Page 258 of 301 FirstFirst ... 158208248251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265268 ... LastLast
Results 3,342 to 3,354 of 3913
  1. #3342
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,519
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    This is curious. You have no problem with science but your problem is with scientists.
    Science comes from scientists. That's the source.
    You don't like journalists because of fake news. Journalists report the news so where do you go for the "Real Skinny"?
    Unless of course your source comes from a politician or worse some radio/tv jock.
    BTW you can be a radio/tv jock w/o any science at all. You can even be a dropout.

    By not being a scientist, how is your information more relevant? Truth being, most glean information and often mix it with other information arriving at most an opinion.
    All people are biased. Especially politicians. So called Journalists have slowly been allowing their personal (liberal) bias to enter their news coverage more and more and now we can't trust much of anything the main stream reports. The entire postmodern ethic has permeated nearly everything. So now the personal bias of many scientists gets reflected in their so called "scientific papers".

    In my opinion, much of this is the result of allowing the far political left (postmodern thinking) to gain control of our educational system and colleges. Those coming out of college for the past several years (perhaps 20 years or so) were not taught the truth. They were taught that they can have their own personal truth. They were taught truth is relative. At the same time they were infused with anti America history and the idea of social justice instead of actually learning classical history and the principles of freedom and justice according to the Bill Of Rights.

    Our legal system was founded on Blackstone. His principles of legal justice and fairness are unparalleled. Law schools used Blackstone as the very foundation of law school instruction. No law school graduate today even knows who he was. He was replaced with relative truth, social justice ideas and liberal progressive thinking.

    Everyone has bias but we have now reached a point where that bias is purposely infused into everything without restraint. Without any interest in real TRUTH! This is taking the republic down as we speak.

    Example of how absolutely stupid this has become is this; Science of biology knows there are only two genders. That is science. But, you can easily find people everywhere including scientists who will argue there are many genders. These people have mental disorders.
    "No matter how thirsty your imagination, mirages contain no water"

  2. #3343
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post
    I have heard reports that supposedly the ICCP {I think} lowered historical temperature records to make the warming look more alarming. At the same time the design temperature for my area dropped by 2 according to ACCA data. If there is warming the design should have went up but if someone lowered historical temps then it would go down, right? I have posted the degree days for my area from somewhere around 1910 to around 2010 or 2015 I forget. But they showed we were warmer in the 1930's, colder in the 1970's and we have not been as hot or cold since so basically no change over the last 100 years. The degree day link you posted was comparing 50 year increments rather than looking at the whole 100 years. Depending on where they put their break it can skew the comparison. Like I have said every summer, every winter is different but they are all about the same. Some hotter some wetter, some cooler, some drier, all different, most will hit a low low below 0 and a high high over 100 for as long as I can remember. Some years will have a heat wave where the high highs last a couple weeks or the low lows will, but you seldom see the highs and lows cancel each other out. Hope that explains it . . . again.
    That's one big paragraph with a variety of thoughts. Difficult for me to dissect it, but I'll do my best...

    No idea what you're talking about with some supposed event that you think may have happened in regard to the IPCC. If you could be specific in your claim, I may be able to be convinced. But as a proxy response, the datasets used by ACCA and ASHRAE are also used in IPCC reports. So, I'm a little suspicious about your vague claim.

    I'm still not sure why you would choose degree days over average temperature, but ok. Let's go down that path. I'm afraid I'll be using ASHRAE report, rather than ACCA, due to availability. If you could link to something with similar detail from ACCA, we can take it from there. Though, I think they both use/collaborate on reports using the same dataset.

    I have attached 2 screenshots from this report (sorry for low resolution pics, Tapatalk has recently changed handling of pics in an effort to promote users to upgrade to premium account): http://arco-hvac.ir/wp-content/uploa...4_Climates.pdf

    Cliff notes: As per ASHRAE, it's getting warming. Climate change is real.

    I'm not sure what comes up for you in regard to my provided link about degree days. But it comes up with yearly increments for me, not just 50 years as you allude to. See attached pic, which indicates global warming is in fact occuring.

