Debate on climate and warming? Not really.

[defcon4]

T


Yeah...except for the fact that the warming stopped, the computer models have been wrong, and that the man made global warming religionists keep destroying, hiding and changing data.......all in the name of scientific truth....

The warming has not stopped. The older models are off because we have been taking action & reducing emission growth. \

Until now when the fucking stupid have taken over our country & will reverse the progress made.

I guess you just hate your kids. You value money more than your children's future?

If you assclowns seriously feared CO2, you support more nuke plants instead of wasting billions on windmills.

Most of the progress we made lately was do to fracking, something else you assclowns have fought.

Show me a nuke plant built under budget and on time, and maybe I would find some support for them. However, Nuke power is still expensive power.

I am fine with fracking, provided that no aquifers are impacted.

However, Nuke power is still expensive power.

Now you guys are concerned about cost? LOL!

If you used consistent designs and ended frivolous lawsuits against new plant construction, you could
build them much faster, much less expensively.

Can you tell me when all that cheap German wind and solar is going to bring their electricity costs down from triple ours to a more reasonable double our levels?

5 years? 10 years? Never?

German power bills are low compared to US average

While Americans pay on average around 12 cents per kilowatt-hour of electricity, Germans easily pay twice as much. Yet, citizens are not demonstrating against the energy transition. On the contrary, when an Energiewende demo takes place, it is always citizens wishing to protect their right to make their own energy.

One reason is that the average power bill is a fairly small part of household budgets. Germans consume only a third as much electricity as Americans do. Their power bills are thus not so large.

But how can we compare these rates? If we do so with the exchange rate, then German power bills currently look very small indeed because the euro has dropped from around 1.30 USD in recent years to around 1.10 USD in the past few months. Convert at that rate, and Germans only pay around 92 dollars a month for electricity – compared to the US average of 110 dollars. But even at the higher exchange rate from 2014, German power bills would still only come in right at around 110 dollars.

How about being more accurate in your statements. Double, yet most German households pay about the same as American households for their power.

The comparison is a shit show. It doesn't show consumption it shows some crap about electric bills. What they pay for 1 kWh? We over here pay an average of 12 cents/kWh.
Never mind I found it for you: Germans pay 29.16 cents/kWh. So what were you mumbling about Germans paying less for electricity?

"In 2015, consumer prices eased for the first time in years. This was due to a decline in the renewable energy surcharge, which edged down for the first time since its introduction in 2000, from 6.24 cents in 2014 to 6.17 cents per kWh in the following year. But since 2016, it is again on the rise, currently standing at to 6.88 cents. Consumer prices too have since been brought back to previous levels, reaching a new peak of 29.16 cents/kWh in 2017."
What German households pay for power

 

[CrusaderFrank]

In the near future, climate science will take it's place alongside phrenology and the peppered moth as one of science's greatest hoaxes

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

Jake, please tell the class how we had accurate temperature reading of the "excess heat" stored in the deep ocean back in 1600, and 10,000 BCE, for example

I see you are too stupid to understand how we know what we know about what the planet was like thousands & millions years ago.

Clearly, please educate me. How did you get those deep ocean heat readings back in 60BCE?

From proxies in the sediment cores retrieved from the ocean bottom, you semi-literate ass.

You have deep ocean water temperature accurate to a degree from proxies?

Can you show us the "Science" behind how the temperature was arrived at for save the Atlantic Ocean circa 30BCE?

And please tell us how your information is more reliable than phrenology

See, Frank, that is why you need to rely on the scientists, because you don't understanding an effing thing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Tree ring data is inaccurate. As is ice core data.

Link, asshole?

About Tree Rings | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

Ice Core Data: Truths and Misconceptions

Ice Core Dating | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata

World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep

Template1

WWII airplanes are now beneath thousands of annual ice layers - EvoWiki

I know you'll try to denigrate some of the ice core sources.

To which I say "bite me"

Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.

Like the 3% that support yours?

Like the 3% that support yours?

Ah, yes, 75/77, very convincing.

 

[Marion Morrison]

About Tree Rings | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research

Ice Core Data: Truths and Misconceptions

Ice Core Dating | CARM Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry

CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata

World War II Planes Found in Greenland In Ice 260 Feet Deep

Template1

WWII airplanes are now beneath thousands of annual ice layers - EvoWiki

I know you'll try to denigrate some of the ice core sources.

To which I say "bite me"

Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.

Like the 3% that support yours?

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.

I care what the scientists think, not you.

No you don't. If you did, you'd admit you got fooled by the AGW narrative, but you're not humble enough to accept that, so you'll prattle on.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why should I bother? They denigrate themselves. And you, for being stupid enough to fall for that drivel.

I certainly trust the evidence presented from scientists of all the different nations than I do your unfounded opinions.

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.

Like the 3% that support yours?

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.

I care what the scientists think, not you.

No you don't. If you did, you'd admit you got fooled by the AGW narrative, but you're not humble enough to accept that, so you'll prattle on.

