By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 10 January 2012
Edit Thread
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:


That's really a problem with a lot of places.  They don't properly teach Scientific Methods anymore.

If you actually talk to credible researchers, you find one very interesting thing.

They pretty much NEVER talk in absolutes... even in expierments they've run themselves.


While I'm not making any claims about scottie, I have noticed that a lot of people (even well educated people) who blindly accept global warming alarmism tend not to have curious or sceptical minds in general; which is one of the core needs of someone who really wants to be a strong scientist.

As a demonstration of this you will notice that the majority of individuals who believe in Global Warming also believe in Peak Oil (or more generally "Peak Fossil Fuels") and yet do not see any problem with that. They do not see the inconsistency with believing that the world is rapidly approaching the peak production of fossil fuels and yet will somehow (magically) be able to rapidly increase CO2 production from burning fossil fuels to a level which could cause dangerous global warming.

Well to be fair, even if you go by Peak Oil advocates most alarmist stats.  Or rather... current most alamarist stats. (Since according to some we should of hit peak oil anyway.) it's not really that big of a deal.

Natural Gas could fill in for Oil in practically everything Oil does.  We'd have at LEAST 10 years worth of cheap Natural Gas to go through before there were any issues.

So Natural Gas would likely increase CO2 production.

Really i'd say the real issue that shows the lack of scinetific thinking is that essentially for most people it's "Green energy or nothing."

Most People don't want Nuclear or Natural gas or any other resource to replace oil that would lower carbon emissions unless it's renewable energy.

Which is just... an awful poisition that could only be based around an energy lobby.

 

It's sad too, because there are reasonable and logical ways to push for renewable energy, but giant subsidies do nothing but hurt renewable energy investment and refinement.   Afterall, why spend millions and billions into research when if you do all that will happen is your product will be more efficent, and you'll lose your subsidies leaving you with the same amount of profit?

 

A SMART use for rewneable energy money would be to offer a contract from the US military to create practical renewable energy military vehicles.  Afterall it gets prohibitivly expensive to ship US gas all over the world to the different military bases.