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicato...ng-degree-days

    Hope that clears up your misunderstanding of the realities of climate change... again.

  3. #3344
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    9,626
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    Science is it's own neutral entity. Scientists discover, collect & interpret. Science is not subject to error or outside influences, such as politics. Scientists are.

    Large difference of opinion here.
    Scientist's created science, established method, laid ground rules, established protocol. The natural world simply existed before. It took humans asking questions to begin what evolved into science. Human began to question the mysteries and established the beginning of unraveling the secrets of our world.
    Before the questions of of phenomenon there was a natural world that resisted human understanding for it's entire existence. Science is an attempt to understand this observation.
    Science is commonly defined as "systematized knowledge"
    Science has had a history of error and outside influences, dirty deeds, and mistakes. But like other human creations, it's purely a human attempt of discovery.

    Isn't it curious that many religions, especially fundamental Christians, are anti-science.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  4. #3345
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    43,105
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    Large difference of opinion here.
    Scientist's created science, established method, laid ground rules, established protocol. The natural world simply existed before. It took humans asking questions to begin what evolved into science. Human began to question the mysteries and established the beginning of unraveling the secrets of our world.
    Before the questions of of phenomenon there was a natural world that resisted human understanding for it's entire existence. Science is an attempt to understand this observation.
    Science is commonly defined as "systematized knowledge"
    Science has had a history of error and outside influences, dirty deeds, and mistakes. But like other human creations, it's purely a human attempt of discovery.

    Isn't it curious that many religions, especially fundamental Christians, are anti-science.

    Christianity is NOT anti-science...
    Christianity knows a higher being than science...
    That would be the ONE that created science...

    Sorry...
    Your logic box is too small...
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Your comfort, Your way, Everyday!

    GA's basic rules of home heating and AC upgrades:
    *Installation is more important than the brand of equipment
    *The duct system keeps the house comfortable; the equipment only heats and cools (and dehumidifies)
    *Cheap is not good, good is not cheap; however expensive is not a guarantee of quality!
    Choose your contractor wisely!

  5. #3346
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    9,626
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh B View Post
    All people are biased. Especially politicians. So called Journalists have slowly been allowing their personal (liberal) bias to enter their news coverage more and more and now we can't trust much of anything the main stream reports. The entire postmodern ethic has permeated nearly everything. So now the personal bias of many scientists gets reflected in their so called "scientific papers".


    I don't doubt personal bias but I do understand efforts by many to go beyond this affliction. In journalism the rule was to have at least two sources before taking the story to an editor. An attempt to truth. Scientists have an even more difficult path because of scientific method. Their work will be laying naked before other scientists that might be way smarter.
    Science kind of reminds me of the blind men describing an elephant. The future is blind. Science makes the attempt to describe what can only be known by establishing a theory and trying to assemble what they think/believe to be true. An effort only too human.



    In my opinion, much of this is the result of allowing the far political left (postmodern thinking) to gain control of our educational system and colleges. Those coming out of college for the past several years (perhaps 20 years or so) were not taught the truth. They were taught that they can have their own personal truth. They were taught truth is relative. At the same time they were infused with anti America history and the idea of social justice instead of actually learning classical history and the principles of freedom and justice according to the Bill Of Rights.


    While many education systems might be left leaning, education doesn't need to be. That has no effect on almost all studies. That's a political position and won't effect the material studied.
    I never experienced the things you mentioned.
    I never heard of having "Your own personal truth." I wouldn't be able to pass a test with that assumption. Never heard any anti-American rhetoric. If anything some rhetoric was about how to make a better America even if it was unpopular with the right.
    So I don't know where you went to school but it doesn't sound mainstream.
    You do realize that our system would have and is considered left as far as human liberty goes.



    Our legal system was founded on Blackstone. His principles of legal justice and fairness are unparalleled. Law schools used Blackstone as the very foundation of law school instruction. No law school graduate today even knows who he was. He was replaced with relative truth, social justice ideas and liberal progressive thinking.

