Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

A little light reading!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

    I have not made any comment on the paper itself nor the accuracy of its conclusions.
    Yes, We know that. You've instead spent numerous pages running away from it, posting a non-peer reviewed opinion article by a mechanical engineer to try to malign it, and have attempted to malign it for being open access. You've done everything possible other than read it and comment on it. Because you can't, because you have not read it and likely wouldn't be able to grasp it if you tried.
    "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
    - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I have not made any comment on the paper itself nor the accuracy of its conclusions.
      It is obvious that you never read it but that didn't stop you from posting criticisms you found on the internet.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I have noted that it has proven very popular as a downnload and its conclusions [whether correct or not] will be popular with those who downplay or deny climate change because it reinforces their confirmation bias.
      You used that as the reason to summarily dismiss it.

      Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
      I would only note that as Christy and another co-author apparently had errors in a previous paper I would not be surprised if those with expertise in these disciplines later find some inaccuracies in this. Christy appears to be a contrarian as to the extent of anthropogenic influences on climate change and also appears to underestimate the impact climate change will have on the planet and human life.
      And again you continue on the attack of a paper you will not read. It isn't like you have to order it or go to the library. It isn't a full book.

      Notice how differently you act when someone responds to something from a book that you cite if you think they haven't read the entire thing.

      Just more of Hypocrite_Again

      I'm always still in trouble again

      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
      "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        It is obvious that you never read it but that didn't stop you from posting criticisms you found on the internet.


        You used that as the reason to summarily dismiss it.


        And again you continue on the attack of a paper you will not read. It isn't like you have to order it or go to the library. It isn't a full book.

        Notice how differently you act when someone responds to something from a book that you cite if you think they haven't read the entire thing.

        Just more of Hypocrite_Again
        Can you not read for comprehension?


        Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

        I have not made any comment on the paper itself nor the accuracy of its conclusions.

        I have noted that it has proven very popular as a downnload and its conclusions [whether correct or not] will be popular with those who downplay or deny climate change because it reinforces their confirmation bias.

        I would only note that as Christy and another co-author apparently had errors in a previous paper I would not be surprised if those with expertise in these disciplines later find some inaccuracies in this. Christy appears to be a contrarian as to the extent of anthropogenic influences on climate change and also appears to underestimate the impact climate change will have on the planet and human life.


        "It ain't necessarily so
        The things that you're liable
        To read in the Bible
        It ain't necessarily so
        ."

        Sportin' Life
        Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          Can you not read for comprehension?


          Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

          I have not made any comment on the paper itself nor the accuracy of its conclusions.

          I have noted that it has proven very popular as a downnload and its conclusions [whether correct or not] will be popular with those who downplay or deny climate change because it reinforces their confirmation bias.

          I would only note that as Christy and another co-author apparently had errors in a previous paper I would not be surprised if those with expertise in these disciplines later find some inaccuracies in this. Christy appears to be a contrarian as to the extent of anthropogenic influences on climate change and also appears to underestimate the impact climate change will have on the planet and human life.
          No, you just keep posting critical articles of the paper and let it do your dirty work for you because you are too much of a craven coward to have the guts to tackle things directly.

          I'm always still in trouble again

          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
            No, you just keep posting critical articles of the paper and let it do your dirty work for you because you are too much of a craven coward to have the guts to tackle things directly.
            Once again reading for comprehension appears to be an issue.

            I have not cited any "critical articles of the paper", if by that you are referring to the paper "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layer".

            I referred to an article by John Abraham from 2017 in The Guardian that pointed to errors in a previous paper by Christy and Spencer [note not McKitrick and Christy]

            Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.


            A link in Abraham's article led to a paper by R Eric Swanson.
            "It ain't necessarily so
            The things that you're liable
            To read in the Bible
            It ain't necessarily so
            ."

            Sportin' Life
            Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

              Once again reading for comprehension appears to be an issue.

              I have not cited any "critical articles of the paper", if by that you are referring to the paper "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layer".

              I referred to an article by John Abraham from 2017 in The Guardian that pointed to errors in a previous paper by Christy and Spencer [note not McKitrick and Christy]

              Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.


