Bombshell study concludes there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change...

[Concerned American]

I think the cultist here is you. Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming

According to Gore's Inconvenient Truth--we are all supposed to be dead by now. Did he underestimate?

 

[alang1216]

According to Gore's Inconvenient Truth--we are all supposed to be dead by now. Did he underestimate?

You are welcome to get your science from politicians, I prefer scientists myself.

 

[Concerned American]

You are welcome to get your science from politicians, I prefer scientists myself.

LIAR.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I think the cultist here is you. Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming

Which 20 year old projections did they make that were overshot?

Any specifics?

 

[alang1216]

Which 20 year old projections did they make that were overshot?

Any specifics?

Did you bother to look at the link (underestimated) I provided?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you bother to look at the link (underestimated) I provided?

This?

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

LOL!

Or this?

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

They made a 2001 prediction that was disproven by data from 1993? LOL!

 

[westwall]

I think the cultist here is you. Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming

Which is a complete farce. NONE of their predictions have come true.

Not one.

 

[westwall]

For me? Sure. However not everyone agrees with you. The Economist has long advocated a carbon tax as the best way to deal with climate change.

I guess the real question is whether climate change is a real threat. If so, it seems a carbon tax is a valid antidote.

The Economist. Run by bankers for bankers. Color me not shocked. Did you notice the part where we all pay, but there is no pollution reduction?

Or is your brain not capable of functioning normally?

 

[jc456]

So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions? Interesting.

I don’t predict for that very reason! Name one

 

[Crick]

We can guarantee that what the government is spending money on now will do nothing except destroy the middle class.

Why?

 

[westwall]

Why?

Post #776

 

[ReinyDays]

But, where does that money come from? It's not the traditional model of Capitalism where someone creates wealth by taking a low value commodity and, by value-adding, makes it a high value item (iron ore and coal into steel or cotton into haute coiture), or by arbitrage, taking a commodity that is common in one place, transporting it to where it is rare and selling at a profit.

Money from solar panels can only come from two places ...

A) Government diverting taxpayer money from government spending back to private incentive payments to engineer behavior -- OR

B) Utilities raising rates to pass a portion of that money back to consumers who sell them power at wholesale rates.

Neither of those methods actually creates wealth. They are both wealth distribution for social engineering.

So ... how could one person be so wrong ... you describe Monarchism ... or in modern terms Monopoly ... ONE person is "value-adding" ... Capitalism is when two or more corporations are actively competing, and/or where corporations exist as a "shared-risk" venture ... generally considered as starting with the Dutch East Indies Company in 1602 ...

Revenue - Expenses = Earnings ...

If we reduce "expenses", then "earnings" increase, thus solar panels allow us to EARN more money ... math is hard, especially for liberals ...

Where you're WRONG is I can advertise my product as being produced with "carbon-neutral green-renewable sea-lion-friendly* saves-the-solar-system" hydro-power ... and that sells better in California ... you know, the folks with money ... good luck selling in Mississippi ... ha ha ha ha ha ...

* = the sea lions gather at the entrance to these dams' fish ladders and gorge themselves on critically endangered returning salmon ... the Endangered Species Act doesn't let anyone chase the sea lions off ... so there's even less salmon ... Congress hates us ...

 

[ReinyDays]

As long as they are paying off multi billion dollar lawsuits because of wild fire responsibility, gas pipeline explosions in populated area and chemical pollution of the environment, the cost of the power is not a big concern. Many of these "so called" environmentally conscious states are just going out and purchasing power from coal fired plants outside of their states to make up for the difference.

That is ILLEGAL is Oregon ... utilities CANNOT purchase electricity on the wholesale market from coal power plants ... and we BRUTALLY and with ARMED POLICE shut down ALL existing coal power plants within the State ... (actually, the only one was losing money and the operators were more than happy to get permission to shut down) ...

Oregon has NO say whether Union Pacific brings Wyoming coal to the Port of Portland, railroads are strictly Federal regulations ... Oregon has NO say on the blue water shipping that comes up the Columbia River to the Port of Portland, water navigation is strictly Federal regulations (at least, the Columbia is to Portland) ... the twenty feet between, ha ha ha, the coal is FORBIDDEN ... HA HA HA HA HA ...

Republicans foiled again !!!!

 

[ReinyDays]

So the trained professionals have predicted zip correctly and you expect anyone to trust your predictions? Interesting.

We're not making predictions ... we're claiming it's too soon to try ... that's the difference ... one side scream doom and gloom and the other side says prove it ...

My prediction that average power in the atmosphere is decreasing is based on simple physics ... and this is routinely assumed in the scientific papers being published regarding polar climates ... it's too small of an effect to be measurable in the temperate or tropical cells ... so WAY too soon to say whether is will make any difference in the weather ... but I'm not saying is will, just average power will be less, maybe only slightly ...

Atmospheric circulation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[alang1216]

This?

The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years.

LOL!

Or this?

Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection.

They made a 2001 prediction that was disproven by data from 1993? LOL!

So they were under estimations and the truth is even worse? Great news.

 

[alang1216]

Which is a complete farce. NONE of their predictions have come true.

Not one.

A science AND a reality denier? You're the complete package.

 

[alang1216]

The Economist. Run by bankers for bankers. Color me not shocked. Did you notice the part where we all pay, but there is no pollution reduction?

Or is your brain not capable of functioning normally?

Actually there is carbon sequestration. Kind of the point of it all, sorry you missed it.

 

[alang1216]

Indeed. So spend money on mitigation, not meaningless efforts that can't succeed.

Ever.

I don’t predict for that very reason! Name one

You also don't object when others make predictions. Why is that?

 

[ding]

You also don't object when others make predictions. Why is that?

I like predictions because it puts a pin on the map. For instance they have a prediction that sea level rise will increase from ~3 mm/yr to ~10 mm/yr by the end of this decade. It's a preposterous prediction but I like it.

 

[westwall]

A science AND a reality denier? You're the complete package.

I hold a PhD in geology. You know, a "HARD" science. As opposed to the soft science of climatology.

A simple sports analogy for you as simple seems the best you are capable of. A hard science requires exact measurement, and observable action. So track and field or football, or racing are excellent analogies. Whoever wins the race, is the winner. There is no second guessing, there is no guessing, there are no "maybes", there is only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.

Climatology though, is akin to gymnastics or ice dancing. A bunch of judges watch the performance, and then they agree amongst themselves who they liked better. CONSENSUS!

See, so simple even a moron, like you, can understand.