AGW Theory - Discussion

You are talking about a fringe group of people who are a bunch of idiots anyway.

It requires more energy to produce the fuels than they yield. The only reason you would produce HC's is to suit a very specific function. Similar to the energy pit that is desalination, the only reason it makes sense to do it is because of the energy cost of transporting potable water to a specific location. In the case of HC's, there's basically no place on earth where it makes sense to produce them instead of just using an alternate energy source. If you have the energy to produce HC's, you'd never need them.

There are many cases, and this is how I know your not an engineer.

Hydrocarbons are used because they possess the highest energy density other then nuclear. If you want to transport any mass a long distance, then no other fuel is more efficient then hydrocarbons. This is why the Navy is developing a miniaturized version of this, because it's cheaper to create the fuel while underway then it is to have it shipped out on a tanker. Even at double the price ($7USD a gallon) its still cheaper due to logistical concerns. Seeing how many nations already price fuel over $7USD a gallon, we know the market can bear that cost.

Furthermore the technology required to use hydrocarbons is more mature and more efficient then solar or wind. As bad as the carnot limit is, it's no where near as brutal as the limit on solar / wind for energy conversion, storage and transportation. So your still left with hydrocarbons being the absolute best choice for powering an 18 wheeler loaded with cargo,a 777 loaded with people or your car going to grandma's.

Welcome to engineering where the only deity your allowed to have is the almighty god of numbers. No amount of false idol worship will save you from your soviet inspired religion failing you completely. No matter how much you believe, your faith will now power your car or that transportation aircraft.

This bothers me more than anything else.

It's not just a few idiots, it's the majority.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/03/republican-views-on-evolution-tracking-how-its-changed/

And that correlates well with this

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2012/03/29/149615398/study-conservatives-trust-in-science-at-record-low

Maybe you just don't know your party as well as I do.

I never claimed to be an engineer, so I don't know what you're trying to prove by reciting exactly the same reason I gave for the niche use of producing HC's.

Science isn't settled, ever. There is no condition that exists that precludes counter-arguments from taking place within a scientific discussion.

This is the craziest thing imaginable, that science is somehow determined by a group of self-appointed individuals. It's preposterous that the universe would be subservient to political ideology. The universe doesn't care what political party one is part of, it doesn't care what's politically correct or not, it simple exists with zero attention give to us. Science is the attempt to understand the universe and because the universe is so complicated, no understanding is 100% correct. This creates room for expansion of every theory every created. Except with AGW, somehow the universe has granted them immunity to such expansion or understanding. According to AGW proponents, the universe has bowed down to AGW supporters and now changes universal law to be politically correct and in line with current AGW religion.

This is why I publicity call AGW a religion. It meets all the requirements for a religion. It follows the same model the Catholic church used to stifle dissent a few hundred years ago. Recently they even attempted to make a law that would make criticizing AGW illegal while also stripping funding from those producing research that countered them.

Yes they actually proposed to do that and yes they actually did strip funding from several scientists that produced research that countered their religion.

Maybe you just don't know your party as well as I do.

You attempted to argue that synthesizing hydrocarbons was a fruitless attempt because it was "niche". This is wrong and I demonstrated how it was wrong. Now your trying to deflect and run with your tail tucked between your legs while pretending you never said what you said. This is common behavior for you, when pushed into a corner you deflect and attempt to drag the conversation in a direction where you can win.

So, 2 biased sources makes you think you know the Republicans well?

Ask yourself this: How many actual Republicans answered these "polls"?

Like I said, I'm not going to deny that there are idiots in the world, they are on both sides of the spectrum, but to base your findings on two biased sources?

inb4 "neither are biased!" excuse.

Or would you rather that I use a poll from Fox News finding that liberals/democrats think that the Fed is out to get them?

according to your own poll more democrats than republicans believe evolution is guided by a higher power

so who are the science deniers now?

You are talking about a fringe group of people who are a bunch of idiots anyway. If you are going to group an entire political party based on a few idiots, then don't cry when we do the same to you.

Well, for one, Fox News uses independent pollsters for their polls, sounds like you didn't know that.

Two, I had no idea pew research was biased. Maybe I should only check unskewed polls from now on.

All this response does is continue the trend of conservatives turn a blind eye to data they don't like. Don't you think it's not a good model in life to only listen to sources of data that you per-approve of?

Does it matter? If you had even the slightest bit of education, you would know that statistics and data can be skewed to fit pretty much any agenda period.

There may have been a bunch of answers the pollsters didn't like, so they didn't include them in their findings when they reported. That happens more often than you care to admit.

That's why you should always take polls with a grain of salt, and a shot of whiskey.

Does it matter? If you had even the slightest bit of education, you would know that statistics and data can be skewed to fit pretty much any agenda period.

There may have been a bunch of answers the pollsters didn't like, so they didn't include them in their findings when they reported. That happens more often than you care to admit.

That's why you should always take polls with a grain of salt, and a shot of whiskey.

They don't teach skepticism at school.

Right, depending on the school, they teach critical thinking and problem solving. I guess some people missed those classes and take polls like they actually mean something.

I mean, if you poll people from an area that teaches creationism, you would expect more people to answer that we were created instead of evolved.

Well, you would think that if you actually could think critically for yourself.

If I can admit that there are awful/nonsensical things about the democrats/left, why can't you do the same with the right?

What exactly do you lose if you ever admit to smallest fault with your own party?

brah

How is this a fault anyway?

Polls are a reliable way of estimating general opinion. Since this thread is nothing but estimating (we even have Theory in the title), polls should be an acceptable way of furthering the debate.

The fact you are fixating on how polls are bad implies not that the polling industry itself is bad, just that the particular poll linked was not in favour of your opinion... Which it wasn't. It's a classic technique to shoot down the validity of a statistic when it doesn't favour you, but would your concern spread to a poll that reiterates your opinion? I highly doubt it.

Way too transparent an argument.

Would you ever pretend you know more about physics than Steven Hawking? No, so don't pretend you know more about climate change than experts who dedicate their whole lives studying it.

Wait, you admitted that there are stupid things the liberals/democrats say? All that ever came from your fingers is how wonderful the liberals/democrats are and how much you worship them while demeaning Republicans/conservatives in the same keystrokes.

How is this a fault anyway?

So, it's ok to take people's word without question then.

Is that what you are saying?