              A link in Abraham's article led to a paper by R Eric Swanson.
              Oh, so you've just done well poisoning... got it.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                Once again reading for comprehension appears to be an issue.

                I have not cited any "critical articles of the paper", if by that you are referring to the paper "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layer".

                I referred to an article by John Abraham from 2017 in The Guardian that pointed to errors in a previous paper by Christy and Spencer [note not McKitrick and Christy]

                Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.


                A link in Abraham's article led to a paper by R Eric Swanson.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                  Once again reading for comprehension appears to be an issue.

                  I have not cited any "critical articles of the paper", if by that you are referring to the paper "Pervasive Warming Bias in CMIP6 Tropospheric Layer".

                  I referred to an article by John Abraham from 2017 in The Guardian that pointed to errors in a previous paper by Christy and Spencer [note not McKitrick and Christy]

                  Perhaps the darlings of the denialist community are two researchers out of Alabama (John Christy and Roy Spencer). They rose to public attention in the mid-1990s when they reportedly showed that the atmosphere was not warming and was actually cooling. It turns out they had made some pretty significant errors and when other researchers identified those errors, the new results showed a warming.


                  A link in Abraham's article led to a paper by R Eric Swanson.
                  Right, you've not read the peer reviewed paper, you've not managed to address anything in the peer reviewed paper. Instead you've cited an opinion piece in a newspaper (written by someone who is not a climatologist) to try to well poison the authors of the peer reviewed paper. That of course, is after trying to dismiss the paper for being open-access and then trying to claim that because I posted a link to the paper that you must assume that I "googled" it (because apparently I need to telepathically transmit the paper to you or send you a copy via mail or something in order to have not "googled" it?)
                  "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                  - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                    Right, you've not read the peer reviewed paper, you've not managed to address anything in the peer reviewed paper. Instead you've cited an opinion piece in a newspaper (written by someone who is not a climatologist) to try to well poison the authors of the peer reviewed paper. That of course, is after trying to dismiss the paper for being open-access and then trying to claim that because I posted a link to the paper that you must assume that I "googled" it (because apparently I need to telepathically transmit the paper to you or send you a copy via mail or something in order to have not "googled" it?)
                    Par for the course when she is determined to hand wave something off because it challenges her preferred narrative. For this cherry picker extraordinaire absolutely no excuse is too lame to dismiss something.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post


                      Mechanical engineering is one of the disciplines [among many] that deal with climate change and environmental issues.

                      This might be "a very good place to start"


                      http://meche.mit.edu/news-media/tack...eenhouse-gases


                      The images are ubiquitous: a coastal town decimated by another powerful hurricane, satellite images showing shrinking polar ice caps, a school of dead fish floating on the surface of warming waters, swaths of land burnt by an out-of-control wildfire. These dire portrayals share a common thread – they offer tangible evidence that climate change is affecting every corner of the globe.

                      According to NASA, Earth’s surface temperature has risen 0.9 C since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Researchers agree that the rise in temperatures has one primary culprit: increased greenhouse gas emissions.

                      Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane all trap heat in our atmosphere – making them directly responsible for climate change. The occurrence of these gases in our atmosphere has increased exponentially since the late 1800s due to growth in fossil fuels use across the energy, manufacturing, and transportation industries.

                      A report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), released on October 8, 2019 warned that if the Earth’s temperature rises greater than 1.5 C, the effects would be catastrophic. Entire ecosystems could be lost, sea levels would be higher, and extreme weather events would become even more common. According to the IPCC, avoiding this scenario “would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society,” including a 45% decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels by 2030.

                      Researchers across MIT are working on a myriad of technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions across every industry. Many faculty are looking at sustainable energy. Associate Professor Tonio Buonassisi and his team in the Photovoltaic Research Lab hope to harness the power of the sun while Professor Alexander Slocum has conducted research in making offshore wind turbines more efficient and economically viable.

                      In addition to exploring sustainable forms of energy that do not require fossil fuels, a number of faculty members in MIT’s Department of Mechanical Engineering are turning to technologies that store, capture, convert, and minimize greenhouse gas emissions using very different approaches.

