The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Interesting read, it bottom lines the real agenda of the climate change insiders. There's trillions to be made by just raising taxes to force people to buy their products while convincing them it's saving the planet. Guess who the heaviest individual investor in wind and solar energy producers is...hint his first name is Al.

Let’s looks at energy: what is “green” energy? A source that doesn’t use fossil fuels, right? No, because nuclear power plants are not “green." “Green New Deal” champions like Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., oppose nuclear power. What about hydropower? Surely that’s “green." Nope, it's not "counted" as green energy either.

Hydropower is responsible for a huge portion of our energy needs at very low costs compared to other means. According to those pushing for carbon taxes, none of it's “green” . They are pushing lawmakers to restrict what it means to be “green,” so only wind and solar, the industry’s favored companies, can benefit. Additional heavy taxes are being pursued on all energy not produced by wind or solar, those taxes in return are to be used to subsidize the wind and solar producers.

Long ago, I worked briefly at a nuclear plant.

Their safety records are very good, despite famous examples of problems such as Three Mile Island and so forth.

Why isn't nuclear "green"?

Why isn't nuclear "green"?

Because is makes wind and solar sources of energy obsolete and not needed, there's no money in that for them.

Justme...With posts like this one you destroy you credibility.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and humans are the cause.

Even Exxon Energy, years ago, concluded that using fossil fuels was causing climate change.

The percentage argument is a common one, but it is very weak.

100 percent of all mathematicians felt that Euclid was the final word on geometry, but then new things were found.

100 percent of physicists felt that Newton was the final word, but then along came Riemann et alia to present new ideas.

Are the modern scientists entirely accurate?

Perhaps, but a reasonable person acts with skepticism when one political party urges a certain position.

97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and humans are the cause

No they don't, why do you post fake information like that?

"100 percent of all mathematicians felt that Euclid was the final word on geometry, but then new things were found.
100 percent of physicists felt that Newton was the final word, but then along came Riemann et alia to present new ideas."-johnfibs

^^^^^ This bullshit is 100 percent untrue.

johnforbes really needs to read up on what pyhysics and mathematics actually are and understand how there isn't a physicist nor mathematician who would ever say such moronic things about them. johnfibs doesn't seem to understand these English terms any better than he understands what "socialism" means.

Clown is completely wrong.

Euclid's Elements reigned supreme for centuries.

As did Newton's Principia.

But no mathematician or physicist ever considered them "the last word" on either subject and you know it, you lying douche bag.

The proof is that mathematicians kept proving new theorems in geometry for hundreds of years after Euclid. Obviously they couldn't have considered Euclid "the last word" when they were constantly improving upon him.

Same with Newton. No scientist EVER considers ANYONE or ANYTHING "the last word on a subject.

As always, you ignorantly fell for the propaganda of your partisan handlers.

No, any history of science will delve into the enormous amount of perceived certitude associated with Euclid, who reigned for quite literally centuries.

As to Newton, he was often called "Monarch Newton" for his status in physics. His laws were unquestioned.

Pope's famous lines revealed how dominant Newton was:

“Nature and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, Let Newton be! and all was light.”

Fun fact:
There is no Nobel Prize for Mathematics...because Alfred Nobel's wife had
an affair with a mathematician..!

John Forbes is ignorant about inferential statistics.

Just like the prototypical conservative...they can only think in black and white terms.

Euclid did not specialize in inferential statistics.

If you are attempting to describe the "green" energy studies, then that would be another matter.

But Elkin is not bright enough to understand this point, which has been explained to him again and again and again.

Because we are not climate scientists here, a reasonable person would be skeptical of a scientific claim which is advanced in league with a given political agenda.

Come on Elkin, try hard.

You can understnd that my point is distinct from whether anthropogenic climate change is true.

John Forbes is ignorant about inferential statistics.

Clown I am well versed in inferential statistic, you are allowed to take findings from a sample group and generalize them to a larger population. Kind of like the inaccurate polls that have been taken on college campuses or in deep blue cities. It allows the results to be generalized to any other group or population.

Now that you know the shortcomings of generalizing data collected from "select" groups and then presenting them as proof for a whole larger population. That's why I don't believe the biased reports claiming climate changes are the result of man's activities. They have intentionally collected data from sources that supports their agendas, while excluding data from sources that refutes it. Kind of like a Mueller investigation.

"They have intentionally collected data from sources that supports their agendas, while excluding data from sources that refutes it. Kind of like a Mueller investigation."-RealTool

Wow, now RealTool is saying Mueller's conclusions are too biased to be right about there being insufficient data to charge Trump with collusion and that refusing to charge Trump with obstruction is also a mistake because they excluded all the data to the contrary, apparently.

Boy, RealTool really stepped in it this time. Now don't you feel stupid, Tool?

Let's assume for a moment that I'm a leftist and trying to sell the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Would I assume my audience is so astoundingly stupid that a force of numbers argument (97 percent of scientists agree with something!) would suffice?

Would I assume the solution is for some legislature to tax something?

The very reason that Galileo was a scientific hero was his skepticism.

Consider for a second the incredible hubris of Planck and Einstein to ever consider questioning the Weltbild of Newtonian mechanics.

But the modern Left, and people like Al Gore (a "C" student in media studies who dropped out of law school with failing grades), have they ever even read about Planck and Bohr and Riemann and Einstein and Lobachevsky?

So Johnnie...the CO2 readings are just some random event?

Elkin, you are seeking to argue the merits in scientific terms when neither you nor I have any credentials in climate science.

The problem is you may be right on the merits, but the force of numbers argument and the political tinge, these remain problems.

Do you even see what I mean?

I guess I'm going to have to invoke my clear expertise on this subject to put it to bed. Of anyone on this board, I am the clear weather expert, as a freshman in college I took meteorology 101 and even passed the course, earning 3 semester hours, attesting to my expertise in weather science.

I declare that there is no proof climate changes are caused by man.

So unless someone took meteorology 102, and disagrees, end of discussion.

Your qualifications in the field far exceed my own.

Therefore, you are totally correct and this thread has ended.

johnforbes wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:01 am Elkin, you are seeking to argue the merits in scientific terms when neither you nor I have any credentials in climate science.

The problem is you may be right on the merits, but the force of numbers argument and the political tinge, these remain problems.

Do you even see what I mean?

Johnnie 's retort is an ad hominem attack.

Go figure........

nuff said...

Wrong, I have never taken out an ad for hominems.