fired plants are a major source of emissions associated with global warming.

that is a hoax to begin with. Everything BO said he would do would necessarily drive costs higher. My income is not increasing at the same rate as all these "improvements." In fact, my gross household income has decreased because of him and the net take home pay has decreased even more all while my healthcare insurance has tripled. Sorry, but I'm just a bit bitter over everything BO and his thugs have done.

[baldeagle]

C-dub, since you tied this back into the topic, the problem I have with smart guns is that any time you insert technology into something, the potential for failure increases. I want my guns to be a close to zero failure rate as possible. They are potentially lifesaving tools. I don't need or want to insert additional risk into the use of them. If they really want to have smart guns, let the military and police use them for a decade or so, to iron out the bugs (at the cost of some lives.)

[Rex B]

As to humans wreaking irreparable havoc on our planet, the best argument on that is....World War 2.
Almost daily environmental disasters were the rule: oil tankers, fuel refineries blown up, tons of carbon, particulates and other pollutants poured into the atmosphere from high explosives, pristine tropical islands torn apart from fighting and then from building emergency airstrips and bringing in thousands of troops. It went on for 5 years, all over the world. That was followed by a period of furious construction to repair the infrastructure, along with overall heightened economic activity.
The result? Little or no change in the mean temperature, and the scars in the earth healed themselves naturally.

[Abraham]

There's a whole lotta hot wind blowing right here on this thread, contributing to ...?

[VMI77]

Except that, unlike this article, the consensus on climate change is based on objective analysis among experts in the field.

This article is actually based on the exact type of evidence anthropogenic climate change deniers cite.

Except it's not. It's largely based on fraud serving a political agenda. And even if "largely" is incorrect, there is known fraud and that undermines the claims being made. Furthermore, none of the models can even predict already observed results based on available data. "Climate deniers" is the same kind of term as "gun nuts," intended to dismiss questions and stifle debate. When anyone claiming to be a scientist or pursuing science uses terms like "climate deniers" to dismiss criticism they're promoting an agenda, not serving science.

[VMI77]

Except that, unlike this article, the consensus on climate change is based on objective analysis among experts in the field.

This article is actually based on the exact type of evidence anthropogenic climate change deniers cite.

Man, what in the world have you been smoking? Not only there very many experts who disagree, but the so-called experts, in many cases, aren't. Are you even aware that the earth hasn't warmed in the past 20 years, and some are now worried that we are entering a cooling period?
[youtube][/youtube]

That's why they changed the term from Global (GloBull) warming to "climate change." But hey, while you many not be able to fool all of the people all of the time, you can certainly fool most of the people most of the time.

[VMI77]

And it looks like it's going to take a great deal longer for many to finally pay attention to the data and realize that global warming (now changed to climate change) is a hoax of huge proportions.

Assuming we're talking about the same thing, meaning: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.
Yea, I'm going to have to go with vast majority of the scientists on this one...

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yeah, it's not like a majority has ever been wrong....especially a majority of scientists. Oh, wait, history shows that the majority of scientists have practically always been wrong and vigorously resisted dissenting opinion.

[VMI77]

The vast majority of scientists are not with you, and James Hansen is one of the perpetrators of the hoax.

So NASA is lying to me? There are no less than 12 references cited.

And please don't give me the tired old excuse of consider the sources. The chances of an alternative story about global warming being publicized in the mainstream media is so close to zero it is effectively zero. The only way you're going to find opposing views is to search them out.

OK, so the rules are:
1) Look for alternative opinions to the list in the NASA article I provided, which lists sources.
2) I don't get to consider the source of the information, I just have to consider contrary opinions.

I'm generally pretty good at searching for opposing views. A few things sink in with me, outside of the citations of most of the (source considered) scientific community:
1) I'm an engineer, so I understand energy. We've been converting mass into heat for a really long time. It makes sense to me that there might be an impact.
2) I also understand statistics, so regardless of 2014 being the "hottest year" or not, it's statistically meaningless.. (see, I did look at what you provided). Honestly, what you and I notice in our relatively short lives isn't enough evidence of anything.
3) Although I agree the cycles of climate are "normal", that doesn't allow me to rule out the massive impact that we as humans have as part of carving up the earth.
4) We haven't been here that long geologic timeline speaking, so I admit that our impact on the earth is fairly hard to prove with 100% certainty. The question is, would I be willing to change my behavior without being 100% factually-infallible certain?