                      Improving energy storage with ceramics

                      For renewable energy technologies like concentrated solar power (CSP) to make sense economically, storage is crucial. Since the sun isn’t always shining, solar energy needs to be somehow stored for later use. But CSP plants are currently limited by their steel based infrastructure.

                      “Improving energy storage is a critical issue that presents one of the biggest technological hurdles toward minimizing greenhouse gas emissions,” explains Asegun Henry, Noyce Career Development Professor and associate professor of mechanical engineering.

                      An expert in heat transfer, Henry has turned to an unlikely class of materials to help increase the efficiency of thermal storage: ceramics.

                      Currently, CSP plants are limited by the temperature at which they can store heat. Thermal energy from the solar power is currently stored in liquid salt. This liquid salt can’t exceed a temperature of 565 C since the steel pipes they flow through will get corroded.

                      “There has been a ubiquitous assumption that if you’re going to build anything with flowing liquid, the pipes and pumps have to be out of metal,” says Henry. “We essentially questioned that assumption.”

                      Henry and his team, which recently moved from Georgia Tech, have developed a ceramic pump that allows liquid to flow at much higher temperatures. In January 2017, he was entered into the Guinness Book of World Record for the “Highest operating temperature liquid pump.” The pump was able to circulate molten tin between 1,200 C and 1,400 C.

                      “The pump now gives us the ability to make an all ceramic infrastructure for CSP plants, allowing us to flow and control liquid metal,” adds Henry.

                      Rather than use liquid salt, CSP plants can now store energy in metals, like molten tin, which have a higher temperature range and won’t corrode the carefully chosen ceramics. This opens up new avenues for energy storage and generation. “We are trying to turn up the temperature so hot that our ability to turn heat back into electricity gives us options,” explains Henry.

                      One such option, would be to store electricity as glowing white hot heat like that of a lightbulb filament. This heat can then be turned into electricity by converting the white glow using photovoltaics – creating a completely greenhouse gas free energy storage system.

                      “This system can’t work if the pipes are temperature limited and have a short lifetime,” adds Henry. “That’s where we come in, we now have the materials that can make things work at crazy high temperatures.”

                      Henry’s record-breaking pump’s ability to minimize greenhouse gas emissions goes beyond altering the infrastructure of solar plants. He also hopes to use the pump to change the way hydrogen is produced.

                      Hydrogen, which is used to make fertilizer, is created by reacting methane with water, producing CO2. Henry is researching an entirely new hydrogen production method which would involve heating tin hot enough to split methane directly and create hydrogen, without introducing other chemicals or making CO2. Rather than emit CO2, solid carbon particles would form and float on the surface of the liquid. This solid carbon is something that could then be sold for a number or purposes.

                      Converting pollutants into valuable materials

                      Capturing greenhouse gases and turning them into something useful is a goal shared by Betar Gallant, assistant professor of mechanical engineering.

                      The Paris Agreement, which seeks to minimize greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale, stated that participating countries need to consider every greenhouse gas, even those emitted in small quantities. These include fluorinated gases like sulfur hexafluoride and nitrogen trifluoride. Many of these gases are used in semiconductor manufacturing and metallurgical processes like magnesium production.

                      Fluorinated gases have up to 23,000 times the global warming potential of CO2 and have lifetimes in the thousands of years. “Once we emit these fluorinated gases, they are virtually indestructible,” says Gallant.

                      With no current regulations on these gases, their release could have lasting impact on our ability to curtail global warming. After the ratification of the Paris Agreement, Gallant saw a window of opportunity to use her background in electrochemistry to capture and convert these harmful pollutants.

                      “I’m looking at mechanisms and reactions to activate and convert harmful pollutants into either benign storable materials or something that can be recycled and used in a less harmful way,” she explains.

                      Her first target: fluorinated gases. Using voltage and currents along with chemistry, she and her team looked into accessing a new reaction space. Gallant created two systems based on the reaction between these fluorinated gases and lithium. The result was a solid cathode that can be used in batteries.