    All this process is the product of Constitution interpretation and upheld by our Supreme Court that's often conservative. The Preamble was a violation of common sense in it's day as the world of the time didn't often recognize personal liberty. "Establish justice" for it's citizens? England was an exception to a point. For our liberties, thank a liberal. The most oppressive Nations in our world are predictably conservative and it doesn't matter what the national philosophy is.

    Everyone has bias but we have now reached a point where that bias is purposely infused into everything without restraint. Without any interest in real TRUTH! This is taking the republic down as we speak.

    Example of how absolutely stupid this has become is this; Science of biology knows there are only two genders. That is science. But, you can easily find people everywhere including scientists who will argue there are many genders. These people have mental disorders.
    I think you must know the science knows there are two genders. The other genders are in the minds of the people that can't figure it out. Most don't doubt a mental disorder.
    Many genders aren't part of biology but part of psychologist's attempt to understand the mind not the nature around them.
    Part of psychology is to adapt people to their bestial nature. Help them live with themselves. I've had encounters with people going through a sex change procedure who worked for a customer. I felt sorry that they were stuck with this problem. It actually dominated their lives. The therapy tried to help the accept who they were but probably most would rather be normal as their lives are way tougher than most.
    Anyway, don't be too tough on them. They have enough going on.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  6. Likes Lahrs liked this post.
  7. #3347
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Deep Southeast
    Posts
    8,714
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    This is curious. You have no problem with science but your problem is with scientists.
    Science comes from scientists. That's the source.
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    Science is it's own neutral entity. Scientists discover, collect & interpret. Science is not subject to error or outside influences, such as politics. Scientists are.

    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    Large difference of opinion here.
    Scientist's created science, established method, laid ground rules, established protocol. The natural world simply existed before. It took humans asking questions to begin what evolved into science. Human began to question the mysteries and established the beginning of unraveling the secrets of our world.
    Before the questions of of phenomenon there was a natural world that resisted human understanding for it's entire existence. Science is an attempt to understand this observation.
    Science is commonly defined as "systematized knowledge"
    Science has had a history of error and outside influences, dirty deeds, and mistakes. But like other human creations, it's purely a human attempt of discovery.


    I have to agree that my comment erroneously and unintentionally insinuated that science was the end all be all. what I should have said (and what I meant) is that the object of scientific study has the final word. So, by extension, science can be in error only if scientists are (as they often are). If, in my earlier comment, you exchange the term 'science' with the term 'object of study', does it become clearer?

    Perhaps additional clarity: Do Physics or the laws of Physics come from physicists? I think we can both agree that it/they do not. Physicists merely study and draw conclusions based on finite & imperfect thought, experimentation & perceived discoveries. They have no impact on Physics, they merely study it and harness its characteristics as able. They are not always correct in their conclusions, and there is still much, much that we don't know.


    Isn't it curious that many religions, especially fundamental Christians, are anti-science.
    An erroneous assumption. I suppose some Christians are anti-science, but they lack understanding. After all, those of us who understand that God exists and created the universe understand the obvious: He created science, the scientist and the 'studied object/entity'.

    There are no contradictions between science and God, only misunderstood or misguided conclusions.

    As to me, I have the perspective mentioned above, that God created all that is and that science is merely the vehicle by which we make some incredible discoveries surrounding the intricacies of His creation. And I understand that, in our fallibility, we often 'get it wrong'. I leave room for that inevitable possibility. If man is fallible, then our conclusions can be fallible as well.

  8. #3348
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    9,626
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by vin lashon View Post
    I have to agree that my comment erroneously and unintentionally insinuated that science was the end all be all. what I should have said (and what I meant) is that the object of scientific study has the final word. So, by extension, science can be in error only if scientists are (as they often are). If, in my earlier comment, you exchange the term 'science' with the term 'object of study', does it become clearer?

    Perhaps additional clarity: Do Physics or the laws of Physics come from physicists? I think we can both agree that it/they do not. Physicists merely study and draw conclusions based on finite & imperfect thought, experimentation & perceived discoveries. They have no impact on Physics, they merely study it and harness its characteristics as able. They are not always correct in their conclusions, and there is still much, much that we don't know.