The sources you cited largely point out that NASA and another agency are manipulating temperature data. So, lets accept that as true... How do you account for another 200 reasonably credentialed agencies that have come to the same conclusion without NASA data? You cited people poking holes in NASAs data set and I see legitimate concerns in that data set based on what you posted. But the link I provided was scientific consensus outside of that data set. At random, I looked at MITs papers on the subject.. I can't exactly find a lack of consensus there...

Is it all a grand conspiracy of the federal government? OK, I could buy that. How about a grand conspiracy in most well respected institutes of higher education? That one is a bit harder for me to buy.


Thinking about it other way, I consider the following:

Say you're right. Climate change is all fallacy and the "science" behind it is a grand conspiracy of epic proportions. Or, well, maybe it's less drastic than that and the scientists that study it are just wrong:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're no worse for wear.
If we do something to reduce our environmental impact, we're also no worse for wear.

Say that you're wrong. And humans are contributing to climate change at a rate that will have substantial (negative) consequences:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're messing up the earth for everyone else. Perhaps irreversibly.
If we do something and reduce our environmental impact, we just make sure that the planet works well for everyone for a much longer period of time.

Assuming you're not 100% sure... And honestly, I'm not 100% sure as it's not factually proven (yet), which choice would you pick?

An argument from authority? Please. I'm an engineer too and I also understand thermodynamics and statistics and I say you're wrong. What now?

[mojo84]

This climate change stuff reminds me of some of the experts opinions over the years regarding food and what is healthy or not. If you wait long enough, everything that is deemed healthy will be unhealthy in the future and vice versa. At one time chocolate was unhealthy, now it's healthy; wine was unhealthy, now it's healthy; margarine was better than butter, now butter is healthier; fat was once unhealthy, now fat is healthy and essential.

I believe we humans have an impact on the environment. Now whether we change the entire climate of the earth to the point of it being detrimental to human existence, I'm not convinced.

CB, I take it you are in an industry that profits from alternative energy sources. Is this correct? If so, you benefit from the "climate change" is causing harm to the earth arguments. Is this correct?

I know some "green homebuilders". They laughingly say being "green certified" has added 25-30% to their bottom line as it has drives up the cost of construction, repair and maintenance. They are "all in" on climate change, global warming, climate or whatever you want to call it.

[VMI77]

Expensive, yes, but trending downward substantially. Financially feasible enough to provide payback in <10 years - albeit in consideration federal subsidy (these are my economics, not the same for everyone). Without that subsidy, it's not adopted as widely and prices stay higher longer. Long term, the subsidy with disappear. In the mean time, I'll produce my own power and use the grid as necessary to deal with the lack of storage and predictability.

Intermittent - Yes. But predictable (at least solar). What we lack to make them work through the night and through days of no sun is storage technology, but that will come eventually. Wind - I've been "certified" to install it but refused to - I decided it was substantially impractical, at least where I am.. I didn't want to deal with the storage and conversion hassles for clients when essentially they could use the grid for storing energy credit.

You're right though - the grid demand and the availability of solar and wind will not work without storage. So lacking a cheap massive storage, we'll always need traditional fuels. But I think we could easily get to 25% renewable. Maybe more. It's easier to scale traditional fuels up and down based on demand.. And we can at least somewhat predict sunlight and wind within 24-48 hours...

You apparently don't fully understand how the grid operates which is understandable if you're not directly involved with the ERCOT market. The actual economics, versus the peddled fantasty economics, undermine the supposed benefits of renewable energy. Without massive storage capabilities that don't exist and have no prospect of existing in the predicable future, the 25% renewable number you're suggesting is essentially meaningless. Yes, you can get 25% renewable based on installed capacity, but not in terms of actually energy consumed (MWhrs). Wind is actually fairly predictable over short periods of time...an hour to a few hours. Both solar and wind have huge footprints. But those are side issues.

