CFLs - retrofitting low ESR capacitors

[Trevor Wilson]

Ahem...
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/All_Comp.png>

**Er, 1978 ~ 2010 is not 600,000 years. Not even close. However, this graph
may provide a little more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Not quite 600,000 years, but considerably more than 30. Here's some more
information:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/

And:

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/Closer_Look/index.html

from:


Ahem...
<http://www.junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html>

**Again, a 30 year trend merely backs my claim.

Yep. Track volcanoes.
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale2.html>
<http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/scale1.html>

**What are you trying to say? That the temerature of the planet is rising?
That CO2 levels are rising? No argument from me.

Ok, I'll be the first to mention that Steven Milloy may have taken
money from Exxon (indirectly), but it has never been proven. Decide
for yourself:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy>

**The data presented shows:

* That CO2 levels are rising.
* That average temperatures are trending upwards.

I have no issue with that data.

Since you're so sure that AGW is a proven thing, maybe you can collect
the $500,000 from Milloy? Send a few dollars my way if you succeed:
<http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com>

**I am satisfied that AGW has been shown to be the most likey explanation
for the temperature rise that has been noted, with around 95% confidence.
That is not 100% confidence and would likely not qualify for the money. It
is likely that, by the time 100% confidence has been reached, several things
will have occured:

* Milloy will be dead.
* VERY serious problems associated with global warming will be occuring and
the planet will have descended into a state of anarchy. US Dollars will
likely be virtually worthless. Food will be only currency of value.

Maybe. The problem is that none of the satellites are able to measure
planetary albedo with sufficient accuracy to make a definitive
determination.

**Which is why measuring the rate of heat retention by the oceans is so
important:

http://www.bom.gov.au/inside/eiab/State-of-climate-2010-updated.pdf

Examine the graph on page 4. The planet's oceans store vastly more heat than
the troposphere does. The oceans are warming.

We can do almost nothing in the way of measuring

albedo from the ground. The plan is for the satellite to measure how
much energy is reflected by the planet (which includes atmospheric,
ocean, ice, land, etc) and also solar output. The energy difference
is presumed to be what the planet absorbs. Note that all the energy
is not necessarily at IR (heating). Apparently it's sufficiently
important that NASA burned $424 million on the failed Glory launch,
and other global warming related birds. The current assumption that
solar variations do not account for the alleged rise in average
temperatures is based on computer models with some rather serious
potential errors.

**Really? Which errors? We know that the Sun output has diminished
(slightly) over the past couple of decades and yet the temperature trend of
the Earth is still up.

There's also a rather odd problem of just what the satellites are
actually measuring. Temperature varies with altitude. Satellite IR
imagers measure through all the various layers of the atmosphere. If
there are clouds covering a land mass, the IR imager gets the
temperature of the clouds, not the ground. So, to prevent this
obvious anomaly, the computers are set to only read numbers where
there are no clouds. However, that discounts the effects of aerosols
and particulates (i.e. dust) in the upper atmosphere, which does a
marvelous job of reflecting sunlight into the IR imager. Volcanoes
make it really difficult to get accurate readings. Plenty of other
complications requiring the usual tweaks, adjustments, compensations,
normalization, and cherry picking. Oh well.

**Which is why ocean temperature measurements are so important. It is the
planet's oceans that contain the most heat. By a considerable margin.

What Malloy has done with the "global thermometer" mentioned above is
to take as much of the METAR and NOAA temperature data as possible and
average all of it. The theory is that if you're faced with a large
number of potentially erroneous data points, and don't have the means
to reduce the errors, averaging all the bad data together will somehow
result in good data. That's because the errors will tend to be in
random directions and hopefully cancel. Since the IPCC uses the same
method, one can presume it to be valid. However, I have my doubts.

Anyway, I have not attempted to debunk anything that you've offered.
What I've done it attempt to undermine your apparently unshakable
certainty in AGW and the IPCC. If I've set you on the path of
critical thinking and academic skepticism, then I haven't wasted my
time.

**I do not have an "unshakable certainty in AGW and the IPCC". I accept that
the 95% certainty of AGW is a reasonable figure. What I find irrational is
the fact that many people seem to be clinging to the 5% uncertainty and
hoping that a very large number of very smart scientists are wrong.

Fundamentally, the way I see it is like this:

* If we spend a few Bucks today to mitigate CO2 emissions, we may be able to
avert the 95% probability of disaster.
* If we don't spend the money today, then it is highly probable (95%
certainty) that the cost will escalate with each passing year, to a point
where we will be unable to fund mitigation.
* If the scientists are wrong and we spend a few Bucks now, then it's cost
us some money.
* If the scientists are right and we don't spend the money, our civilisation
will not likely survive.