    An erroneous assumption. I suppose some Christians are anti-science, but they lack understanding. After all, those of us who understand that God exists and created the universe understand the obvious: He created science, the scientist and the 'studied object/entity'.

    There are no contradictions between science and God, only misunderstood or misguided conclusions.

    As to me, I have the perspective mentioned above, that God created all that is and that science is merely the vehicle by which we make some incredible discoveries surrounding the intricacies of His creation. And I understand that, in our fallibility, we often 'get it wrong'. I leave room for that inevitable possibility. If man is fallible, then our conclusions can be fallible as well.

    I can agree with most of what you wrote. I have to discipline myself to try to avid mixing science with metaphysics. Will science someday prove the existence of God. I doubt it. Just as science unwraps a discovery it just points to a larger question.
    Science seems like I said about the blind men and elephant. Science stumbles their way forward with two steps back. I have read some histories of science. For instance the elements and how their discoveries came about. The guy in the 1600's collected urine in casks believing he could distill gold. He didn't but did discover phosphorus. A lot of discoveries are serendipity. I've heard a chief say similar of events in a kitchen. Happy accidents.

    In my view of most religions is their God is too small. They have placed their God in a box and will deal with anyone who thinks differently. They define that which has no name.
    For many, the nature of God has moved from the preachers, priests, hustlers to the physicists who's explanations of phenomenon far exceed the ramblings of most religions.
    Some fundamentalists have even abandoned religion in favor of politics to fill the pews.
    I have been in churches that not only are anti-science but anti- higher education believing education will make unbelievers out of the believers. They scorn science especially.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

  9. #3349
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    10,266
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    I can agree with most of what you wrote. I have to discipline myself to try to avid mixing science with metaphysics. Will science someday prove the existence of God. I doubt it. Just as science unwraps a discovery it just points to a larger question.
    Science seems like I said about the blind men and elephant. Science stumbles their way forward with two steps back. I have read some histories of science. For instance the elements and how their discoveries came about. The guy in the 1600's collected urine in casks believing he could distill gold. He didn't but did discover phosphorus. A lot of discoveries are serendipity. I've heard a chief say similar of events in a kitchen. Happy accidents.

    In my view of most religions is their God is too small. They have placed their God in a box and will deal with anyone who thinks differently. They define that which has no name.
    For many, the nature of God has moved from the preachers, priests, hustlers to the physicists who's explanations of phenomenon far exceed the ramblings of most religions.
    Some fundamentalists have even abandoned religion in favor of politics to fill the pews.
    I have been in churches that not only are anti-science but anti- higher education believing education will make unbelievers out of the believers. They scorn science especially.
    It seems that this has been brought up in this thread before but I guess is one reason I don't believe man will/can destroy this planet. Jesus said he will return "lest no flesh be left alive"! If you believe in God how can you believe any different. Now, that is not to say that we should trash the planet either. We are to be good stewards of God's creation. The question then becomes where do you draw the line? At what point are we living abundantly and at what point have we gone to far? I don't believe that FF is as bad as has been reported but I also don't think all the pollution, especially all the plastics made from oil, are good and will be/are far worse than the FF we burn in the long run.

  10. #3350
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    27,228
    Post Likes
    No question about that: energy companies are still Companies. But the numbers expressed are still there. If the stated ecological goals are to be accomplished the oil companies would have to produce a considerable amount less product.

    Sure; it would have to be consumer driven - but that's the middle of the cypher-in. The ends of it still have to balance. <g>

    The point is to illustrate the impracticality of the stated goals in easy to understand terms.

    PHM
    --------


    Quote Originally Posted by hvacker View Post
    I'm fairly sure the oil companies wouldn't produce what they couldn't sell. Kind of like the illegal drug producers being blamed for the epidemic w/o blaming the demand.

    I wonder how much of the production goes into products that don't end up in fuel tanks.
    This report looks like backwards thinking. The production is not in the same building as the consumption building. Consumption needs to solve that themselves. Cut consumption and production will follow.
    PHM
    --------
    The conventional view serves to protect us from the painful job of thinking.