Just like in the "climate change" arena, a lot of the renewable math is based on lies. Apart from the subsidies, renewables, especially wind, are made to look better by completely ignoring capital costs and market reality by assuming that renewable energy is "free." And yeah, that's not the "consensus" because the "consensus" is created by all those with a vested interest in hawking renewables. They resist realistic economic evaluation tooth and nail and are supported for political reasons by the government you seem to trust so much. I

The bottom line is that renewables simply cannot replace thermal generators, because their generation is not dependable. With over 7,000 MW of installed wind capacity in West Texas there are times when they're only generating 300 MW or less. I'm not even addressing system stability, and as renewable penetration increases a large scale blackout becomes inevitable. No one knows where this limit is but we're approaching it in Texas. The effect of all this is that renewable generation does not fully displace thermal generation. Those generators must still exist but because during peak times they're under bid by renewables the more marginal producers will have to be paid for not generating in order to keep them available.

Renewables will therefore ultimately increase the cost of electricity, at least in ERCOT, because of the way the market works. We have a clearing price, not an as-bid market, so renewable generators don't get paid what they bid, they get paid the same price that the most expensive generation in the bid stack gets paid (thermal generators). However, the system allows them to under bid ensuring that they are always at the top of the bid stack so they are always first to run. I can assure you that there is no "cheap" renewable generation out there....in the market they get the full thermal generator price and there is very little difference in how they price their contract energy. So in the end, consumers will be paying at least twice for renewables without any compensating economic benefit: 1) subsidies; 2) and the extra cost of maintaing the thermal generation they do not displace. In fact, they are probably increasing the cost of transmission because the economic assumptions we are forced to use justify any amount of transmission for renewables --completely unrealistic-- but that effect is difficult to quantify.

Edited to add:

You seem to have a lot of faith in groups calling themselves scientists, and especially government groups. I was in the military....command routinely lied and falsified data to produce the results higher ups wanted to see and the higher ups not only knew it, but tacitly encouraged it. If I could tell you what they lied about you'd be shocked. Officers that were supposed to be on our side attempted to coerce me into changing the results of a technical inspection in favor of a contractor. The large company I used to work for routinely falsified data to chase money for managers and executives.

In my experience money and politics trump science and engineering reality at every opportunity and vested interests have a lock on what is "accepted" science and economics. This isn't stuff I'm reading about on the internet, this is what I'm witnessing first hand and immersed in. I see people keep their mouths shut because they know what they are supposed to say and not say and what is only the line if they don't comply. My company allows me to speak out and do the right thing. Often I am the only dissenting voice, and just as often people approach me to say they are glad I spoke out because they couldn't. As BaldEagle states, this is especially prevalent in academia and all across the board has been getting worse. The government economic stats on inflation and unemployment are complete nonsense and have been more and more blatantly rigged since Clinton was in office. Science has never been the pure intellectual endeavor that is popularized but all signs are that fraud is more pervasive than ever, and the more money that is at stake, the greater the fraud. In fact, if there is real money at stake you can pretty much count on the science claims being lies.

[TVegas]

cb1000rider, I considered making an educated, logical argument based on everything you addressed, but I had to decide against wasting my time and energy. I commend you on trying though. The folks who doubt human impact on the climate simply don't understand how it works and they don't want to believe it is possible because life is rosier when you don't have to acknowledge fault, even if it is diffuse and common. They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Why do I believe the reality of current climate change? I believe it because of research and analysis of the data, and methods of data collection, that I have personally done during my studies at A&M. I am about to graduate with a degree in Environmental Studies, but don't try to dismiss me as a "liberal hippy". I don't trust every word my largely liberal professors have said, but that only extends to opinions, and this subject is not based on politics or opinions when it comes to my professors. I trust my own education and analysis more than I would ever trust a handful of people making the same claims based on very little real evidence.