                      “We identified one reaction for each of those two fluorinated gases, but we will keep working on that to figure out how these reactions can be modified to handle industrial-scale capture and large volumes of materials,” she adds.

                      Gallant recently used a similar approach for capturing and converting CO2 emissions into carbon cathodes.

                      “Our central question was: can we find a way to get more value out of CO2 by incorporating it into an energy storage device?” she says.

                      In a recent study, Gallant first treated CO2 in a liquid amine solution. This prompted a reaction that created a new ion-containing liquid phase, which fortuitously could also be used as an electrolyte. The electrolyte was then used to assemble a battery along with lithium metal and carbon. By discharging the electrolyte, the CO2 could be converted into a solid carbonate while delivering a power output at about three volts.

                      As the battery continuously discharges, it “eats up” all the CO2 and constantly converts it into a solid carbonate that can be stored, removed, or even charged back to the liquid electrolyte for operation as a rechargeable battery. This process has the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adding economic value by creating a new usable product.



                      he next step for Gallant is taking the understandings of these reactions and actually designing a system that can be used in industry to capture and convert greenhouse gases.

                      “Engineers in this field have the know how to design more efficient devices that either capture or convert greenhouse gas emissions before they get released into the environment,” she adds. “We started by building the chemical and electrochemical technology first, but we’re really looking forward to pivoting next to the larger scale and seeing how to engineer these reactions into a practical device.”

                      Closing the carbon cycle

                      Designing systems that capture CO2 and convert it back to something useful has been a driving force in Ahmed Ghoniem’s research over the past fifteen years. “I have spent my entire career on the environmental impact of energy and power production,” says Ghoniem, Ronald C. Crane Professor of Mechanical Engineering.

                      n the 1980s and 1990s, the most pressing issue for researchers working in this sphere was creating technologies that minimized the emission of criteria pollutants like nitric oxides. These pollutants produced ozone, particular matter, and smog. Ghoniem worked on new combustion systems that significantly reduced the emission of these pollutants.
                      Since the turn of the 21st century, his focus shifted from criteria pollutants, which were successfully curbed, to CO2 emissions. The quickest solution would be to stop using fossil fuels. But Ghoniem acknowledges with 80% of energy production worldwide coming from fossil fuels, that’s not an option: “The big problem really is, how do we continue using fossil fuels without releasing so much CO2 in the environment?”

                      In recent years, he has worked on methods for capturing CO2 from power plants for underground storage, and more recently for recycling some of the captured CO2 into useful products, like fuels and chemicals. The end goal is to develop systems that efficiently and economically remove CO2 from fossil fuel combustion while producing power.

                      “My idea is to close the carbon cycle so you can convert CO2 emitted during power production back into fuel and chemicals,” he explains. Solar and other carbon-free energy sources would power the reuse process, making it a closed loop system with no net emissions.

                      In the first step, Ghoniem’s system separates oxygen from air, so fuel can burn in pure oxygen – a process known as oxy-combustion. When this is done, the plant emits pure CO2 that can be captured for storage or reuse. To do this, Ghoniem says, “We’ve developed ceramic membranes, chemical looping reactors, and catalysts technology, that allow us to do this efficiently.”

                      Using alternative sources of heat, such as solar energy, the reactor temperature is raised to just shy of 1,000 C to drive the separation of oxygen. The membranes Ghoniem’s group are developing allow pure oxygen to pass through. The source of this oxygen is air in oxy-combustion applications. When recycled CO2 is used instead of air, the process reduces CO2 to CO that can be used as fuel or to create new hydrocarbon fuels or chemicals, like ethanol which is mixed gasoline to fuel cars. Ghoniem’s team also found that if water (H2O) is used instead of air, it is reduced to hydrogen, another clean fuel.

                      The next step for Ghoniem’s team is scaling up the membrane reactors they’ve developed from something that is successful in the lab, to something that could be used in industry.

                      Manufacturing, human behavior, and the “re-bound” effect

                      While Asegun Henry, Betar Gallant, Ahmed Ghoniem, and a number of other MIT researchers are developing capture and reuse technologies to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, Professor Timothy Gutowski is approaching climate change from a completely different angle: the economics of manufacturing.