  11. #3351
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    43,105
    Post Likes
    IMO... technological advances, driven by the FREE MARKET... will be a part of the answer...

    Think about this:
    How much energy has been saved... by switching from any and all other forms of 'lights'...
    To LED lights???
    In my area (metro Atlanta)... it is the exception to see an old style metal halide outside light... and the big/box stores do not have anything other than LED bulbs for sale.
    Now on an average... an LED uses somewhere between 15-33% of the electricity for the same lumens... as any of the other forms of using electricity to make light...

    Now if we can figure out more efficient ways to:
    *Dry clothes with electricity...
    *Cook with electricity...
    *Run our heating and AC with electricity...
    Etc, etc, etc...
    We can significantly lower FF use.

    One thing we need to remember: the law of conservation of energy:
    'Energy cannot be created, nor destroyed; it can only change form'
    So we cannot get energy out of less than thin air... and the energy we use, goes somewhere.

    Lets figure out how to use energy wisely... and we will lower the damage we are doing, using it.

    And BTW; Wisdom is not radical change... rather slow, methodical movement towards a goal!
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Your comfort, Your way, Everyday!

    GA's basic rules of home heating and AC upgrades:
    *Installation is more important than the brand of equipment
    *The duct system keeps the house comfortable; the equipment only heats and cools (and dehumidifies)
    *Cheap is not good, good is not cheap; however expensive is not a guarantee of quality!
    Choose your contractor wisely!

  12. #3352
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Likes
    Far out. Sounds like someone's computer has been hacked!!!

  13. #3353
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Atlanta GA area
    Posts
    43,105
    Post Likes
    Wonder if the poster saw the

    FREE MARKET

    Part...

    LED lightbulbs were NOT developed due to govt regulations...
    They were a product of innovation by the free market!

    Free always works better than top down control!
    GA-HVAC-Tech

    Your comfort, Your way, Everyday!

    GA's basic rules of home heating and AC upgrades:
    *Installation is more important than the brand of equipment
    *The duct system keeps the house comfortable; the equipment only heats and cools (and dehumidifies)
    *Cheap is not good, good is not cheap; however expensive is not a guarantee of quality!
    Choose your contractor wisely!

  14. #3354
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    9,626
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by ga-hvac-tech View Post
    Wonder if the poster saw the

    FREE MARKET

    Part...

    LED lightbulbs were NOT developed due to govt regulations...
    They were a product of innovation by the free market!

    Free always works better than top down control!

    Not my recollection but I didn't memorize the events on point.
    A lot of influence (pressure) to get rid of incandescent bulbs, better gas millage and efficient furnaces by people that study stuff like that. Power companies not wanting to invest in infrastructure they didn't need to.
    Old type light bulbs are gone thru gov mandates so that's something that wasn't left up to the free market. They benefited anyway.

    If left up to what is erroneous referred to the "free market" we wouldn't be free. Free market capitalists wouldn't have any use for freedom outside of their freedom to have their way with us as they have historically done.

    I wish our liberal (so I keep being told) education system would teach labor history with the same enthusiasm that the railroad and steel barons are. If labor history is taught at all.

    The power companies are an interesting anomaly. Normal companies want to sell more stuff. But to sell more juice the utilities would need to spent a bunch. At the same time, being a monopoly, have to guaranty investor returns. A Catch 22 sequel.
    There probably would have been a lot of street protests concerning building nukes or increasing FF use by expanding FF generation. "So lets cut consumption and just raise prices. We can do that." my head imagines a board room conservation.

    Someday I will convince myself to bring up the corporate mindset. Persona non Grata.
    Give me a relay with big enough contacts, and I'll run the world!

    You can be anything you want......As long as you don't suck at it.

    If a person wants to create a machine that will be more likely to fail...Make it complicated.

    USAF 98 Bomb Wing 1960-66 SMW Lu49

Page 258 of 301 FirstFirst ... 158208248251252253254255256257258259260261262263264265268 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •