Here We Go: New York Lawmakers Pass Aggressive Law To Fight Climate Change

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

13 minutes ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I consider you as spam.

Unfortunately, as a moderator, the "ignore user" spam filter doesn't work for me.

You are free to express your opinons, and I am free to laugh at them if I find them absurd.

You comment here on an Oil forum, and you clearly hate oil.

You stated above "And you can keep your New York politicians, they do not go far enough."

so it appears you want to go full Socialist / Fascist and force something even more absurdly disasterous than the Green New Deal onto an unwilling populace.

I repeat, I consider you spam.  Your sole agenda here appears to simply be attacking the oil industry and attacking anyone who questions the increasingly totalitarian and absurd Climate Panic religion.

 

And you just conduct personal attacks instead of using facts to argue.

You represent the opposite of what a moderator should be. You attack people for various opinions and try to make fun of facts instead of dispute ones that contradict your views.

Interesting to know you consider people who argue with facts spam. 

Now spreading this baseless nonsense about antifa, that is spam. Honestly you spread more spam on this site than anyone.

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

On 6/30/2019 at 12:46 PM, Stephenk said:

Well then tell me something how come in the 80's when they were saying we had a global cooling and they were trying to say we were going into a small ice age because of the air being so polluted that it was blocking the sun causing it to cool down and they were just a few people that keep saying that we were just going through another cycle and they were told they were wrong and it never came to pass and then we went to global warming and they couldn't prove that but a few say they were wrong then to and were told they were wrong and now here we are at climate change which in my mind is the easy way for them to say if the weather is bad blame it on climate change and it cover. Like I said I'm not saying the world not changing I'm just not sure that man is the main cause of it and that it not about money and control as they have been trying to push one kind of world ending deal of some kind all my life and that been over 60 years.     

That was because the natural cycles were lining up to drive drive the Earth’s temperature down, and they still are. But we overrode the natural signal with CO2 additions to the atmosphere that became apparent in the late 80s even though the cooling was arrested in the mid 70s. Particulate cooling was considered a concern because we had witnessed the effects of a volcanic eruption that did cause particulate cooling.

You can be sure that humans are the cause of the current warming.

Good references on global warming can be found on the NOAA and NASA websites. You know these can be trusted because they have been run by both liberal and conservative governments without changing their data or their interpretation of it.

[Stephenk + 28]

12 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

That was because the natural cycles were lining up to drive drive the Earth’s temperature down, and they still are. But we overrode the natural signal with CO2 additions to the atmosphere that became apparent in the late 80s even though the cooling was arrested in the mid 70s. Particulate cooling was considered a concern because we had witnessed the effects of a volcanic eruption that did cause particulate cooling.

You can be sure that humans are the cause of the current warming.

Good references on global warming can be found on the NOAA and NASA websites. You know these can be trusted because they have been run by both liberal and conservative governments without changing their data or their interpretation of it.

Well I will say this I have look at both and still don't agree with what they came up with because you look at our past and look at when we had recorded the highest temperatures in the USA it was in the past, just in Texas the high was 120 in some places and those have been over the last one was in 1992. I may not be a science guy by no means but I do keep up with what is happening, Has it been getting warmer yes up to a point but I do not believe that it has to do with just man as it has been proven in the pass and today that the earth go threw cooling and warning periods and I also believe that we could be better steward of this world when people start taking more and not replace what they have took in the way of forest and we throw away so much trash in our Oceans that there are floating trash piles that are miles wide it not good. That being said your still missing my point you are still going back to the same people who make money off of climate change, because if they came out and said their is nothing we could do to stop what happening they be out of a job and they wouldn't get the grants to study what is happening and that why I look at both sides not just one and you really should to because if you just take it from one side you will never get the full picture of what is going on and just so we are clear I'm not saying your totally wrong I'm just pointing out that their is a reason I believe that their more to the story than being told.  

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

2 hours ago, Stephenk said:

Well I will say this I have look at both and still don't agree with what they came up with because you look at our past and look at when we had recorded the highest temperatures in the USA it was in the past, just in Texas the high was 120 in some places and those have been over the last one was in 1992. I may not be a science guy by no means but I do keep up with what is happening, Has it been getting warmer yes up to a point but I do not believe that it has to do with just man as it has been proven in the pass and today that the earth go threw cooling and warning periods and I also believe that we could be better steward of this world when people start taking more and not replace what they have took in the way of forest and we throw away so much trash in our Oceans that there are floating trash piles that are miles wide it not good. That being said your still missing my point you are still going back to the same people who make money off of climate change, because if they came out and said their is nothing we could do to stop what happening they be out of a job and they wouldn't get the grants to study what is happening and that why I look at both sides not just one and you really should to because if you just take it from one side you will never get the full picture of what is going on and just so we are clear I'm not saying your totally wrong I'm just pointing out that their is a reason I believe that their more to the story than being told.  

I don’t look at it from a side, unless that side is objective reality. I look at the science.

The argument that scientists do it because that is the only way to get grants does not hold water. First, it implies that nearly all scientists that study climate are corrupt since most find humans are causing climate change. It would also require the biggest conspiracy of all time to coordinate the faked data around the globe and prevent anyone from collecting their own independent data.