                      Timothy Gutowski understands manufacturing. He has worked on both the industry and academic side of manufacturing, was the director of MIT’s Laboratory for Manufacturing and Productivity for a decade, and currently leads the Environmentally Benign Manufacturing research group at MIT. His primary research focus is assessing the environmental impact of manufacturing.


                      If you analyze the global manufacturing sector, you see that the making of materials is globally bigger than making products in terms of energy usage and total carbon emitted, ” says Gutowski.

                      As economies grow, the need for material increases, further contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. To assess the carbon footprint of a product from material production through to disposal, engineers have turned to life-cycle assessments (LCA). These LCAs suggest ways to boost efficiency and decrease environmental impact. But, according to Gutowski, the approach many engineers take in assessing a product’s life-cycle is flawed.

                      “Many LCAs ignore real human behavior and the economics associated with increased efficiency,” claims Gutowski.

                      For example, LED light bulbs save a tremendous amount of energy and money compared to incandescent light bulbs. Rather than use these savings to conserve energy, many use these savings as a rationale to increase the number of light bulbs they use. Sports stadiums in particular capitalize on the cost savings offered by LED light bulbs to wrap entire fields in LED screens. In economics, this phenomenon is known as the ‘rebound effect.’

                      “When you improve efficiency, the engineer may imagine that the device will be used in the exact same way as before and resources will be conserved,” explains Gutowski. But this increase in efficiency often results in an increase in production.

                      Another example of the rebound effect can be found in airplanes. Using composite materials to build aircrafts instead of using heavier aluminum can make airplanes lighter, thereby saving fuel. Rather than utilize this potential savings in fuel economy to minimize the impact on the environment, however, companies have many other options. They can use this potential weight savings to add other features to the airplane. These could include, increasing the number of seats, adding entertainment equipment, or carrying more fuel to increase the length of the journey. In the end, there are cases were the composites airplane actually weighs more than the original aluminum airplane.

                      “Companies often don’t think ‘I’m going to save fuel,’ they think about ways they can economically take advantage of increased efficiency,” adds Gutowski.

                      Gutowski is working across disciplines and fields to develop a better understanding of how engineers can improve life cycle assessment by taking economics and human behavior into account.

                      “The goal is to implement policies so engineers can continue to make improvements in efficiency, but these improvements actually result in a benefit to society and reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” he explains.

                      ‘A global problem’

                      The diversity of approaches to tackling climate change is reflective of the size of the problem. No one technology is going to act as a panacea for minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and staying below the crucial 1.5 C global temperature increase threshold outlined by the UN.

                      “Remember, global warming is a global problem,” says Ghoniem. “No one country can solve it by itself, we must do it together.”

                      In September 2019, the UN Climate Summit will convene and challenge nations across the world to throw their political and economic weight behind solving climate change. On a smaller scale, MIT is doing its part to minimize its environmental impact.

                      Last spring, Tim Gutowski and Julie Newman, Director of Sustainability at MIT, co-taught a new class entitled 2.S999, Solving for Carbon Neutrality at MIT. Teams of students proposed realistic scenarios for how MIT can achieve carbon neutrality. “The students were doing real work on finding ways MIT can keep our carbon down,” recalls Gutowski.

                      Whether it’s a team of students in class 2.S999 or the upcoming UN Climate Summit, finding ways to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and curtail climate change is a global responsibility. “Unless we all agree to work on it, invest resources to develop and scale solutions, and collectively implement these solutions, we will have to live with the negative consequences,” adds Ghoniem.



                      And from Abraham's own University site.

                      https://cse.umn.edu/me/impact#:~:tex...eener%20future.

                      Environment & Sustainability

                      From the atmosphere to ground water and everything in between, mechanical engineering is essential in the advancement of environment and sustainability studies. Mechanical engineers work on air and water pollution, sea water desalination, engine efficiency, alternative fuels, biodegradables, and more to combat climate change and work toward a greener future.


                      One might have thought that an Earth Scientist [and one who intimated he had been involved in climate modelling] would know all that!












