Climate Change Has Run Its Course

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wind mills and solar require no fuel. That makes them infinitely more efficient than petroleum products.

Alternative energy technologies ARE free market solutions that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

They are not without cost and they require space.

Those alternative sources, so far, have NOT made fossil fuels obsolete. When they do, we are saved.

 

[Flash]

"i am one of the 97% of scientists that believe man is destroying our planet despite this cycle happening naturally. Now please excuse me while i go jump on my private jumbo jet that spews more co2 in 8 hours than you do all year, and be disingenuous to another group of useful idiots. Dont forget to sign the checks!"

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong


So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. That's a pretty healthy salary by many standards, but it's hardly a racket.

$70-120K is a lot better than $20K a year flipping burgers, which is what a lot of these people would be making if they weren't scamming.

Climategate I & II exposed the scam. The principal scientists were all manipulating and fabricating data to make it fit their screwed up computer modeling. Under the Obama Administration we found out that NOAA and NASA were doing the same damn thing. Also the UN Climate Committee.

If this AGW was real and significant then there would be no reason to lie about it, would it?

And you are the one lying. Every Scientific Society, every National Academia of Sciences, and every major University in the world states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger Only morons like you try to pretend that there is some great international conspiracy to fool the rest of us. Don't forget the tinfoil for your little tin hats.

Go read the Climategate emails then you won't sound so ignorant. The sonofabitches were lying about data in order to protect their flawed research. .Go look at the data that NOAA and NASA corrupted when that asshole Obama was President.

The morons are the people like you that have bought this scam hook, line and sinker.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, you are suspicious because you are too damned lazy to research the subject. Wind mills and utility solar that produce electricity cheaper than coal or natural gas is Communistic? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! And without the extreme expense and dangers of nuclear?

Look, I have no problem with pursuing alternative energy sources. I do have a problem with the wealth redistribution scheme that Al Gore, Obama, and the other leftists tried to cram down our throats. That is not a real solution. It's a communist scheme. You know it is.

The other issue is that wind mills and solar are MUCH less efficient than petroleum products. They always will be.

Fossil fuels changed the world forever. Until something else comes along that is better, we will always be dependent on fossil fuels.

Rather than trying to redistribute wealth, the AGW proponents should work on a free-market solution that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

Now just what are you saying? Wind and solar less efficient that fossil fuels? Once you install them, other than minor maintenance, you do not have to build rail systems or pipelines to feed them. You do not have to mine or drill to provide fuel. That is a false meme you present.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The first step of which is to recognise the problem? Absolutely. But keep running.

And if we disagree on the problem, does that mean we stop there?

That's the real issue. You know we will not accept the proposed solution. Furthermore, the proposed solution will be futile.

If we assume the use of fossil fuels will cause the end of our world, the reason that we use so much fossil fuel is because it is highly efficient and abundant, and the world population of 8 billion people demands so much of it.

The real solution (and only solution) is to reduce the population to about 2 billion and hold it there. All other solutions, to this point, are bullshit or a Bolshevik plot.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Do you have evidence to the contrary? If not, why do you not accept this evidence?

You are asking me to accept the conclusions and suffer the consequences of those conclusions without clearly explaining the consequences of doing nothing, and without clearly explaining what your plan is and how it will actually work.

Of course I am suspicious. Especially when, so far, the plan to correct AGW has been world communism.

Of course, you are suspicious because you are too damned lazy to research the subject. Wind mills and utility solar that produce electricity cheaper than coal or natural gas is Communistic? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!! And without the extreme expense and dangers of nuclear?

It is great to see it has gone from the political sphere to consumer demand as folks have taken interest in environmental impact of the products and goods they buy. Its success mirrors the anti-cigarettes campaign. The government primed the pump, but business and industry has learned by now that the demand for energy efficiency and environmental friendliness has become a marketable selling point.

Not really, most people would still buy incandescent light bulbs...because they are cheaper......expensive green products, people don't want......they just don't care

Really dumb. Over the life of the light, LEDs are far cheaper than incandescent bulbs. Use far less electricity, last several times as long.

Far more dangerous and toxic also .

The Dark Side of LED Lightbulbs

 

[Old Rocks]

"i am one of the 97% of scientists that believe man is destroying our planet despite this cycle happening naturally. Now please excuse me while i go jump on my private jumbo jet that spews more co2 in 8 hours than you do all year, and be disingenuous to another group of useful idiots. Dont forget to sign the checks!"

