Climate Change Has Run Its Course

[Sahba]

There is a bigger carbon footprint for the production, distribution and disposal of batteries than it is for the carbon saved by using less fossil fuels.

Actually that also applies to solar panels that idiots put on their roofs.

These Moon Bats are crazy as hell with their AGW religion, aren't they?

I know, right? If we just accept it and have faith, the prophet, Algore will lead us to prosperity and save us from the evil destruction that is upon us. But, we cannot question the great Algore. We MUST have faith and accept his guidance or we will surely be destroyed.

It's like a chapter out of the Old Testament.

Speaking of the carbon footprint of batteries, remember that we have as much as 10% ethanol in our fuels now.

It takes a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol.

I am glad we fell for that scam and are now FORCED to use ethanol.

Five Ethanol Myths, Busted

There are two key reasons ethanol is no longer net energy negative.


First, corn production efficiency has increased dramatically: Producers now grow 160 bushels per acre today versus the 95 grown in 1980, and corn yield continues to increase.

Second, ethanol production has become more energy-efficient. Today, more than 90 percent of corn used in ethanol production goes through a dry milling process that uses far less energy than the wet milling process used before. The combination of more corn per acre, coupled with a reduction of energy input to process ethanol, has resulted in a favorable energy output. The gallons of ethanol yielded per bushel of corn has also increased by about 50 percent.

Second, ethanol production has become more energy-efficient. Today, more than 90 percent of corn used in ethanol production goes through a dry milling process that uses far less energy than the wet milling process used before. The combination of more corn per acre, coupled with a reduction of energy input to process ethanol, has resulted in a favorable energy output. The gallons of ethanol yielded per bushel of corn has also increased by about 50 percent.

By "favorable output" do they mean that it costs less than a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol?

How much more "favorable" is the output? Now, it only takes 90% of a barrel of oil is needed for a barrel of ethanol?

Because, a 50% increase in the productivity from shit is still pretty much SHIT.

Ethanol was the biggest scam perpetrated on the American people since the unconstitutional, illegal Ponzi/Pyramid scheme known as "social security."

& it's destroying all my 2-stoke gas guzzling, smoke belching toys...

 

[BlindBoo]

This past weekend I went to the beach at a city on the coast...one of the very beaches at one of the very cities Al Gore years ago warned us would be completely under water by now due to the melting ice caps and glaciers.... It was beautiful...and my new grandson's 1st trip to the beach was great

As for Al Gore...what an ignorant, fear-mongering douche bag.

More lies. In 2007 he said

"One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

Snopes is an unreliable, leftist source, by the way. The operators are hardcore democrat leftists.

Typical deflection. Look up the direct quotes to confirm what I posted was what Gore said. He's a politician. He always qualified those wildly predictive claims. They were always based on worst case scenario potions of the studies he cites.

 

[easyt65]

This past weekend I went to the beach at a city on the coast...one of the very beaches at one of the very cities Al Gore years ago warned us would be completely under water by now due to the melting ice caps and glaciers.... It was beautiful...and my new grandson's 1st trip to the beach was great

As for Al Gore...what an ignorant, fear-mongering douche bag.

More lies. In 2007 he said

"One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

And every prediction made never came true. Gore is gone. His 'global warming' fear is gone. As the WSJ states, it has been minimized as a 'crucial issue'. Next....

Obviously you have to lie. Didn't he predict that CO2 level would continue to rise? Have they? Didn't he predict the temperature would continue to rise? Did they? Arctic Sea Ice continues to shrink in size and thickness.

It's only the exaggerated worst case scenario claims from Al that the crusading deniers always point to when they denigrate manbearpig.....

I have to lie? Part of the reason Global Warming has been minimized, as pointed out by the WSJ, is because of the 'scientists' who have been busted falsifying data to support their claims about Global Warming.

'The Science Is Settled'? The Science was FAKED.

 

[BlindBoo]

BTW did y'all send the skiff out to pick up 'Fluffy' & 'fluffy jr'... O, that's right.. them be out slaughtering innocent seals and like to rest up on ice chunks while they digest their murderous snacks..

Why? Bears follow the seals. Seals follow the ice even as it shrinks smaller. So far the Ice has not disappeared even in summer.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

& it's destroying all my 2-stoke gas guzzling, smoke belching toys...

That's true.

It's also giving you worse gas mileage, which requires you to burn more and emit more.

From Boo's link:

Myth No. 5: Cars get lower gas mileage with ethanol. —————————————————-

OK, this one's true. If you completely burn a gallon of gasoline and a gallon of E85, you'll get 25 percent less energy from the E85. Flex-fuel cars that run on gasoline and ethanol see 25 percent less mileage with ethanol. However, a gallon of ethanol costs approximately 17 percent less than that of a gallon of gasoline. In some, but not all, regions, the fuel-economy deficit is recovered by cheaper fuel costs. As the market grows and matures, production optimization would further drive down ethanol costs.