                      You are truly a dumbass. Mechanical engineers do indeed work on things in many industries, even climate change. Designing and making MACHINES. Like windmills. They are not scientists, they are engineers. They have no special qualifications on being an expert in climate change science.

                      I can't believe how clueless you are sometimes.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                        You are truly a dumbass. Mechanical engineers do indeed work on things in many industries, even climate change. Designing and making MACHINES. Like windmills. They are not scientists, they are engineers. They have no special qualifications on being an expert in climate change science.

                        I can't believe how clueless you are sometimes.
                        She hasn't managed to respond to my post pointing out her stupidity and ignorance on this, so don't hold your breath
                        "So when you actually get the virus, you're going to start producing antibodies against multiple pieces of the virus. So, your antibodies are probably better at that point than the vaccination."
                        - Pfizer Scientist Chris Croce

                        Comment


                        • Some serious issues among some with reading for comprehension. My emphasis

                          [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1401926]

                          Mechanical engineering is one of the disciplines [among many] that deal with climate change and environmental issues.[/quote]


                          "It ain't necessarily so
                          The things that you're liable
                          To read in the Bible
                          It ain't necessarily so
                          ."

                          Sportin' Life
                          Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                          Comment


                          • [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1402451]Some serious issues among some with reading for comprehension. My emphasis

                            [QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1401926]

                            Mechanical engineering is one of the disciplines [among many] that deal with climate change and environmental issues.[/quote]

                            Do you think that because they make the equipment used by climatologists that therefore makes them experts at climate change?

                            That's sort of like equating an auto mechanic to a Formula One or NASCAR driver. Just because they are involved in the same field doesn't make them the same.

                            Years ago I had a friend who was put in charge of repairing and recalibrating the equipment used by the CDC in their research on AIDS. This was in the 80s when a lot of people were scared to touch the equipment for fear of contracting AIDS. The point is, does his work qualify him to speak authoritatively on immunology or epidemiology?

                            Starting to get the picture yet?

                            ETA: Congratulations on finding yet another way that you can screw up the quote function.
                            Last edited by rogue06; 08-08-2022, 09:16 AM.

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • [QUOTE=rogue06;n1402455][QUOTE=Hypatia_Alexandria;n1402451]Some serious issues among some with reading for comprehension. My emphasis

                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post

                              Mechanical engineering is one of the disciplines [among many] that deal with climate change and environmental issues.[/quote]
                              Originally posted by Hypatia_Alexandria View Post
                              Do you think that because they make the equipment used by climatologists that therefore makes them experts at climate change?

                              That's sort of like equating an auto mechanic to a Formula One or NASCAR driver. Just because they are involved in the same field doesn't make them the same.

                              Years ago I had a friend who was put in charge of repairing and recalibrating the equipment used by the CDC in their research on AIDS. This was in the 80s when a lot of people were scared to touch the equipment for fear of contracting AIDS. The point is, does his work qualify him to speak authoritatively on immunology or epidemiology?

                              Starting to get the picture yet?

                              ETA: Congratulations on finding yet another way that you can screw up the quote function.
                              Further evidence of problems in reading for comprehension.
                              "It ain't necessarily so
                              The things that you're liable
                              To read in the Bible
                              It ain't necessarily so
                              ."

                              Sportin' Life
                              Porgy & Bess, DuBose Heyward, George & Ira Gershwin

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gondwanaland View Post

                                She hasn't managed to respond to my post pointing out her stupidity and ignorance on this, so don't hold your breath
                                Yeah her general tactic when shown to be wrong is to ignore the post and keep posting the same wrong stuff. I can't believe she doesn't know the difference between a scientist and an engineer.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by seanD, Today, 12:30 AM
                                18 responses
                                124 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Thoughtful Monk, 08-12-2022, 12:39 PM
                                13 responses
                                120 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Starlight, 08-11-2022, 01:26 AM
                                109 responses
                                634 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by Bill the Cat, 08-09-2022, 12:30 PM
                                52 responses
                                331 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by Sparko, 08-09-2022, 10:43 AM
                                22 responses
                                160 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Working...
                                X