Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is he a scientist? Has his info been reviewed for accuracy? No to both right?
Which makes him the perfect guy to listen too.
I think you need to google Greenpeace.
Is he a scientist? Has his info been reviewed for accuracy? No to both right?
Which makes him the perfect guy to listen too.
I think you need to google Greenpeace.
Why? Do they have a link to a peer reviewed study or nah?
I wouldn't support any drastic action immediately - especially since only a few nations would probably be participating. We can't control China who was building an average of one coal-fired generation plant a day a few years ago.
While our liquid oil on the planet will probably be gone (at current rates of consumption) in about 65 years or so, coal is much more plentiful. I wouldn't toss it out of the electricity generation mix.
I'd like to see some good R & D on cleaner coal, and I'd like to see us shifting the mix toward more toward nuclear and less coal.
But I think we need a public-private R&D partnership close to what we saw during the space race focused on energy.
Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.
If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.
But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.
None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.
I think you need to google Greenpeace.
Why? Do they have a link to a peer reviewed study or nah?
WTF is the value of a "peer reviewed study" when all of the "peers" are on the same payroll?
the greenpeace guy has no axe to grind, he is not taking money from anyone, he is merely stating his opinion based on a review of the data available.
Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.
If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.
But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.
None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.
not the way I understand it. they would remove the solid particulates and the SO2. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere, anyone who thinks that CO2 is destroying the planet is an idiot.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.
Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.
I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.
Al Gores spokesman and environment advisor, Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented thousands and thousands of facts. It did not: just 2,000 facts in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term errors. In fact, the judge used the term errors, in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online
Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com
Good sensible ideas that we should be working on regardless of climate change. The problem is that the libs do not support your ideas on clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas. The also do not support solar panel farms since they might disturb the habitat of some frog or lizard.
If we stop using coal, the price of energy will rise drastically and there will be shortages because currently there is no substitute in sufficient quantities.
But I appreciate your sensible response. Don't expect similar from the resident libs.
None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.
not the way I understand it. they would remove the solid particulates and the SO2. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere, anyone who thinks that CO2 is destroying the planet is an idiot.
None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.
not the way I understand it. they would remove the solid particulates and the SO2. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere, anyone who thinks that CO2 is destroying the planet is an idiot.
Climate change will not destroy the planet.
The level of CO2 is rising and burning fossil fuel is causing it.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.
Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.
I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.
Al Gores spokesman and environment advisor, Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented thousands and thousands of facts. It did not: just 2,000 facts in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term errors. In fact, the judge used the term errors, in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online
Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com
I will listen to and believe the 97% of climate scientist who say there is global warming and it is being caused by human activity. Believe what you will but the 3% you agree with are probably in error OR bought and paid for by big energy.
The bottom line is that if you and the 3% are wrong it could lead to a global catastrophy. On the other hand, if the 97% are right and we act to clean up our atmosphere what is the worst that will happen? We will get a cleaner environment with cleaner air. Is that so bad?
None of those ideas are good. When AGW cult members refer to "clean coal," they mean coal plants that remove the CO2 from the effluent. In addition to the fact that there aren't sufficient places to put the CO2 removed, the process drives down the efficiency of the power plant to the point where it's not economically viable.
not the way I understand it. they would remove the solid particulates and the SO2. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere, anyone who thinks that CO2 is destroying the planet is an idiot.
Climate change will not destroy the planet.
The level of CO2 is rising and burning fossil fuel is causing it.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
not the way I understand it. they would remove the solid particulates and the SO2. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere, anyone who thinks that CO2 is destroying the planet is an idiot.
Climate change will not destroy the planet.
The level of CO2 is rising and burning fossil fuel is causing it.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
No, its not. that is an unproven theory.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.While the left's leaders continue to LIE about "Climate Change" for power & control (and the left's subservient sheep continue to be willfully ignorant puppets refusing to question anything) - a court in England has now proven that the entire "climate change" issue is a farce.
Al Gore's people - when under oath before a court and facing perjury - were forced to admit that their data and claims in the movie were so false, they submitted 77 pages of correction to the court.
I'm going to repeat that: 77 pages worth of corrections to their movie.
Al Gores spokesman and environment advisor, Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented thousands and thousands of facts. It did not: just 2,000 facts in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.
Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term errors. In fact, the judge used the term errors, in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.
Couple Al Gore's people being forced to admit all of their lies with under penalty of perjury with the not one, but TWO different rounds of "Climate Gate" and the fact that the left predicted the polar ice caps would be melted by 2013 when in fact they have now expanded by 60% and, well, only an idiot libtard could ignore all of this indisputable concrete evidence in favor of their masters propaganda.
35 Inconvenient Truths: The errors in Al Gore?s movie | Monckton
Global cooling: Arctic ice caps grows by 60% against global warming predictions | Mail Online
Climate Gate News and Video - FOX News Topics - FOXNews.com
I will listen to and believe the 97% of climate scientist who say there is global warming and it is being caused by human activity. Believe what you will but the 3% you agree with are probably in error OR bought and paid for by big energy.
The bottom line is that if you and the 3% are wrong it could lead to a global catastrophy. On the other hand, if the 97% are right and we act to clean up our atmosphere what is the worst that will happen? We will get a cleaner environment with cleaner air. Is that so bad?
Hey bripat - you've been absolutely smoked by the science and smoked by the argument here on this thread.
Why don't you try to bury your shame and humiliation by starting a new thread and trotting out your old tired, discredited arguments without all the attached rebuttal.
Hey bripat - you've been absolutely smoked by the science and smoked by the argument here on this thread.
Why don't you try to bury your shame and humiliation by starting a new thread and trotting out your old tired, discredited arguments without all the attached rebuttal.
You have a vivid imagination. Obviously you've been smoking something.
Hey bripat - you've been absolutely smoked by the science and smoked by the argument here on this thread.
Why don't you try to bury your shame and humiliation by starting a new thread and trotting out your old tired, discredited arguments without all the attached rebuttal.
You have a vivid imagination. Obviously you've been smoking something.
Really?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/343386-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months.html
not the way I understand it. they would remove the solid particulates and the SO2. CO2 is a naturally occuring gas that makes up .039% of the atmosphere, anyone who thinks that CO2 is destroying the planet is an idiot.
Climate change will not destroy the planet.
The level of CO2 is rising and burning fossil fuel is causing it.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
No, its not. that is an unproven theory.
Climate change will not destroy the planet.
The level of CO2 is rising and burning fossil fuel is causing it.
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network
No, its not. that is an unproven theory.
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
No, its not. that is an unproven theory.
RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?
Settled Science - Humans are Raising CO2 Levels
What recent increases?
