Global Warming Update

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, I am well aware of all that, I am also well aware that it cannot work on a large scale. how do you propose to use sustainable living in New York City or Hong Kong?

Solar panels are great, but you do realize that they only work when the sun is shining on them, right? Solar panels don't do shit in the winter in Canada when its 10 below zero and dark 18 hours a day. Do you think Canadians should be cutting down trees and burning wood all winter rather than using coal and oil? Do you think burning wood is pollution free?

Finally, John Lennon's song "Imagine" was just a song. The real world does not work that way, but enjoy your delusions while you can.

Well, actually my first policy would be one of a reduction in the population. It will happen one way or another. It could be like the Chinese 1 child policy, or it could be through war, I guess we choose but very few countries seem willing to implement this sort of thing.

A large city would need to be producing a certain amount of its own electricity, solar panels would probably be the main one as they can be put on roofs and whatnot.
However New York is close to the sea. There are areas around NY that could be used for other types of renewable energy.

Certainly the US is moving towards this at a slow pace, but the reliance on oil and coal etc is going to have to change in the future anyway.

As for places which don't have so much sun, there are other ways, a combination of different types of energy is the way forwards. And in Canada, well, it's cold and they might need to burn a certain amount of fuel, but then again not that many people live up there compared to the US, or China. Most people in the world live in climates that are actually quite warm. China and India make up 1/3 of the world's population. Okay, China has some cold bits, but they're using Xinjiang in the far west as a major source or renewable energy.

I'm not sure why you're saying the real world doesn't work that way. Is this a case of you don't think it can work, or you just don't like it because oil companies spend a lot of money telling you how much you need oil?

US renewable.

Green jobs international

This is for solar thermal energy

The US increase is the worst on this list.

Chinese investment abroad

Things are possible. What needs to happen is that people need to realise that this has to be the case. It's like an alcoholic who keeps going back to the bar saying they can't sleep if they don't drink, they can't think if they don't drink, they can't be happy if they don't drink. However it's killing them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

50/50 huh?

 

[Redfish]

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

50/50 huh?

A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing. But as I said, enjoy your delusions

 

[Redfish]

Yes, I am well aware of all that, I am also well aware that it cannot work on a large scale. how do you propose to use sustainable living in New York City or Hong Kong?

Solar panels are great, but you do realize that they only work when the sun is shining on them, right? Solar panels don't do shit in the winter in Canada when its 10 below zero and dark 18 hours a day. Do you think Canadians should be cutting down trees and burning wood all winter rather than using coal and oil? Do you think burning wood is pollution free?

Finally, John Lennon's song "Imagine" was just a song. The real world does not work that way, but enjoy your delusions while you can.

Well, actually my first policy would be one of a reduction in the population. It will happen one way or another. It could be like the Chinese 1 child policy, or it could be through war, I guess we choose but very few countries seem willing to implement this sort of thing.

A large city would need to be producing a certain amount of its own electricity, solar panels would probably be the main one as they can be put on roofs and whatnot.
However New York is close to the sea. There are areas around NY that could be used for other types of renewable energy.

Certainly the US is moving towards this at a slow pace, but the reliance on oil and coal etc is going to have to change in the future anyway.

As for places which don't have so much sun, there are other ways, a combination of different types of energy is the way forwards. And in Canada, well, it's cold and they might need to burn a certain amount of fuel, but then again not that many people live up there compared to the US, or China. Most people in the world live in climates that are actually quite warm. China and India make up 1/3 of the world's population. Okay, China has some cold bits, but they're using Xinjiang in the far west as a major source or renewable energy.

I'm not sure why you're saying the real world doesn't work that way. Is this a case of you don't think it can work, or you just don't like it because oil companies spend a lot of money telling you how much you need oil?

US renewable.

Green jobs international

This is for solar thermal energy

The US increase is the worst on this list.

Chinese investment abroad

Things are possible. What needs to happen is that people need to realise that this has to be the case. It's like an alcoholic who keeps going back to the bar saying they can't sleep if they don't drink, they can't think if they don't drink, they can't be happy if they don't drink. However it's killing them.

Lets see now, if your charts and conclusions are correct, we need to kill all the chinese and indians. Should we nuke them? no, too much fall out. Poison their water? stop shipping food to them? how about the booming populations in indonesia and south america, how do we eliminate them?

The answer is they will eliminate themselves when their land cannot support them any longer.

The problem we have as americans is that we think we can control nature, other countries, other humans, the oceans, and how fast the ice melts.

Man is not the enemy of mother earth. Conservation is important, do you understand that conservative is a deriviative of conservation? conservatives have it in perspective, liberals are all chicken littles crying that the sky is falling.

 

[healthmyths]

OK,just for drill, lets assume that you are frigid are correct and that man is destroying the planet by living on it. What would you have mankind do? What specifically do you on the left want the people on earth to do? how do you plan to force them to do it? and what impact will it have on the world's economic system? How do you propose to provide fuel for to house, clothe, and feed the people of earth?

