Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

TDPerk
Posts: 976
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:55 pm
Location: Northern Shen. Valley, VA
Contact:

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by TDPerk »

happyjack27 wrote:it's a wonder, too, why they're pouring all of their money into such quakery, rather than doing actual legitimate scientific research. you'd think if the facts were on their side -- which presumably they are (there clearly isn't any conflict of interest) -- with the enormous money they spend on preaching the controversy, they could produce tons of quality verifiable scientific research proving that everything we know about chemistry, thermodynamics, meteorology, quantum physics, astronomy, electromagnetics, etc... is wrong. curious that with all that capital dedicated towards "finding the truth", the ends of their labor are quite literally laughable! it's almost as if... dare i say it... reality doesn't fit into their narrative.
The facts are already on the side of the notion, that there is no corelation between human released CO2 and global climate temperature change. They are in the business of finding and providing to the economy petrochemical energy as a first order business priority, and subsequently available chemical feedstock as a secondary priority. Until and unless business policies make it implausible that they can pass costs on to their customers, why should they enter into any unrelated fields of research?

The hilarious named Schott Glass AG, does not do research on clear petro derived polymers either. What of it in either case?
Last edited by TDPerk on Tue Dec 20, 2016 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
molon labe
montani semper liberi
para fides paternae patria

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

TDPerk wrote:You brought up the topic of fossil ice cores.
fossils are remains or impressions of once-living organisms. Nothing to do with ice cores.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fossil
noun
1.
any remains, impression, or trace of a living thing of a former geologic age, as a skeleton, footprint, etc.
2.
a markedly outdated or old-fashioned person or thing.
3.
a linguistic form that is archaic except in certain restricted contexts, as nonce in for the nonce, or that follows a rule or pattern that is no longer productive, as the sentence So be it.
I have already linked to the actual record.
good for you. it's publically available on nasa's website -- for the time being at least (thanks trump voters)
If it's a red herring, it's yours.
i don't think you know what a "red herring" is. Suffice it to say you employ red herrings CONSTANTLY.
Nevertheless, in fact, CO2 increases follow climate temp increases in the record shown in such ice cores. They do not precede it.
They do both. As you'd know had you read anything in the article i linked. It's called "feedback". Here it is for you once again:
The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

TDPerk wrote:
happyjack27 wrote:it's a wonder, too, why they're pouring all of their money into such quakery, rather than doing actual legitimate scientific research. you'd think if the facts were on their side -- which presumably they are (there clearly isn't any conflict of interest) -- with the enormous money they spend on preaching the controversy, they could produce tons of quality verifiable scientific research proving that everything we know about chemistry, thermodynamics, meteorology, quantum physics, astronomy, electromagnetics, etc... is wrong. curious that with all that capital dedicated towards "finding the truth", the ends of their labor are quite literally laughable! it's almost as if... dare i say it... reality doesn't fit into their narrative.
The facts are already on the side of the notion, that there is no corelation between human released CO2 and global climate temperature change.
wow, you should tell the climate scientists this. clearly 99.99% of them are woefully misinformed. and you, on the other hand, are not. seems to be the more likely explanation.

maybe you could write a paper explaining the facts and submit it to a scientific journal.

ladajo
Posts: 6258
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by ladajo »

This issue is not a debate about the existence of god. You guys should take it less personal.

In any event, I think we don't really know yet, as these are Mega-cycles we are talking about, and the extent of possible human interference is a literal stain in the bucket on the time scales we are talking about.

Thus, my position is more moderate in the middle; Does human activity impact climate? Probably, need more long term data. Is human activity the dominant factor in climate variations? Maybe not, too soon to tell.

The 400,000 year chart provides a compelling argument about long term cycles outside of human influence.

There is also other data which indicates these and possibly larger/longer term cycles dependent on non-human factors.

This is the point of science: Seek better understanding. More often than not, this takes time. And some data sets take a really long time to collect.
Also, as far as I have seen, predictive models are exactly what they say, "predictive", vice fact. And I think we can all agree that there have been many models that have been wrong. I for one am still awaiting the ice-age predicted in the 70's and 80's by "science" and "scientists".