I respect all people, especially the folks who would be members of this forum, so please don't take my comments as inflammatory. They are simply the conclusions of what my own research in school has brought me.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing the thread. I agree completely that the article is complete bunk.

[C-dub]

The subsidies that keep on coming.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/tim-phillip ... 1417386670" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/a ... permanent/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And then there's the double standard between payments to landowners between which type of equipment is on their land.
http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2013/1 ... ion-lines/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


We also pay them when they don't or can't produce.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/too ... 7-million/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mojo84]

cb1000rider, I considered making an educated, logical argument based on everything you addressed, but I had to decide against wasting my time and energy. I commend you on trying though. The folks who doubt human impact on the climate simply don't understand how it works and they don't want to believe it is possible because life is rosier when you don't have to acknowledge fault, even if it is diffuse and common. They are clinging to cherry-picked data that supports their beliefs ("No warming in 20 years!!!", "We're actually in a cooling phase!!"), but when you look at the evidence on long scale periods (the time periods that matter) it is obvious that the planet has warmed to a significant degree. The exact amount is entirely debatable, but the fact that it is a significant amount of warming is not.

Why do I believe the reality of current climate change? I believe it because of research and analysis of the data, and methods of data collection, that I have personally done during my studies at A&M. I am about to graduate with a degree in Environmental Studies, but don't try to dismiss me as a "liberal hippy". I don't trust every word my largely liberal professors have said, but that only extends to opinions, and this subject is not based on politics or opinions when it comes to my professors. I trust my own education and analysis more than I would ever trust a handful of people making the same claims based on very little real evidence.

I respect all people, especially the folks who would be members of this forum, so please don't take my comments as inflammatory. They are simply the conclusions of what my own research in school has brought me.

P.S. Sorry for contributing to derailing the thread. I agree completely that the article is complete bunk.

Once you graduate, will you be in a profession utilizing your degree and will that result in personal income or profit? Will that profit or income be increased by the existence or perceived existence of global warming?

If you do not like the idea of looking at the last 20 years, what period of time fits your argument? Haven't we gone through something like 7 ice ages? Didn't those involve, climate change, global warming, global cooling etc.?

[cb1000rider]

Another problem with ethanol is that it is destructive to internal combustion engines and I get worse gas mileage in my vehicles because of it. It's terrible on my lawn mower and 2-stroke Stihl tools. The conspiracy theorist part of me thinks that this might have been the plan all along to turn people away from combustion engines, but the realistic side of me thinks that when they began pushing ethanol they had no idea how bad it would be and didn't care anyway.

It's actually non-destructive to internal combustion engines. It's a much higher effective octane rating. You can run a more timing on it or more boost. Run an engine on gas, open it up. Do the same thing on E85 - the E85 motor is much cleaner.

What you notice as a consumer is that it's very destructive to rubber parts and tends to absorb water, which means that fuel fouls much sooner. Just "regular gas" (E10-E15) is much worse in terms of storage and than the non-ethanol stuff, which you really can't find anymore. It plugs carbs. At home, I run aviation fuel in all the 2-stroke stuff and small engines for the reasons that you mention. I don't deal with replacing rubber parts every 2 years and I can store it for a lot longer.

The worse mileage thing isn't because it's "bad" on motors. It's because E85 has a lower energy level than gas. Just like propane, it takes more fuel to produce the same amount of power. That lower energy level is partly diffused by lower cost, but unless you live in Houston, it's not worth the trade off. Just using E85 in a motor with no other tuning, you'll get mpg and HP loss. Dual-fuel vehicle offset this by detecting the % of alcohol and adjusting their timing maps to help take advantage of the octane rating to offset the lower energy level. Turbo vehicles can actually make more power on it.

I converted an old 4runner to run on E85 by replacing the EFI. Lower mileage, super clean combustion chamber. A turbo charged motor loved the stuff - because of the higher effective octane, you can run more boost and get more power out of it than regular gas. It was an interesting, but not practical, experiment.