Make no mistake: I did not say that humans will be wiped out. Many will
survive. Anarchy is loking like a real probability.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

I'm glad that you admitted that the fear of aliens attacking over
climate change is bullshit rather than rational argument, and proving
my point that NASA or at least the NASA scientist who made this
crackpot statement is speaking "lies, complete bullshit and veering
into fantasy-land"

Im glad we are in agreement on SOMETHING, Whew !!

**We agree on nothing. YOU made the claim about an alleged NASA scientist
making an absurd statement. YOU need to sunstantiate the claim. As usual,
you will fail in this action.

No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.

putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him,

**Bollocks. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently

trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**Bollocks. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care.

**Bollocks. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bullshit is just that:
Complete bullshit. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some

others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have

made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its

also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I

generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bullshit,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bullshit about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult

member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.

I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.

**Still waiting for some answers.......

 

[josephkk]

See any problem with what you've said between the two paragraphs?

Hmmm, indeed.

I don't see anything inconsistent whatsoever. What i see is two
statements that the AGW crowd has failed to make their case, and they
resent anyone saying so. I also see refusal to join shouting matches.
So, what do you see?

?-)

 

[Trevor Wilson]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/aug/18/aliens-destroy-humanity-protect-civilisations

**I take it, that you failed to actually READ the article before you made
your stupid claim. Here is the rest of what you snipped:

No, he gets a "reasoned response", as you fear that he would hang you
out to dry, and "pull your nappy down in front of the entire school,

**Unlike you, Jeff has placed some reased arguments, backed by some cites.
You present nothing to support your wild claims. BIG difference.

putting your excrement on pubicl display" metaphorically speaking -
if you started abusing him,

**Bollocks. I have NEVER abused Jeff. Abuse follows those who act like
dickheads. You have consistently failed to act reasonably and rationally.
You have failed to back your claims with any evidence.

so you are sucking up to him, and gently

trying to sucker him into your fantasy, or at least get him to give
you some credit to your nonsense to try and look clever or learned to
the rest of the group (who know what you are really like over years of
experience) to try and get their approval so the newer members will
think you to be some genius and beacon of wisdom and knowledge and try
and pull them onto your team to use them against the others.

**Bollocks. I cite facts and data. You cite absolutely nothing. Jeff has
backed his arguments with cites. You do not. Comparing yourself to Jeff is
extremely insulting to Jeff.

You also think he is undecided on the subject and can be nudged in
your direction, so you handle with care.

**Bollocks. I don't know what Jeff's position is. I don't much care. The
truth is the truth. Facts are facts. Your complete bullshit is just that:
Complete bullshit. Not once have you presented any facts, or cites to back
your claims. Not once. Jeff presented cites to back his claims.

You know that I and some

others already have studied the matter,and those behind it,

**Liar. You have not read the IPCC AR4. You have, therefore, failed to study
the topic. AR4 is the premier document on the topic.

and have

made up their own minds and will not entertain your rubbish, so there
is no point in being nice to us, as it won't change anything, so you
just try and be nasty, abusive etc to impress the others.

**Not at all. I politely asked you to present data and facts to support your
claims and you failed miserably. Your continued failure to present any data
ensures that you deserve the contempt you receive.

I guess its

also a threat to others that you may think to be timid, or wanting
approval from others that "this is what will happen to you if you
don't support me" type bullying.

**You STILL don't get it. You made wild accusations and wild claims. I asked
for you to supply some evidence to support those claims. You failed to do
so. Your argument has failed.

With me, you have known me on here for a decade or so,

**I don't know you and I don't care to know you. You are clearly an idiot. I
prefer never to deal with such people. I can and regluarly deal with people
who do not share my view on many matters. They all have one thing on common:
They put forward logical, reasonable arguments to back their claims. You do
not.

know that I

generally don't bother pursuing or carrying on drawn out battles with
abusive clowns as I have better things to do.

**And yet, you contiue to sprout complete bullshit, without bothering to
back your dodgy claims.

I have seen the futile results in the past, one of the most memorable
being of the group trying to convince fuckwits like Miro of basic
facts of ohms law, except in his case, he is arguing against
mathematics, and mathematics in its pure form is one true science
that you cannot argue with.