While data supporting human caused global warming comes from hundreds of independent sources around the globe, data that claims to contradict it can usually be traced back to just a few of the same sources. And those sources, the Koch brothers being one, stand to lose a lot more money than all the scientists combined. Yes, follow the money. It does not take you to the scientists.

So no. Scientists are not faking climate data or studies just to keep a job.

[Stephenk + 28]

On 7/2/2019 at 11:09 AM, Bill the Science Nerd said:

I don’t look at it from a side, unless that side is objective reality. I look at the science.

The argument that scientists do it because that is the only way to get grants does not hold water. First, it implies that nearly all scientists that study climate are corrupt since most find humans are causing climate change. It would also require the biggest conspiracy of all time to coordinate the faked data around the globe and prevent anyone from collecting their own independent data.

While data supporting human caused global warming comes from hundreds of independent sources around the globe, data that claims to contradict it can usually be traced back to just a few of the same sources. And those sources, the Koch brothers being one, stand to lose a lot more money than all the scientists combined. Yes, follow the money. It does not take you to the scientists.

So no. Scientists are not faking climate data or studies just to keep a job.

Well you just prove my point anyone who only looks at one side will never see the true picture and that were we are different because I do and when someone only looks at one side of thing they make up they mind and there Is no changing it, Science is great but even they will tell you that most of what they put out there is a guess and what they think may happen. It is build on some facts but it still a guess on both sides and the past stand for it self and like I said on my first post we have had warmer years in the past  and cooler years just in my life time and at the same time the world was at a end almost every time we went through one of them, So to tell me I should believe them this time just because they say so is kind of hard for myself. Also when the guy who started Green peace and others who are in good standing with most of the science community not just some nut talking out his back side it's kind of hard not to take that in to account when looking at something like this so I guess we will agree to disagree.  

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

1 hour ago, Stephenk said:

Well you just prove my point anyone who only looks at one side will never see the true picture and that were we are different because I do and when someone only looks at one side of thing they make up they mind and there Is no changing it, Science is great but even they will tell you that most of what they put out there is a guess and what they think may happen. It is build on some facts but it still a guess on both sides and the past stand for it self and like I said on my first post we have had warmer years in the past  and cooler years just in my life time and at the same time the world was at a end almost every time we went through one of them, So to tell me I should believe them this time just because they say so is kind of hard for myself. Also when the guy who started Green peace and others who are in good standing with most of the science community not just some nut talking out his back side it's kind of hard not to take that in to account when looking at something like this so I guess we will agree to disagree.  

You need to be careful. Taking a side other than reality comes close to the definition of insanity.

And no. When a scientist submits a report for peer reviewed publication, it is very far from a guess and no serious scientist would call it that.

Here is a rundown of that process.

A scientist notices something and says “hmm. I wonder if this causes that?” This is the only place where a guess occurs but even then it is overwhelmingly an educated guess.

Then the scientist researches all the available prior work on the subject they can find to see if the question has already been answered and if those answers apply to their question.

Then the scientist creates a formal hypothesis that phrases the observation in the form of a question that can be tested.

Then the scientist designs a test that should answer the question.

The scientist performs the test taking meticulous notes of how everything goes from the design, construction, procedures, known limitations, observations, ect.

Then the scientist writes a paper describing the test in sufficient detail for another scientist to perform the same procedures independently. Then submits said paper for peer review to a journal.

The journal reviews the papers stated methodology to see if there were any concept errors that would invalidate the results of the test. Reviewing things like control of bias, if they made valid use of statistical methods, ect, but not the results. If stated methodology is good and the journal seems the paper of sufficient interest, it gets published.

Then other scientists in the same field review the work and see if they can spot any errors in methodology or unexpected results. If they find any, they submit a paper explaining what they found and why the results are invalid or they perform the tests as described and either verify or deny the results. It can also be ignored if the results are unsurprising or uninteresting.

This is the nature of peer review and as you can see, very far from a “guess”

As far as the world ending, if you remember it, I can guarantee you that it was non-scientists who made that claim. So maybe try listening to the science instead of listening to what the media says about it.

So tell me, who is this Greenpeace guy and what has he been saying?

[Stephenk + 28]

14 hours ago, Bill the Science Nerd said:

You need to be careful. Taking a side other than reality comes close to the definition of insanity.

And no. When a scientist submits a report for peer reviewed publication, it is very far from a guess and no serious scientist would call it that.

Here is a rundown of that process.

A scientist notices something and says “hmm. I wonder if this causes that?” This is the only place where a guess occurs but even then it is overwhelmingly an educated guess.

Then the scientist researches all the available prior work on the subject they can find to see if the question has already been answered and if those answers apply to their question.

Then the scientist creates a formal hypothesis that phrases the observation in the form of a question that can be tested.

Then the scientist designs a test that should answer the question.

The scientist performs the test taking meticulous notes of how everything goes from the design, construction, procedures, known limitations, observations, ect.

Then the scientist writes a paper describing the test in sufficient detail for another scientist to perform the same procedures independently. Then submits said paper for peer review to a journal.