 

[easyt65]

This past weekend I went to the beach at a city on the coast...one of the very beaches at one of the very cities Al Gore years ago warned us would be completely under water by now due to the melting ice caps and glaciers.... It was beautiful...and my new grandson's 1st trip to the beach was great

As for Al Gore...what an ignorant, fear-mongering douche bag.

More lies. In 2007 he said

"One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

Snopes is an unreliable, leftist source, by the way. The operators are hardcore democrat leftists.

Typical deflection. Look up the direct quotes to confirm what I posted was what Gore said. He's a politician. He always qualified those wildly predictive claims. They were always based on worst case scenario potions of the studies he cites.

He was a hypocrite and a liar, a con man who could not sell his Carbon Credits scam.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Typical deflection. Look up the direct quotes to confirm what I posted was what Gore said. He's a politician. He always qualified those wildly predictive claims. They were always based on worst case scenario potions of the studies he cites.

Not deflecting. I am just saying, Snopes is a biased source. Don't read anything else into my statement.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This past weekend I went to the beach at a city on the coast...one of the very beaches at one of the very cities Al Gore years ago warned us would be completely under water by now due to the melting ice caps and glaciers.... It was beautiful...and my new grandson's 1st trip to the beach was great

As for Al Gore...what an ignorant, fear-mongering douche bag.

Al Gore being an ignorant, fear mongering douche bag does not equal climate change not taking place.

That is like judging Christianity based upon Jim and Tammy Baker.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[BlindBoo]

This past weekend I went to the beach at a city on the coast...one of the very beaches at one of the very cities Al Gore years ago warned us would be completely under water by now due to the melting ice caps and glaciers.... It was beautiful...and my new grandson's 1st trip to the beach was great

As for Al Gore...what an ignorant, fear-mongering douche bag.

More lies. In 2007 he said

"One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as 7 years.

While Gore attributed these predictions to scientists, they stemmed from a selective reading of aggressive estimates regarding future melting.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/

And every prediction made never came true. Gore is gone. His 'global warming' fear is gone. As the WSJ states, it has been minimized as a 'crucial issue'. Next....

Obviously you have to lie. Didn't he predict that CO2 level would continue to rise? Have they? Didn't he predict the temperature would continue to rise? Did they? Arctic Sea Ice continues to shrink in size and thickness.

It's only the exaggerated worst case scenario claims from Al that the crusading deniers always point to when they denigrate manbearpig.....

I have to lie? Part of the reason Global Warming has been minimized, as pointed out by the WSJ, is because of the 'scientists' who have been busted falsifying data to support their claims about Global Warming.

'The Science Is Settled'? The Science was FAKED.

The WSJ article has nothing to do with the actual effects or the validity of the science of Climate Change. It is a reflection on the political aspect of the Alarmist v denialist.

But do continue with your Anti-American divisive posts based on unsubstantiated lies, like those above......

 

[easyt65]

Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal? - Skeptical Science
Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?

As of today,JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE ... Source: Polar Science Centre, University of Washington .... Arctic ice cap safe from runaway melting



Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/.../updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

May 19, 2015 - Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began ...


Gore / scientists said glaciers and icebergs melting would flood the coastlines and cities. Try this experiment:

Fill a glass with ice then pore water into the glass until the water gets right to the rim, but not overflowing. According to Gore / these scientists, when the ice melts it should overflow the glass. IT DOESN'T. If confused, ask some middle school science student to explain it to you.

 

[easyt65]

But do continue with your Anti-American divisive posts based on unsubstantiated lies, like those above......

Pointing out that the WSJ accurately states that 'Global Warming' is no longer a critical issue at the forefront of American discussions is an 'ANTI-AMERICAN DIVISIVE POST' to you?!

Oh you POOR, over-sensitive, fragile snowflake nut job...... I think you and your therapist will have a lot to talk about this week.

Bwuhahahahaha...

 

[BlindBoo]

Typical deflection. Look up the direct quotes to confirm what I posted was what Gore said. He's a politician. He always qualified those wildly predictive claims. They were always based on worst case scenario potions of the studies he cites.

Not deflecting. I am just saying, Snopes is a biased source. Don't read anything else into my statement.

Bull shit. Attacking the source is a well known tactic when confronted by facts contrary to ones stated position. Gore never made those predictions. Those lies are only found in publications that paraphrase what was actually said. Like Rush Limbaugh or that Hannity dweeb.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bull shit. Attacking the source is a well known tactic when confronted by facts contrary to ones stated position. Gore never made those predictions. Those lies are only found in publications that paraphrase what was actually said. Like Rush Limbaugh or that Hannity dweeb.

I wasn't the one arguing that Gore made those predictions. As I said, I was not deflecting. I was simply pointing out a biased source. That source may be correct, but you should confirm. That's all.

Don't take my statement for anything more than it is.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Al Gore being an ignorant, fear mongering douche bag does not equal climate change not taking place.

That is like judging Christianity based upon Jim and Tammy Baker.

That's a good point.

Algore's man-bear-pig bullshit is not rebuttal evidence. It's simply evidence that Algore is a douche bag.

 

[BlindBoo]

Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal? - Skeptical Science
Has Arctic sea ice returned to normal?