I more find you an interesting example of someone who is either
mentally disturbed, very very gullible, believes unconditionally in
bullshit,

**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn of a problem
that they are likely to be correct. I also accept that you are a complete
idiot, since you believe in some mythical bullshit about all these
climatologists being bribed, without a solitary shred of evidence to support
your claim. I also accept that you dismiss AGW, without bothering to study
the premier document on the subject.

or thinks it cool to do so, kind of like a religious cult

member, or a radical nutter - who desperately needs professional help
to be de-programmed, (this is way out of my area of expertise to do
this for you) and based on this knowledge I really don't care much
what you want to say about me, Im a big boy, been in business all my
adult life, and seen and done enough in that time of how the real
world works to not be shocked or offended any more .

**Hardly surprising, given your extremely ignorant attitudes.

I know you will believe in man-made global warming, and whatever the
next fear and control scam gets cooked up, until the day you hit the
bottom of your grave, hence the old russian saying - "only the grave
cures the hunch-backed".

**Bollocks. Unlike you, I've been examining the subject of AGW since the mid
1970s. The only thing that has altered is the amount of data that supports
the theory.

I even find your insults somewhat funny at times and get a good laugh
out of it.

**Still waiting for some answers.......

 

[keithr]

**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97 doctors told
you that if you did not alter your diet, you would get a heart attack and 3
doctors told you not to alter your diet, because you'd be fine, what would
you do?

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least he
is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective not
the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural and
we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made conditions
that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

 

[keithr]

My big problem is that the greenies don't have an open mind about the
situation. As far as they are concerned, it is fully proven, done,
dusted, and anyone who doesn't follow blindly down the path, is a
heretic. Well, I'm sorry, but in my mind, as long as there is the
slightest doubt, the case isn't proven and closed, and a good scientist
should keep his mind open. Fortunately, there is a recent groundswell of
alternate view from a number of equally reputable scientists, who are
finally having the balls to stand up and be counted.

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their minds
that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it fits with
their philosophy, the deniers don't want it to be true as they may have
to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

My problem with both sides of the argument is that neither has an open
mind. The arguments are pointless as both have fully made up their
minds that they are right. The "Greenies" want it to be true as it
fits with their philosophy,

**I disagree. _I_ certainly would prefer that all the climatologists have it
very wrong. Sadly, as their position is one that is rooted in science, it is
highly likely that they are correct.

the deniers don't want it to be true as

they may have to make some sacrifices in their lifestyle.

**That's the way I view it.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a reasonable
theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he is right or wrong
is way beyond the capability of anybody here to decide, but at least
he is approaching the subject from a reasoned scientific perspective
not the screaming political one that most seem to favour.

Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is natural
and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man made
conditions that we can control.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,

**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation and the
UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN and thus by
member states of the UN.

banksters etc,

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.

who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.

**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up by the
UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus, everyone on the
planet is part of the UN.

Dont worry though,

they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along with
it.

**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science? The
stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this thread. Would
you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for your
independent information?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer.
Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how
many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not
hurt it

**Here are the questions that you (most recently) failed to answer:

**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.

Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its
credibility.

**How? The UN os "owned" by all the nations on the planet. Is it perfect?
Nup. Would you prefer that the UN was controlled by (say) Enron, Nestle',
Union Carbide, GE or Philip Morris? Is that what you would prefer? Why?


**Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for
your independent information?

Why do you continually avoid answering ANY of my questions?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

I really don't want to get drawn into this again, and I have no
particular desire to fall out with you - you've helped me out in the
past with schematics, and for that I am grateful.

**There is absolutely no reason for two intelligent people to get drawn into
a slanging match.

But I am really

struggling with all of this. For a start, 97% is up from the 95% that
you reckoned it was earlier in the thread.

**The 95% confidence refers to the confidence level that climatologists have
WRT the cause of global warming being anthropogenic in nature. The figure in
the 1970s, was something like 70% and has been rising ever since. The 97%
figure represents the number of climatologists that are convinced that AGW
is the most likely explanation for the warming.

You make a case for what a

doctor might say, but let's turn that around. If one of your
children, say, was up for murder, but there was a 5% chance that they
didn't do it, would you consider that to be a proven case ? I
certainly wouldn't.

**Indeed, but they are quite different scenarios, with very different
outcomes. Would you care to respond to my question please?

Let me throw this into the equation :

http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2009/01/its_time_to_pray_for_global_wa.html

which tells the story of 650 scientists that apparently spoke out
against the case. Now I'm sure that there is some reason that it is
all lies, or should be discredited, but the same story did appear in
many other places, so I have to give it some credibility. 650 seems
like quite a big number to me.