Meh.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

Carl White
Posts: 476
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:44 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Carl White »

happyjack27 wrote: Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

Image
This graph suggests we'd be due for (or already experiencing the start of) a sharp downward trend in temperatures about now. Which is stronger, the greenhouse effect that's building, or the tapering off of incident light on the Earth? Or can emissions be magically balanced to prevent another Ice Age?

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

ladajo wrote:This issue is not a debate about the existence of god. You guys should take it less personal.

In any event, I think we don't really know yet, as these are Mega-cycles we are talking about,
ice core samples give us historical records of both the temperature AND composition of the atmosphere (due to bubbles).
we do really know.

"mega-cycles" - of what? solar cycles? yeah, we know of those, and they are far from "mega". and we know the historical net effect - from ice cores.
and the extent of possible human interference is a literal stain in the bucket on the time scales we are talking about.
ah, no. the rapidity of climate change has few parellels in the history of the planet. none of which had results anything short of catastrophic.
Thus, my position is more moderate in the middle; Does human activity impact climate? Probably, need more long term data. Is human activity the dominant factor in climate variations? Maybe not, too soon to tell.
the truth does not always lie in between two extremes. this is called the "gray fallacy" or "argument to moderation".
The Sophisticate: "The world isn't black and white. No one does pure good or pure bad. It's all gray. Therefore, no one is better than anyone else."
The Zetet: "Knowing only gray, you conclude that all grays are the same shade. You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view..." —Marc Stiegler, David's Sling
The 400,000 year chart provides a compelling argument about long term cycles outside of human influence.

There is also other data which indicates these and possibly larger/longer term cycles dependent on non-human factors.
oh really? not known by scientists? not part of any model?

you should write a paper on it and submit it to a journal.

This is the point of science: Seek better understanding. More often than not, this takes time. And some data sets take a really long time to collect.
Also, as far as I have seen, predictive models are exactly what they say, "predictive", vice fact. And I think we can all agree that there have been many models that have been wrong.
ok, then, let's forget about cell phones and computers and medicine and all that because "it could be wrong".
I for one am still awaiting the ice-age predicted in the 70's and 80's by "science" and "scientists".
ummm.... don't hold your breath. these were quacks, like the people TDPerk and paperburn cite.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Carl White wrote:
happyjack27 wrote: Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

Image
This graph suggests we'd be due for (or already experiencing the start of) a sharp downward trend in temperatures about now. Which is stronger, the greenhouse effect that's building, or the tapering off of incident light on the Earth? Or can emissions be magically balanced to prevent another Ice Age?
temperature is rising very rapidly right now due primarily to humans releasing a lot of greenhouse gases, such as carbon and methane, into the atmosphere.

here's the past 2000 years (minus a little over a decade):

Image


here's more recently:

Image

note the second chart, it reaches about 1.1, which would be well off the chart of the 2000-year one.

hanelyp
Posts: 2261
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 8:50 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by hanelyp »

Doctored data:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... 1402183cf2
Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
The daylight is uncomfortably bright for eyes so long in the dark.

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

hanelyp wrote:Doctored data:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... 1402183cf2
Raw temperature data show that U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today. In fact, raw temperature data show an 80-year cooling trend. NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.
Gullible people:
hanelyp

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

happyjack27 wrote:
ladajo wrote:This issue is not a debate about the existence of god. You guys should take it less personal.

In any event, I think we don't really know yet, as these are Mega-cycles we are talking about,
ice core samples give us historical records of both the temperature AND composition of the atmosphere (due to bubbles).
we do really know.