Its fine to cry wolf, but unless you have a plan to kill the wolf, we will just have to live with him.

But, having said that, I think you are full of shit.

Do you know what sustainable living is?

We have enough resources to keep ourselves happy for the rest of eternity. We have the sun, we have waves, we have animal waste, we have wind, etc.

Oh, but people will talk about the cost. So we go for polluting the earth and killing it because it's cheaper. Oh great.

How many houses do you see with solar panels? How many people live off what is close to them?

Renewable energy is one way. But also living off what is closer to hand, rather than transporting things around the world when it's not necessary is another.

You think we're "full of shit", but then it's easy to just think that without having to care about the world, isn't it?

CHICKEN LITTLE!!!

There are now over 13,000 MW of cumulative solar electric capacity operating in the U.S., enough to power more than 2.2 million average American homes.

There were 140,000 new solar installations in the U.S. during 2013, bringing the total to over 445,000 PV systems operating today.

The utility market led the charge again with 2,847 MW of PV and 410 MW of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) installed in 2013.
Solar Industry Data | SEIA

In the United States there are 69,865,957 single family dwellings.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/units.html
Given the above rate of adding 140,000 new installs that would reduce a lot of the CO2 right?
Too bad because we are finding out that this excess CO2 is beneficial!
SEAWATER DESALINATION AS A BENEFICIAL FACTOR OF CO2 SEQUESTRATION
Because of the costs of transportation, geological sequestration will be most applicable for one set of power plants, deep ocean sequestration may be most applicable for some others. In both cases, the sequestration processes can provide some economic benefits.
Ocean CO2 disposal can produce desalinated, treated water as a byproduct.
https://circle.ubc.ca/bitstream/handle/2429/1034/5514.pdf?sequence=1

 

[1776]

One of the founders of Greenpeace has come out and said the global warming nuts are scumbags that are lying about their data to push their socialist and anti-progress agendas.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Lets see now, if your charts and conclusions are correct, we need to kill all the chinese and indians. Should we nuke them? no, too much fall out. Poison their water? stop shipping food to them? how about the booming populations in indonesia and south america, how do we eliminate them?

The answer is they will eliminate themselves when their land cannot support them any longer.

The problem we have as americans is that we think we can control nature, other countries, other humans, the oceans, and how fast the ice melts.

Man is not the enemy of mother earth. Conservation is important, do you understand that conservative is a deriviative of conservation? conservatives have it in perspective, liberals are all chicken littles crying that the sky is falling.

Actually no. We need to kill all Americans and Europeans. They're the ones who use the most. But, yes in the future there will be big problems when China is churning out the same amount of pollution per person as the US.

When you say they will eliminate themselves, you may not be looking at this right. Who is going to kill who? It'd probably end up in a massive war. Perhaps it's already started. Russia and China v. the US and the West.

Great. And each kill each other and perhaps 3 billion people die, and then, maybe the world will have some peace.

Conservative means conserving how things were. That doesn't mean that they want to go forward and conserve the environment.

 

[healthmyths]

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

50/50 huh?

A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing. But as I said, enjoy your delusions

DELUSIONAL??? YOU poke fun of a"chart made by someone"???

Come on let's have some logical rational debate rather then playground name calling!

How about answering this simple question?
when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So explain to me if 12.5% of the land mass' temperatures WERE NOT included, why wouldn't the temperatures be skewed higher?
Also explain to me WHY NOAA did this:
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

"Distorted data"??? weather stations located near sweltering...etc... distort the data.

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

Explain to me if we can't even measure accurately because we have reading stations using skewed data... how then can we believe your output?
Check this chart again..

10,257 Climate surveys sent to "NOT MILLIONS"... but 10,257 of WHICH
3,146 returned their surveys of which
77 were climate scientists of which
42 said "yes"

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus? | Watts Up With That?
F

 

[frigidweirdo]

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

50/50 huh?

A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing. But as I said, enjoy your delusions

Did you look at the chart? It's different groups asking similar questions and getting similar answers.

You say it's 50/50 and don't back it up. I say it's not and do back it up. And you claim I'm the one who is delusional.

 

[Redfish]

50/50 huh?

A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing. But as I said, enjoy your delusions

DELUSIONAL??? YOU poke fun of a"chart made by someone"???

Come on let's have some logical rational debate rather then playground name calling!

How about answering this simple question?
when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So explain to me if 12.5% of the land mass' temperatures WERE NOT included, why wouldn't the temperatures be skewed higher?
Also explain to me WHY NOAA did this:
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

"Distorted data"??? weather stations located near sweltering...etc... distort the data.

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

Explain to me if we can't even measure accurately because we have reading stations using skewed data... how then can we believe your output?
Check this chart again..

10,257 Climate surveys sent to "NOT MILLIONS"... but 10,257 of WHICH
3,146 returned their surveys of which
77 were climate scientists of which
42 said "yes"
View attachment 30000
About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus? | Watts Up With That?
F

why are you attacking me? we are on the same side.

 

[Redfish]

50/50 huh?