If climate scientists are in it for the money, they’re doing it wrong


So, are there big bucks to be had in climate science? Since it doesn't have a lot of commercial appeal, most of the people working in the area, and the vast majority of those publishing the scientific literature, work in academic departments or at government agencies. Penn State, home of noted climatologists Richard Alley and Michael Mann, has a strong geosciences department and, conveniently, makes the department's salary information available. It's easy to check, and find that the average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000. That's a pretty healthy salary by many standards, but it's hardly a racket.

$70-120K is a lot better than $20K a year flipping burgers, which is what a lot of these people would be making if they weren't scamming.

Climategate I & II exposed the scam. The principal scientists were all manipulating and fabricating data to make it fit their screwed up computer modeling. Under the Obama Administration we found out that NOAA and NASA were doing the same damn thing. Also the UN Climate Committee.

If this AGW was real and significant then there would be no reason to lie about it, would it?

And you are the one lying. Every Scientific Society, every National Academia of Sciences, and every major University in the world states that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger Only morons like you try to pretend that there is some great international conspiracy to fool the rest of us. Don't forget the tinfoil for your little tin hats.

Go read the Climategate emails then you won't sound so ignorant. The sonofabitches were lying about data in order to protect their flawed research. .Go look at the data that NOAA and NASA corrupted when that asshole Obama was President.

The morons are the people like you that have bought this scam hook, line and sinker.

Present links, dumb ass. Like this;

Pubs.GISS: Hansen et al. 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Publication Abstracts
Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

• Get PDF (2.6 MB. Document is scanned, no OCR.)
• PDF documents require the free Adobe Reader or compatible viewing software to be viewed.
• Go to journal webpage

A real scientific paper with real predictions from 37 years ago.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Now just what are you saying? Wind and solar less efficient that fossil fuels? Once you install them, other than minor maintenance, you do not have to build rail systems or pipelines to feed them. You do not have to mine or drill to provide fuel. That is a false meme you present.

And, they cannot even come CLOSE to feeding the global demand for energy.

Why?

Because the energy source is inefficient. It does not produce nearly the power that fossil fuels produce. That's what I mean by efficiency.

Does a solar powered car come close to that of a gas powered car?

 

[Old Rocks]

The first step of which is to recognise the problem? Absolutely. But keep running.

And if we disagree on the problem, does that mean we stop there?

That's the real issue. You know we will not accept the proposed solution. Furthermore, the proposed solution will be futile.

If we assume the use of fossil fuels will cause the end of our world, the reason that we use so much fossil fuel is because it is highly efficient and abundant, and the world population of 8 billion people demands so much of it.

The real solution (and only solution) is to reduce the population to about 2 billion and hold it there. All other solutions, to this point, are bullshit or a Bolshevik plot.

Well now, I volunteer you to be the first to step off the cliff.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wind mills and solar require no fuel. That makes them infinitely more efficient than petroleum products.

Alternative energy technologies ARE free market solutions that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

They are not without cost and they require space.

Those alternative sources, so far, have NOT made fossil fuels obsolete. When they do, we are saved.

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix

Well, it does take time, but occurring far faster than most thought possible.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The first step of which is to recognise the problem? Absolutely. But keep running.

And if we disagree on the problem, does that mean we stop there?

That's the real issue. You know we will not accept the proposed solution. Furthermore, the proposed solution will be futile.

If we assume the use of fossil fuels will cause the end of our world, the reason that we use so much fossil fuel is because it is highly efficient and abundant, and the world population of 8 billion people demands so much of it.

The real solution (and only solution) is to reduce the population to about 2 billion and hold it there. All other solutions, to this point, are bullshit or a Bolshevik plot.

Well now, I volunteer you to be the first to step off the cliff.

Population control freaks are on your side of the spectrum.....

Too Many Humans: Overpopulation Is Bad for People and the Planet

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You are asking me to accept the conclusions and suffer the consequences of those conclusions

No I am not. I am asking you whether you accept this evidence. And if not, what evidence do you have in its place. Those are simple questions, Shirley?

Global Temperature

Can you show us the magical, mythical accurate to a tenth of a degree data set from 1880?

 

[cnm]

And if we disagree on the problem, does that mean we stop there?

Do you accept this evidence? And if not, what evidence do you have in its place. Those are simple questions, Shirley? Can you not face them?