"mega-cycles" - of what? solar cycles? yeah, we know of those, and they are far from "mega". and we know the historical net effect - from ice cores.
maybe these are the "mega-cycles" you so vaguely throw out there?:

Image

BTW, scientists place the emergence of homo sapiens at about 200,000 years ago, so that would be about the center of that graph.
Last edited by happyjack27 on Tue Dec 20, 2016 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

RERT wrote: There is no global conspiracy, but the well funded establishment is supported by very well organised people working in what they see as a noble cause. People's livelihoods are threatened for holding the wrong views. Wikipedia is a green publication. Look at the climategate emails to see what they think of the peer review process. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a steamroller that tries to crush dissent, as here when I was insulted and told there was no debate.


And this is more how I see things. What some people are calling a "conspiracy" is more closer akin to popular "group think." It is no different from people who against all evidence to the contrary, thought Hillary Clinton was a good answer for anything.


They aren't conspirators, they are a large segment of people sharing "intellectual phase lock" which has *ALWAYS* been a problem in science. (and in human history too.)


"Global Warming" is but the latest iteration of the Aether theory. All the popular scientists have bought into it and those who want to be popular jump on the bandwagon. It is a movement caused by social dynamics, not science.


Oh, I have no doubt that some are in it because they see it as advancing their careers or pocketbooks, but most do not fall into this category. For most it is just a popular bandwagon.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Diogenes wrote:
RERT wrote: There is no global conspiracy, but the well funded establishment is supported by very well organised people working in what they see as a noble cause. People's livelihoods are threatened for holding the wrong views. Wikipedia is a green publication. Look at the climategate emails to see what they think of the peer review process. It may not be a conspiracy, but it is a steamroller that tries to crush dissent, as here when I was insulted and told there was no debate.


And this is more how I see things. What some people are calling a "conspiracy" is more closer akin to popular "group think." It is no different from people who against all evidence to the contrary, thought Hillary Clinton was a good answer for anything.


They aren't conspirators, they are a large segment of people sharing "intellectual phase lock" which has *ALWAYS* been a problem in science. (and in human history too.)


"Global Warming" is but the latest iteration of the Aether theory. All the popular scientists have bought into it and those who want to be popular jump on the bandwagon. It is a movement caused by social dynamics, not science.


Oh, I have no doubt that some are in it because they see it as advancing their careers or pocketbooks, but most do not fall into this category. For most it is just a popular bandwagon.

nevermind all the data....

Diogenes
Posts: 6967
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by Diogenes »

TDPerk wrote: How long did it take for Milliken's Oil Drop error to be acknowledged? Most people--and scientists are also just such people--go with the flow, don't rock the boat, and get on the gravy train.


Anyone who has read the history of science knows this is often the norm rather than the exception.


In fact, it was so common that Max Planck opined "Science advances one funeral at a time."


It really is a sort of popularity contest for nerds.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Diogenes wrote:
TDPerk wrote: How long did it take for Milliken's Oil Drop error to be acknowledged? Most people--and scientists are also just such people--go with the flow, don't rock the boat, and get on the gravy train.


Anyone who has read the history of science knows this is often the norm rather than the exception.


In fact, it was so common that Max Planck opined "Science advances one funeral at a time."


It really is a sort of popularity contest for nerds.
Because popularity contests make cell phones, modern medicine, and moon landings.

your view of science is so disgustingly warped it's flabberghasting.

you could benefit quite a bit from taking a few philosophy of science courses.

learn about how epistemology has advanced throughout the centuries.

given your incouragibility, however, i doubt they would be of much help. i doubt anything would.

after all, you already know everything, so what would be the point?

btw, i'm curious, what do you think computer programming is? a fashion contest for geeks? what is modern medicine? hmm... a soap opera for tinkerers...

trying to apply your worldview more generally. struggling...

mathematics... an ego contest for number-lovers?

happyjack27
Posts: 1439
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Bill Gates is heading a $1 billion venture fund to combat climate change

Post by happyjack27 »

Question 1, worth 1 point.

Be careful, it's a toughy!

What is Science?

a)
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

b)
A small amalgamation on the soul of a boot, indicative of extensive wear.

c)
A popularity contest for nerds.

d)
A city in France, just north of Paris.

Post Reply