As of today,JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE ... Source: Polar Science Centre, University of Washington .... Arctic ice cap safe from runaway melting



Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice ...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/.../updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

May 19, 2015 - Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth's polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began ...


Gore / scientists said glaciers and icebergs melting would flood the coastlines and cities. Try this experiment:

Fill a glass with ice then pore water into the glass until the water gets right to the rim, but not overflowing. According to Gore / these scientists, when the ice melts it should overflow the glass. IT DOESN'T. If confused, ask some middle school science student to explain it to you.

Continuing with the bullshit lies I see. Sea Ice and Iceburgs <> Glaciers.

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Arctic sea ice extent for April 2018 averaged 13.71 million square kilometers (5.29 million square miles). This was 980,000 square kilometers (378,400 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average and only 20,000 square kilometers (7,700 square miles) above the record low April extent set in 2016. Given the uncertainty in measurements, NSIDC considers 2016 and 2018 as tying for lowest April sea ice extent on record. As seen throughout the 2017 to 2018 winter, extent remained below average in the Bering Sea and Barents Sea. While retreat was especially pronounced in the Sea of Okhotsk during the month of April, the ice edge was only slightly further north than is typical at this time of year. Sea ice extent in the Bering Sea remains the lowest recorded since at least 1979

 

[BlindBoo]

Bull shit. Attacking the source is a well known tactic when confronted by facts contrary to ones stated position. Gore never made those predictions. Those lies are only found in publications that paraphrase what was actually said. Like Rush Limbaugh or that Hannity dweeb.

I wasn't the one arguing that Gore made those predictions. As I said, I was not deflecting. I was simply pointing out a biased source. That source may be correct, but you should confirm. That's all.

Don't take my statement for anything more than it is.

You were attack the source regardless of the truthfulness of the information on the page. It's a typical ploy for political debate. When one can't argue the facts, attack the source.

 

[Flash]

There is a bigger carbon footprint for the production, distribution and disposal of batteries than it is for the carbon saved by using less fossil fuels.

Actually that also applies to solar panels that idiots put on their roofs.

These Moon Bats are crazy as hell with their AGW religion, aren't they?

I know, right? If we just accept it and have faith, the prophet, Algore will lead us to prosperity and save us from the evil destruction that is upon us. But, we cannot question the great Algore. We MUST have faith and accept his guidance or we will surely be destroyed.

It's like a chapter out of the Old Testament.

Speaking of the carbon footprint of batteries, remember that we have as much as 10% ethanol in our fuels now.

It takes a barrel of oil to produce a barrel of ethanol.

I am glad we fell for that scam and are now FORCED to use ethanol.

Five Ethanol Myths, Busted

There are two key reasons ethanol is no longer net energy negative.


First, corn production efficiency has increased dramatically: Producers now grow 160 bushels per acre today versus the 95 grown in 1980, and corn yield continues to increase.

Second, ethanol production has become more energy-efficient. Today, more than 90 percent of corn used in ethanol production goes through a dry milling process that uses far less energy than the wet milling process used before. The combination of more corn per acre, coupled with a reduction of energy input to process ethanol, has resulted in a favorable energy output. The gallons of ethanol yielded per bushel of corn has also increased by about 50 percent.

Show me the energy balance.

Does the balance include the tremendous energy needed to produce and distribute the fertilizer or was that omitted? Does it include all the energy used in the corn production or is it cherry picked? It it a cost analysis that doesn't include farm subsidize are a real carbon footprint analysis? It sounds like it is a cost analysis.

Also, as mentioned above that stupid ethanol is notorious for destroying engines. Does the balance take into consideration of the carbon footprint for replacement and repair?

These National Labs are notorious for being being influenced by political issues. They get their funding from politicians and that asshole Obama poured tons of money into the labs to do worthless things like energy research that never amounted to a hill of beans.

What else you got Moon Bat?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You were attack the source regardless of the truthfulness of the information on the page. It's a typical ploy for political debate. When one can't argue the facts, attack the source.

I specifically stated that the source may be correct.

Stop getting defensive. I just pointed out a bias. Nothing more. I didn't even say you were wrong.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

These National Labs are notorious for being being influenced by political issues. They get their funding from politicians and that asshole Obama poured tons of money into the labs to do worthless things like energy research that never amounted to a hill of beans.

Technically, a hill of beans would produce more energy.

 

[BlindBoo]

So, if people quit talking about Global Warming, it no longer exists.

When people stop talking about Climate Change as the world killer that should have flooded miles of coastline inland by now, as predicted by Gore, because Global Warming 'scientists' were repeatedly busted for manipulating data and for being so wrong on their predictions, it is no longer taken seriously as a huge / front-and-center issue.

Global Warming was debunked soundly by proving there were / are re-occurring patterns of global warming and cooling as well as indications we might be in a cooling cycle. This caused the name to be changed to 'Climate Change'.

I completely believe in 'Climate change'. I see it 4 times a year and learned about them in school:

Spring, Summer, Winter, and Fall.

You keep saying Gore made these predictions. But for some reason you provide no links to what he actually said. I think you're lying. I'm not all that sure you even read the WSJ article.