Global Temperature

 

[buckeye45_73]

Wind mills and solar require no fuel. That makes them infinitely more efficient than petroleum products.

Alternative energy technologies ARE free market solutions that will make fossil fuels obsolete.

They are not without cost and they require space.

Those alternative sources, so far, have NOT made fossil fuels obsolete. When they do, we are saved.

Eighteen percent of all electricity in the United States was produced by renewable sources in 2017, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric dams. That’s up from 15% in 2016, with the shift driven by new solar and wind projects, the end of droughts in the West, and a dip in the share of natural gas generation. Meanwhile, both greenhouse gas emissions from power generation and consumer spending on power declined.

Renewables’ share of U.S. energy consumption has now doubled since 2008, as coal’s share crashed in the same period from 48% to 30%. And while the Trump administration has signaled a desire to cut funding for renewable energy and efficiency programs, the trends seem set to continue thanks to market forces.

Renewable Energy Surges to 18% of U.S. Power Mix

Well, it does take time, but occurring far faster than most thought possible.

No shit, we're all for renewable energy.....but its expensive and sucks at the moment....when its cost effective, we'll buy in.....so keep on working on it.

 

[cnm]

Can you show us the magical, mythical accurate to a tenth of a degree data set from 1880?

Can you show me the lab work on black holes?

 

[OldLady]

Climate Change Has Run Its Course

"Climate change is over. No, I’m not saying the climate will not change in the future, or that human influence on the climate is negligible. I mean simply that climate change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue. All that remains is boilerplate rhetoric from the political class, frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy rent seekers."


Al Gore was the face of 'Global Warming' and the sole reason it became a global political 'phenomenon'.

Al Gore was also a scam artist, a con man who sought to make millions off of the idea of 'Carbon Credits'. What were Carbon Credits' and the idea behind it?

The concept was that there was too much carbon being produced by countries around the world, so 'THEY' (people like Gore) wanted to dictate to all the nations that they could only produce so much carbon each year. Each nation would have an allotted number of 'carbon credits - if they were going to produce any more carbon than that amount they would have to BUY more 'carbon credits'.

That is sort of like ME deciding to tell everyone in the world that they are using too much OXYGEN, that they are allowed only so many breaths a day, and if they use / need to use any more breaths than their allotted amount they would have to BUY 'oxygen credits' from ME.

The concept of carbon credits did little to nothing to reduce the amount of carbon, but it would make a WHOLE lot of money for whoever controlled the Carbon Credits.

But I digress...

From the 'hockey stick' to NASA data manipulation to crating non-existent alien races to ponder how they would deal with Global Warming, despite the 'Global Warming Warriors' claiming 'The Science Is Settled', the science used to back up their every claim was never settled...so much so that they were forced to change the title / name of 'Global Warming' to 'Climate change'.

As the WSJ points out, the Climate Change / Global Warming 'crusade' has 'petered out', lost its momentum, and is no longer 'a pre-eminent policy issue'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now just what are you saying? Wind and solar less efficient that fossil fuels? Once you install them, other than minor maintenance, you do not have to build rail systems or pipelines to feed them. You do not have to mine or drill to provide fuel. That is a false meme you present.

And, they cannot even come CLOSE to feeding the global demand for energy.

Why?

Because the energy source is inefficient. It does not produce nearly the power that fossil fuels produce. That's what I mean by efficiency.

Does a solar powered car come close to that of a gas powered car?

Good lord, where have you been?

How Tesla Accelerates So Fast - P100D 0-60 Quickest in the World

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No I am not. I am asking you whether you accept this evidence. And if not, what evidence do you have in its place. Those are simple questions, Shirley?

I cannot say that I accept them, but I agree to assume they are correct.

I am not willing to accept the conclusions you have drawn from such evidence without more, but I will, again assume that the conclusions are correct for the sole purpose of discussing potential solutions to the alleged problem.

Now, what are the solutions other than support for technology (which I agree with) and global communism (fuck that shit)? Anything else?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Well now, I volunteer you to be the first to step off the cliff.

Bullshit. Make me.

That's what it will come down to.

War.

Just wait.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Good lord, where have you been?

How Tesla Accelerates So Fast - P100D 0-60 Quickest in the World

Good lord, indeed.

1. That's not a solar-powered car.

2. Acceleration is not the benchmark for measuring efficiency.

3. Where does a Tesla car get its energy? (hint: fossil fueled power plants)

 

[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.