A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing. But as I said, enjoy your delusions

Did you look at the chart? It's different groups asking similar questions and getting similar answers.

You say it's 50/50 and don't back it up. I say it's not and do back it up. And you claim I'm the one who is delusional.

here ya go, dingleberry. from wiki

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

here ya go, dingleberry. from wiki

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you're sourcing my picture. Okay, and why?

 

[Redfish]

here ya go, dingleberry. from wiki

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you're sourcing my picture. Okay, and why?

Because you lied about "scientific community agreement". There is not agreement, the fact is that no one knows and no one will know for another 500 or 1000 years.

 

[frigidweirdo]

here ya go, dingleberry. from wiki

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you're sourcing my picture. Okay, and why?

Because you lied about "scientific community agreement". There is not agreement, the fact is that no one knows and no one will know for another 500 or 1000 years.

No. I think you've confused me with someone else.

You made the claim 50/50.

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

I said it wasn't 50/50 by any stretch of the imagination, hence the chart.

Why would I say everyone is in agreement?

 

[Redfish]

So, you're sourcing my picture. Okay, and why?

Because you lied about "scientific community agreement". There is not agreement, the fact is that no one knows and no one will know for another 500 or 1000 years.

No. I think you've confused me with someone else.

You made the claim 50/50.

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

I said it wasn't 50/50 by any stretch of the imagination, hence the chart.

Why would I say everyone is in agreement?

You posted the fricken chart, you fricken weirdo. The chart claims that the vast majority of scientists agree that man is changing the climate of planet earth. Its a fuckin lie. I gave you a wiki cite that disproved the claim and included a list of well known climate scientists who do not believe that man is, or could, change the climate of our planet.

I know you want to believe it and get the entire world to dance around the may pole singing 'we are the world' but its not going to happen, its bullshit

pollution is bad, but pollution is not changing the climate. AGW is a hoax and algore is a fraud.

But who gives a shit, believe whatever you want.

 

[Mac1958]

.

MY chart is better than YOUR chart.

 

[1776]

The incomes of global warming liars in various liberal think tanks and universities relies on keeping the lies alive....that is why they manipulated the data and why they build models to spit out what they want to see.

It would be like a madman on campus claiming the sky is really red and that his models prove it, just keep sending him more research money so that he can fix it.

 

[RDD_1210]

Yes. Today... If they want more money for their computer models for further research, they better damn well find that global warming is a continuing problem. You think the goverment (Al Gore's cronies) are interested in finding that global warming is not as big of a problem as first predicted? Since the science is settled any such findings will be discredited and discontinued (no more grant money for you, you global warming denier).

Every major international scientific body are "Al Gores cronies"?

Is that your position?

It would be if that was true, but its not. the "scientific" community, whatever the fuck that is, remains about 50/50 on AGW, and the 50% that support it are getting rich off of govt grants given to them to produce studies that reach that conclusion.

You are being brainwashed and don't even realize it.

LOL, 50/50 he says. Name one international scientific organization that says AGW is not real. Just one organization.

 

[RDD_1210]

here ya go, dingleberry. from wiki

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, you're sourcing my picture. Okay, and why?

Because you lied about "scientific community agreement". There is not agreement, the fact is that no one knows and no one will know for another 500 or 1000 years.

You just provided proof that included his chart that proves it's nowhere near 50/50 as you've said. You're not too bright, are you?

 

[healthmyths]

A chart made by someone with an agenda means nothing. But as I said, enjoy your delusions

DELUSIONAL??? YOU poke fun of a"chart made by someone"???

Come on let's have some logical rational debate rather then playground name calling!

How about answering this simple question?
when "The number of [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia « Climate Audit

So explain to me if 12.5% of the land mass' temperatures WERE NOT included, why wouldn't the temperatures be skewed higher?
Also explain to me WHY NOAA did this:
Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has closed some 600 out of nearly 9,000 weather stations over the past two years that it has deemed problematic or unnecessary, after a long campaign by one critic highlighting the problem of using unreliable data. The agency says the closures will help improve gathering of weather data, but critics like meterologist and blogger Anthony Watts say it is too little, too late.
Distorted data? Feds close 600 weather stations amid criticism they're situated to report warming | Fox News

"Distorted data"??? weather stations located near sweltering...etc... distort the data.

There are over 11,000 weather stations around the world measuring land, air and sea temperatures, as well as satellites, ships and aircraft that also take measurements.
https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_observation_networks_systems.php

Explain to me if we can't even measure accurately because we have reading stations using skewed data... how then can we believe your output?
Check this chart again..

10,257 Climate surveys sent to "NOT MILLIONS"... but 10,257 of WHICH
3,146 returned their surveys of which
77 were climate scientists of which
42 said "yes"
View attachment 30000
About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus? | Watts Up With That?
F

why are you attacking me? we are on the same side.

I am so sorry. Mea Culpa! أنا آسف Je mi líto, Doleo, Я сожалею,
There in arabic,Czech,Latin, Russian.. Any other languages you want from Google Translate?