The journal reviews the papers stated methodology to see if there were any concept errors that would invalidate the results of the test. Reviewing things like control of bias, if they made valid use of statistical methods, ect, but not the results. If stated methodology is good and the journal seems the paper of sufficient interest, it gets published.

Then other scientists in the same field review the work and see if they can spot any errors in methodology or unexpected results. If they find any, they submit a paper explaining what they found and why the results are invalid or they perform the tests as described and either verify or deny the results. It can also be ignored if the results are unsurprising or uninteresting.

This is the nature of peer review and as you can see, very far from a “guess”

As far as the world ending, if you remember it, I can guarantee you that it was non-scientists who made that claim. So maybe try listening to the science instead of listening to what the media says about it.

So tell me, who is this Greenpeace guy and what has he been saying?

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/03/07/greenpeace-founder-global-warming-hoax-pushed-corrupt-scientists-hooked-government-grants/

This is just one their are many more but as I said you believe one way and I believe another and like I told you he just one of many I have found that say the same thing and not just in this country but other countries their are people who are saying the same thing but they will not get the media coverage because they are a few even if they are right when it come to money and control they will be push down and just in case you want to look for it your self the best way to look for them is to go threw each country and look at they new out let's, I found two in Switzerland one in Germany and four in Russia. Like I said I'm not a science person but I do read a lot when it come to something I want to know about. and with that I'm going to leave it there because I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine so have a good day and enjoy the back and forth give me more to think about and I hope the same for you. 

[butasha + 123]

On 6/24/2019 at 1:57 AM, markslawson said:

I think you've messed up your units - 19 MW is nothing but you say its 54 per cent of total demand. If it is 54 per cent of total demand then sorry, they are, in effect, exporting. I take your point that it may not be officially from the wind farms, but simply redirecting various power plants on the outskirts to other grids.. 54 per cent is an enormous load at any one point and potentially a major problem for the network.. just think what happens when the wind dies and remember that conventional plants can take a long time to start up (exception is hydro).

Incidentally, you say, never exported. I tried looking at the ERCOT site just now but can't get on.. do you have a source?

http://ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144927/Wind_One_Pager_Revised.pdf

Wind records (as of December 2018):
Instantaneous wind record – 19,168 MW
on Dec. 14, 2018 at 12:07 a.m.
Wind penetration record – 54% on Oct. 27, 2017 at 4 a.m.

ERCOT operates as an ISO but basically moves power as an energy market and does export power to other interconnects via several DC ties. ERCOT does not have AC connections to external interconnections with Mexico or the US. There is the potential to drop and pic parts of Mexico or other US interconnects but this only occurs under emergency conditions.

http://ercot.com/content/wcm/lists/144927/PSCAD_and_Renewable_Gen_Studies_One_Pager_FINAL.pdf

Planning studies have shown that ERCOT could handle 28,000 MW wind generation with 70% penetration. While studies show that a 70% penetration may work I personally know the Operations Manager and doubt if he would like to see his System Operators have to test this scenario.

 

[Bill the Science Nerd + 73]

12 hours ago, Stephenk said:

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/03/07/greenpeace-founder-global-warming-hoax-pushed-corrupt-scientists-hooked-government-grants/

This is just one their are many more but as I said you believe one way and I believe another and like I told you he just one of many I have found that say the same thing and not just in this country but other countries their are people who are saying the same thing but they will not get the media coverage because they are a few even if they are right when it come to money and control they will be push down and just in case you want to look for it your self the best way to look for them is to go threw each country and look at they new out let's, I found two in Switzerland one in Germany and four in Russia. Like I said I'm not a science person but I do read a lot when it come to something I want to know about. and with that I'm going to leave it there because I'm not going to change your mind and your not going to change mine so have a good day and enjoy the back and forth give me more to think about and I hope the same for you. 

With an exhaustive search I could find no research by him refuting global warming. He participated in a lot of speaking events but has published nothing that I could find anywhere describing his independent research contradicting the scientific consensus even in publications favorable to global warming skeptics. What he did publish amounts to opinion pieces that can be surmised as ‘I don’t believe because I don’t want to’.

This is how you evaluate sources. And my evaluation of Patrick Moore is that he is not a source for scientific work at all.

Unless you know of a paper somewhere he published somewhere describing his research on global warming contradicting the scientific consensus, he is not a source of scientific information on the climate.

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 7/5/2019 at 3:00 AM, butasha said:

Planning studies have shown that ERCOT could handle 28,000 MW wind generation with 70% penetration. While studies show that a 70% penetration may work I personally know the Operations Manager and doubt if he would like to see his System Operators have to test this scenario.

I have no argument with any of that but you're talking about 54 per cent penetration and 70 per cent penetration at any one time right? rather than an annual average. For some reason I'm blocked by the site that you have linked to but no matter. I know they've got up to that and further in some European grids but on those grids, if the wind fails, they can quickly draw on generators in other countries - nuclear power in France or coal plants in Poland, say - when the wind fails, especially for small grid like Denmark. If it gets up 70 per cent, replacing the whole supply when the wind fails would be a huge problem..