Anyone does believe that global warming is a fact, that man's input is a major factor, and that that factor may be curtailed - such a person in that denial is an idiot.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You only trust the evidence from scientists who support your opinion.

Like the 3% that support yours?

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.

I care what the scientists think, not you.

No you don't. If you did, you'd admit you got fooled by the AGW narrative, but you're not humble enough to accept that, so you'll prattle on.

Anyone does believe that global warming is a fact, that man's input is a major factor, and that that factor may be curtailed - such a person in that denial is an idiot.

and that that factor may be curtailed

Every time you post, you're causing CO2 to be released.
You should curtail your posts, for the planet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Like the 3% that support yours?

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.

I care what the scientists think, not you.

No you don't. If you did, you'd admit you got fooled by the AGW narrative, but you're not humble enough to accept that, so you'll prattle on.

Anyone does believe that global warming is a fact, that man's input is a major factor, and that that factor may be curtailed - such a person in that denial is an idiot.

and that that factor may be curtailed

Every time you post, you're causing CO2 to be released.
You should curtail your posts, for the planet.

And I don't know about that, but you do post a lot of gas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That 3% number is obviously based on the old and thoroughly debunked BS about 97% scientists agreeing with the theory that GW is rising at a rate that will cause catastrophic consequences and that GW is primarily caused by human activity. If you still want to run with that, fine but it's cockamammy BS. Actually, this issue has been so politicized that I don't believe anybody after all I've read about it. I do not doubt that GW/CC is a reality, but I distrust those who say that the rise in global temps is enough to mean that dire calamities are imminent. Nor am I certain that the GW/CC is entirely due to anthropogenic causes; has mankind polluting the air and water? Sure, and it's a problem that ought to be addressed in a reasonable and cost-effective manner. But not the hair-on-fire alarmism that many on the Left ascribe to the problem.

I care what the scientists think, not you.

No you don't. If you did, you'd admit you got fooled by the AGW narrative, but you're not humble enough to accept that, so you'll prattle on.

Anyone does believe that global warming is a fact, that man's input is a major factor, and that that factor may be curtailed - such a person in that denial is an idiot.

and that that factor may be curtailed

Every time you post, you're causing CO2 to be released.
You should curtail your posts, for the planet.

And I don't know about that, but you do post a lot of gas.

Between the two of us, the planet is dying.
I hope you're happy now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Jake, please tell the class how we had accurate temperature reading of the "excess heat" stored in the deep ocean back in 1600, and 10,000 BCE, for example

I see you are too stupid to understand how we know what we know about what the planet was like thousands & millions years ago.

Clearly, please educate me. How did you get those deep ocean heat readings back in 60BCE?

From proxies in the sediment cores retrieved from the ocean bottom, you semi-literate ass.

You have deep ocean water temperature accurate to a degree from proxies?

Can you show us the "Science" behind how the temperature was arrived at for save the Atlantic Ocean circa 30BCE?

And please tell us how your information is more reliable than phrenology

See, Frank, that is why you need to rely on the scientists, because you don't understanding an effing thing.

Jake, I can tell the climate will warm, I feel is as certainly as this once scientific chart

 

[Boss]

Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature.

Both natural causes and nothing to do with man's activity.

 

[Boss]

Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

Your graph is very misleading on several aspects. First of all, it's only since about 1960 that we've been able to accurately take atmospheric temperature readings with reliability. Prior to this, we are relying on data that doesn't show the detail available today with sophisticated instrumentation. We simply don't know about past short-term fluctuations that may have happened. So you are left with comparing past guesstimates with detailed modern information.

You will also notice, the average temperatures of today aren't much different from the averages of 5000 B.C. long before industrialization. Guess what happened without any liberal socialist anti-capitalist intervention? The temperatures magically declined! The progression of civilization didn't have to be halted, people didn't have to be guilted into complying with governmental mandates designed to redistribute wealth under the guise of "climate change". Mother Nature handled it all by herself without any help from radical environmentalists.

The next thing... Your graph, as long and storied as it is... only represents about half of a Milankovitch Cycle. We are in-between ice ages and something miraculous happens to ice whenever we're not in an ice age... it melts. Some of us think this is a good thing because it's not fun having 3-mile-thick ice sheets covering much of North America. It's makes habitation of warm blooded mammals problematic. Others of us can't wrap their small minds around the magnitude of these lengthy cycles and become alarmed at melting ice. But it's completely a natural cycle which has been happening for billions of years.

Finally, at the end of your graph are these wild speculations which have no real basis in science or reality. Various possible scenarios that can't be supported with any relevant science other than science devoted to promoting a certain narrative of which it survives from political funding to promote. The "optimistic" and "best case" scenarios are completely unachievable, unless we're all going to revert to pre-industrial civilization... we're not going to realistically do that. Nations like China are going to laugh at your silly suggestions and developing nations simply can't afford to take the measures you recommend. So you have an unfeasible solution.