**Do you have a reputable cite for this alleged statement? That article is
clearly biased and highly flawed in many ways. I'd like some independent
verification of the 650 scientist claim.

OK. Let's reproduce it here, to save everyone having to go look at
your link
"1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation
and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of
relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. "

Yes, I am aware of this variation of the definition of the word, when
used specifically in connection to science. However, you will note
that it doesn't actually say 'proven', only 'commonly regarded' and
that can be used as 'a principle of explanation'.

**Correct. AGW is a theory. An highly credible one, that is embraced by the
vast majority of climatologists.

The fact that

Einstein's theory of relativity is cited as an example is
interesting, in that it has gone so long without actually being
proved, that it has become scientific doctrine - dogma even. And yet
just last week, it was announced to the world that it was likely that
a particle which travelled faster than light, had been clearly
detected.

**Not proven yet. In the same week, other parts of Einstein's work has been
validated.

Professor Brian Cox, a scientist that I have a deal of

respect for in his primary field of quantum physics, and who was
involved in the experiments to locate this particle, said that if it
was correct, it would turn quantum physics knowledge on its head, and
blow Mr Einstein out of the water. Who would ever have thought that ?

**Me, for one. Einstein was known to be searching up blind alleys in SOME of
his work. That does not make Einstein an idiot. NOr does it make him always
wrong. It simply makes Einstein 99% right.

Do you consider the theory of evolution to be a proven case ?

**No. There never was a "theory of evolution". Evolution is an observed
fact. Darwin proposed his Theory of Natural Selection to explain evolution.
Darwin was a brilliant man.


A good

many reputable scientists and commentators don't ...

**Of coruse. They know that evolution is not a theory. They know that Darwin
proposed Natural Selection to explain evolution.

Strangely, having given the definition in the slightly vague terms
that they have, your dictionary then goes on at the end to use the
words 'principle', 'law' and 'doctrine' as synonyms, which they
clearly aren't as they are much more closely defined words.

**Nonetheless, AGW remains an highly credible theory that attempts to
explain the warming of this planet that we are presently witnessing. IT is
not a "law", nor is it a fact, beyond doubt. Doubts remain. However, the
confidence level pertaining to AGW is running at around 95%.

So as far as I am concerned, my query as to your use of the word
'theory', has not been altered at all. The general understanding of a
theory, is that it is one stage up from hypothesis, in that it is an
idea or set of ideas, whose validity is supported by known facts, the
key word being 'supported' not 'proven'

**Correct. By the time AGW is proven, it will be too late to remedy it. I
can't live with that.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

You're not by any chance a JW as well, are you Trevor ... ?

**I am not well regarded by Jehovah's Witness', nor by Mormans. When
religious nutters turn up on my doorstep to push their peculiar religion
down my throat, I feel zero compuction in stting them down, offering them a
cup of tea and then proceding to lecture them on science and the nonsensical
nature of supernatural beliefs. Most hurridly excuse themselves and make
their escape.

 

[Trevor Wilson]

An interesting read. Also interesting, is the fact that this guy is a
meteorologist.

**Have you taken the time to read IPCC AR4?

 

[keithr]

**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it is
important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of 'Intelligent
Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for the way that species
have become diverse on this planet. A religious viewpoint such at Spencer's
places him in rather a poor light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the
supernatural. Not only that, but he is very active in groups that support
the notion of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.

Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin Foundation (the gun
lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are hardly surprising, given his
employer/s.

Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/clouds-negative-feedback.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dropped-stations-introduce-warming-bias.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-degrees-global-warming.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/loehle-scafetta-60-year-cycle.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-spencer-negative-feedback-climate-sensitivity.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cloudy-outlook-for-low-climate-sensitivity.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-1.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-2.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-Spencers-Great-Blunder-Part-3.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/spencers-misdiagnosis-of-surface-temperature-feedback.html

It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue. I trust
that you will also take the time to read the science, from real scientists,
who do not place their faith in the supernatural, nor take their money from
big oil. This is an excellent place to start:

www.ipcc.ch

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

Thats because it isnt a corporation, with real money, media and power
behind it. If it was, he would believe anything they told him

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

Jeff

 

[Trevor Wilson]

The question is whether you have read his arguments or just the
refutations that others have written about them.

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye? What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?
Have you looked at the cites I provided?
Have you read IPCC AR4?

 

[Trevor Wilson]

Sounds like Scientology would be the perfect fit then.

