Mad Science of the Week: THE TORNADO MASTER!

[athelind]

Tornado Master!Ontario Louis Michard proposes using the waste heat from a conventional power plant to create a tamed tornado, and generating far more power using turbines that tap into the vortex's energy

Comments

[tprjones]

"...cool off the whole damned planet."

I'm not sure that's such a good idea. Our current trend is well within the normal cycles of the planet's changes in temperature, and there's still no verifiable scientific evidence that any of the change is man-made. We're overdue for an ice age, and I'd rather not see us set one off because we went and mucked about with the climate just because we assumed we were already mucking about with the climate when in fact we may not have been.

Perhaps we are messing things up. Perhaps we aren't. But if we're so worried about messing things up shouldn't we try to have some sort of proof before we do something that is specifically designed to mess things up?

[cpxbrex]

LOL. That's all I can do is laugh.

[tprjones]

And that's what worries me. These days everyone has their own flavor of insanity that is a sacred "scientific" truth regardless of the evidence that can be studied and quantified, from Intelligent Design to Scientology to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

What ever happened to rationality? When did it become so rediculous to be logical before you go mucking about with this sort of thing?

[cpxbrex]

Dood, every scientific agency from the National Academy of the Sciences, NASA, even the US military innumerable peer reviewed studies have all concluded with confidences in the .95 area that human activity is responsible for at least some global warming. The science is overwhelmingly and conclusively on the side of human activity causing at least some global warming. The only thing that's seriously being argued over, now, is how bad and to what extent.

You've brought to the table . . . a guy's blog? Is this supposed to outweight the numerous conclusive studies by the most respected scientific organizations in the world on the subject?

Please. it is true that many people have their own insanity masquerading as science, but at least in this case it's the people who continue to deny despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening. The scientific consensus is extremely clear -- clearer, even, than in the debate between intelligent design and evolution.

It wasn't JUST a guy's blog!

[athelind]

He also linked to a page about a science fiction novel!

Re: It wasn't JUST a guy's blog!

[tprjones]

Well, yes, but one the setting of which is pretty much exactly what we've been seeing for the past few decades. This article you linked is the next piece in that potentially ironic progression.

[tprjones]

See, that's not actually true. If you check into the details, many (about 40%) of the scientists that have been quoted by NASA and the UN subcommittee have come out publically declaring that they have been misquoted and taken out of context, and do not in fact support the positions they were claimed by those organizations to be supporting. So far the "science" behing AGW is being used as a political tool. Strip away the politics, and the evidence and the number of experts who take the stand that AGW is confirmed both shrink considerably.

[cpxbrex]

Where do they say this?

[tprjones]

Various places; very few in peer reviewed journals, many simply online. After watching an interesting documentary (admittedly it's also got quite a bit of "science" that can't yet be documented, and goes too far in the other direction, still it makes some interesting points) I dug around online myself. Of the 27 contributors to the IPCC that I picked to dig around online about, 10 of them I found in one way or another disagreeing with the IPCC and making a statement to the effect that they shouldn't have been listed as in agreement.

Don't rely on the statements of others, check it out yourself.

[cpxbrex]

Oh, dear, you're bringing up The Great Global Warming Swindle? LOL. Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"? That's when you only pay attention to the things that support the hypothesis you favor at the risk of everything else. The GGWS is . . . the reigning champion of this methodology

[tprjones]

I'm not going to give you specific references because you'll just accuse me of hand-picking sources that agree with me and ignoring the ones that don't. Enough of that game

[cpxbrex]

Actually, the sunspot thing has been discounted. Nature has recently published an article that debunks, conclusively the idea that sunspots have anything to do with global warming.

The notion that for a scientific hypothesis to be true it has to "fit all the evidence" is not the standard that scientists use. They speak in stuff like degrees of confidence. Like I've already said, the degree of confidence that climate scientists have about human activity causing global warming is in the .95 area, which is pretty much the gold standard of scientific research.

And the last I checked referencing the innumerable peer reviewed research papers and studies by the world's leading research institutions isn't the way that fundies try to argue things. The TRUTH is that virtually all climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, and that it'll have dramatic economic and political consequences.

On the other hand, you can't find ONE peer reviewed source for your position. Not ONE. That's how fundies argue.

[archteryx]

And this whole thread shows your only big mistake. You're trying to have an honest argument with a Global Warming Wanker, and are getting (predictably) buried in bullshit.

I learned long ago never to argue with wingnuts. They will endlessly spew talking points and bullshit, the sum of which is as good as any Confundus Charm in turning rational debate to mud. They DEPEND on this to "win" their arguments, and they've used it to vast effect on the American public.

It's a strength-sapper. You won't convert him -- just ignore him and go to more productive ventures.

[cpxbrex]

LOL. You are right! But I'm not actually trying to convert him. I'm hoping that the argument, itself, will help others who might not understand the issue as well make a more informed decision. Granted, given whose journal this is, it's mostly preaching to the choir, but in general I like to give some response to people like this to first let them know that I know they're wrong and, more importantly, so people who might otherwise be fooled by the specious arguments entertained by my opposition (ugh, was that pretense or what?!) might actually see beyond the speciousness.

[archteryx]

Still, this is the wrong forum if you want to have an argument. You're not even preaching to the choir; just a few friends in the pews, along with one troll. (And the fact that he denies being one makes him no less a troll).

Go to DailyKos or Firedoglake if you want to sing to *real* choirs (and one that, because of their sizes, do a good job with squashing trolls).

You do a good job with debating people capable of real debate; you'd be very welcome there!

[athelind]

Funny, that's why I keep asking about dumping huge amounts of industrial effluent into the atmosphere.

Do I know you?