In addition, I will add that the science of botany seems to completely disagree with you about our CO2 levels. According to botanical research, we know that most plant life thrives optimally at around 600 ppm CO2 levels. (We're currently at 400 ppm) Again, you seem to be at odds with Mother Nature who's plants, until recently, were actually starving for CO2, leaving large swaths of the planet unable to support plant life of any kind. Increasing the viability of plant life means increasing food supplies and feeding the hungry. So your worries about CO2 levels are also unfounded.

You dumb ass, if this change were taking place over thousands of years, no worry. It is the rapidity of the change, in a world of 7 billion people depending on agriculture, which depends on a stable climate, that is the worry. Also, the last time the CO2 level was this high, the sea level was about 60 ft higher. Even a 3 ft level increase is going to cost us dearly in infrastructure and political upheaval.

The changes take place all the time. We just can't see the fluctuations in the distant past like we can currently. And again, maybe you missed this in science class, but agriculture (plants) thrive better in higher concentrations of CO2, not less. There is no such thing as a "stable climate" ...it's ever-changing.

And really, every concern you are imagining and conjuring up doesn't matter because there is nothing we can do about it. If sea levels rise, we'll have to abandon coastal property and move inland. The Earth has changed dramatically over time and humans have had little to do with that. You give our influence FAR too much credit.

In short, if you don't like CO2, the best thing you can do is plant a tree. IF all of you Warmers would abandon your nonsense and start planting trees instead, you'd do FAR more to reduce global CO2 than any scheme your socialist anti-capitalists flimflam artists are selling you. So get cracking... go plant some trees and shut the fuck up!

 

[theHawk]

Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

Cuckey's world is only 20,000 years old. Wouldn't want to look at the big picture, would we? Of course not, it would show that after every ice age there is a very slow warming trend, then a very sudden warming period before the next ice age starts.

 

[Political Junky]

The great barrier off Australia is dying because of the warming ocean.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

/--- During the Ice Age, the Earth's average temperature was about 12 degrees Fahrenheit colder than it is today. That was enough to keep snow from melting during the summers in northern regions. As snow fell on snow, thick sheets of ice called glaciers formed.

 

[Cellblock2429]

GloBull warming is a huge wealth redistribution scam.

End of debate

Global arming deniers are dumber than shit. Thanks for proving that.

/--- Who is arming the Globe? Smith & Wesson?

 

[Cellblock2429]

GloBull warming is a huge wealth redistribution scam.

End of debate

Global arming deniers are dumber than shit. Thanks for proving that.

T


Yeah...except for the fact that the warming stopped, the computer models have been wrong, and that the man made global warming religionists keep destroying, hiding and changing data.......all in the name of scientific truth....

The warming has not stopped. The older models are off because we have been taking action & reducing emission growth. \

Until now when the fucking stupid have taken over our country & will reverse the progress made.

I guess you just hate your kids. You value money more than your children's future?

/---- When will the sky fall, Chicken Little?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

Jake, please tell the class how we had accurate temperature reading of the "excess heat" stored in the deep ocean back in 1600, and 10,000 BCE, for example

I see you are too stupid to understand how we know what we know about what the planet was like thousands & millions years ago.

Hey twit...they couldn't even accurately predict the snow amounts for this week....and yet they are going to be dead on 100 years from now.....you are the dumb one......

Now you call WEATHER climate. You are the dumbest, most uninformed jackass on this site.

/---- If weather has nothing to do with climate what are you so wee weed off about?

 

[Cellblock2429]

Anyone who tells you that climate is changing all the time, have them refer to the image below. Follow the curve.

Jake, please tell the class how we had accurate temperature reading of the "excess heat" stored in the deep ocean back in 1600, and 10,000 BCE, for example

I see you are too stupid to understand how we know what we know about what the planet was like thousands & millions years ago.

Explain it to us.

Sop you think we just made up the climate of those eras in the past? Do we learn anything from the fossil history? Ice cores? Tree rings?

We must have made up dinosaurs too. Right, dumbass.

/--- Yes we think you Goreball Warmers distorted data to make your point. There is no way to verify anything you claim.

 

[Boss]

Yes we think you Goreball Warmers distorted data to make your point. There is no way to verify anything you claim.

Not only that, but IF what they claim is true, there's not anything we can do to fix it. CO2 doesn't dissipate in the atmosphere because it is impressed with carbon offset taxes collected. In order to significantly reduce it, we would have to completely stop all human sources of CO2 emission and hope that the minimal emission from 7 billion people just breathing and staying warm would be enough, along with nature's cooperation in reducing natural sources as well. That's never going to happen.

Interesting side note: The ice age previous to the last one was actually triggered by nature (not man). What happened was, the planet naturally warmed as it always does, large tree-like plants grew globally to mammoth proportions. These huge green plants sucked up the CO2 in the atmosphere which diminished the natural greenhouse warming and when the Earth went into minimum of the Milankovitch Cycle, an ice age happened. Proving that decreasing CO2 is not always a good idea.