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society. This is a stanadrd ploy by religious and
quasi-religious sects. Like every other religion, Scientology needs to be:

* Taxed.
* Subjected to the normal consumer regulations that surround any other
product or service.

That should sort them out.

 

[Jeffrey Angus]

**Scientolgy was set up as a tax dodge by a 2nd rate science fiction writer.
It relies on the same ignorance damanded by the Catholics, the Muslims, the
Jews and all the other religions. Scientology actively seeks to isolate it's
adherents from normal society.

How ironic.
They also propagate an unending stream of unsupported information
claiming them to be facts.

Jeff

 

[keithr]

**Yes. I've been reading Spencer's stuff for several years. On the surface,
much sounds plausible. His arguments have some serious holes in them,
however.

What do you think about Spencer's supernatural beliefs? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Nope, I couldn't care less about his religious views, neither do I care
in the least about the religious views of the members of the IPCC.

What do you think of
Spencer's affiliations (with the fossil fuel industry)? Does that cause you
to consider his statements with a more critical eye?

Spencer's own words:-

"Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government
agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil
company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil."

Do you have any cites to prove him a liar?

Have you looked at the cites I provided?

Yes, it worries me that they start out from the point of view that he is
wrong, and then go looking for evidence to support that. That is not the
scientific method.

Have you read IPCC AR4?

Some of it, unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm or dispute
their modelling, but I am by nature suspicious of the results of
computer modelling, basically it tends to be high speed guessing. The
problem is extremely complex and all attempts to model climate have been
gross simplifications. Even the models to predict tomorrows weather
rarely agree with each other.

I have an open mind on the subject (which probably puts me in a minority
of one) global warming is without doubt, but the cause is very much
open to question.

 

[keithr]

I don't have a huge amount of time to take apart the graphs. So, I
selected just the one above. The first thing I noticed is that there
are no vertical grid lines, making it difficult to determine whether a
CO2 peak caused warming, or whether it was the other way around. So,
dragging out GIMP photo editor, I added vertical grid lines. I also
reversed the graph so that time goes from left to right. Today is on
the right.

<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/Vostok_Petit_data_03.jpg>

Note the circled peaks. Note that the temperature peak precedes the
CO2 rise in all 3 visible peaks. I'm not quite sure what to do about
the most recent peak. If I get ambitious, I'll grab the raw data and
expand just that section. It kinda looks like temp rise precedes CO2
again, but I can't be sure on such a wide scale.

(skipping down....)


According to the trend lines, we should now be heading into another
ice age. If true and we reduce CO2 emissions, my guess is that we'll
create our own disaster.


True. By limiting the shrinking list of acceptable solutions, only
the most expensive CO2 reduction schemes will be left. For example,
extensive expansion of nuclear power is becoming increasingly
expensive due primarily to government oversight.


"Few" bucks? I can't think of any C02 reduction scheme that is cheap.
Switching to CFL and LED lighting might be cost effective because the
cost is spread over maybe 50 years. Same with hybrid vehicles.
However, large scale reductions in CO2 reduction, such as eliminating
coal generated electricity, has huge associated costs.


Apocalyptic predictions of the demise of civilization have
traditionally accompanied such changes. I recall reading one from the
ancient Greeks. While the risks of inaction are high, the probability
of disaster is quite low. Like the predictions of a Y2K disaster, the
modern alarmists have their limitation.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatology>


Well, since we're doing a disaster movie here, I suggest you do a back
of the envelope calculation. If we assume that the energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production per person remains constant at today's
western world levels, what would the population of the planet need to
be in order to produce a greenhouse gas stable environment? I think
you might be amused by the result.

Incidentally, I just bought an EcoSmart LED lamp for $10 at Home
Depot. 40 watt equivalent, 9 watts consumption, 429 lumens, 3000K, 46
year life. Works with my light dimmer. The color accuracy 85 is not
very good.
<http://www.homedepot.com/buy/lighti...-a19-40-watt-equivalent-light-bulb-39632.html>
Prices seem to be getting down to reasonable. One nice feature is
that the plastic "bulb" and aluminum base look sufficiently strong to
survive being dropped, something that CFL bulbs can't do.

Lets face it guys, there is nobody around here, myself included, who has
the mental horsepower to make a serious and realistic contribution to
the body of knowledge about global warming. Mostly it is reiteration of
set views using what ever data that has been provided by others and
which coincides with those set views of the writer. In the end nothing
changes, we still have the same people with the same views.

The debate though will have been useful if it leads to a lesser use of
fossil fuel to convert to energy. It is an inefficient process and there
ain't an infinite supply of the stuff.