Human Caused Global Warming

[Old Rocks]

Really? What a damnable liar you are, Billy Boob. And tell me, how many scientific societies do you belong to? And what is the basis of that lie, other than wishful thinking?

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

If you read the whole statement, you will find evidence cited for their position. And referances as to where to find the scientists and their articles on that evidence.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

If you read the whole statement, you will find evidence cited for their position. And referances as to where to find the scientists and their articles on that evidence.

Bull Shit!



policy statements... are political. this only proves they like federal monies.

 

[Old Rocks]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Geological Society of America - Position Statement on Climate Change

Climate Change
Adopted in October 2006; revised April 2010; March 2013

Position Statement
Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2011), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse-gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in significant impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.

Purpose
This position statement (1) summarizes the strengthened basis for the conclusion that humans are a major factor responsible for recent global warming; (2) describes the significant effects on humans and ecosystems as greenhouse-gas concentrations and global climate reach projected levels; and (3) provides information for policy decisions guiding mitigation and adaptation strategies designed to address the future impacts of anthropogenic warming.

If you read the whole statement, you will find evidence cited for their position. And referances as to where to find the scientists and their articles on that evidence.

Bull Shit!



policy statements... are political.

Really? Those of us that are members of that Society get to vote on who makes those statements. Seems like you are the one making political statements with absolutely no scientfic support.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

You never cease to amaze me how you can say this bull shit knowing that batteries are decades away from being able to do this.

at just 14 -20 % increses it will take 50-100 years to obtain batteries that could store enough energy to balance the gird and the battery farms would be massive all over the place on earth..

You really are a moron..

source

 

[Billy_Bob]

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

A battery storage facility to replace a 500Mw plant is over 1 acre X 2 acre and contains over 25,000 1,500ah batteries and regulating equipment. It would take 2 TeraWatts of green input as wind and solar are only 20% effective to charge it and maintain it. And you would still need Coal fired plants for surge and fail protections. This is brain dead stupidity.

 

[idb]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

 

[idb]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[idb]

My, my. Yet every single Scientific Society, every National Academy of Science, and every major University in the world has policy statements that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. But there is no scientific consensus?

Ah yes, it is all a conspiracy, all these scientists in Russia, Europe, Asia, and North and South America are all in on a giant conspiracy. Tin hats, anyone? LOL

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 global fossil fuel subsidies totalled $544bn (£323bn; 392bn euros), while those for renewables amounted to $101bn. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the total for hydrocarbons nearer $2 trillion.

BBC News - Fossil fuel subsidies growing despite concerns

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[19] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars), respectively, or 70% of total energy subsidies over that period. Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances and other tax-based subsidies, but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines. The MISI report found that non-hydro renewable energy (primarily wind and solar) benefited from $74 billion in federal subsidies, or 9% of the total, largely in the form of tax policy and direct federal expenditures on research and development (R&D). Nuclear power benefited from $73 billion in federal subsidies, 9% of the total, largely in the form of R&D, while hydro power received $90 billion in federal subsidies, 12% of the total.

Energy subsidies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Oil, natural gas, and coal benefited most from percentage depletion allowances

If every business gets to deduct normal business expenses, why do liberals insist this is a subsidy for oil companies?

but oil also benefited heavily from regulatory subsidies such as exemptions from price controls and higher-than-average rates of return allowed on oil pipelines

Wow! More liberal confusion about what a subsidy really is. Hilarious!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In that case, let's waste trillions and crush our economy.

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity.

That's hilarious!!!
If it was better and cheaper (doesn't matter if it is not reliable), the government wouldn't need to subsidize and mandate it.

grid scale batteries

Yeah, we know there's no pollution involved in lead (or lithium) mining. LOL!

So, if oil, gas and coal are better and cheaper why does the government need to subsidise it?

By all means, spell out the imaginary subsidies you think they get.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2012 global fossil fuel subsidies totalled $544bn (£323bn; 392bn euros), while those for renewables amounted to $101bn. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) puts the total for hydrocarbons nearer $2 trillion.

BBC News - Fossil fuel subsidies growing despite concerns

Equally, selling a barrel of oil domestically at $20 to keep petrol prices low when you could export that same barrel at the open market price of $100 represents an $80 subsidy.

Yeah, selling oil at $20, instead of $100, is very helpful for the oil companies. LOL!
You should stop now, even I'm embarrassed for you.

 

[idb]

Pretty much the responses I'd expect.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pretty much the responses I'd expect.

I know, refuting your errors is pretty easy.

 

[cultsmasher]

So is there a mass conspiracy to pull the wool over the world’s eyes? It seems highly unlikely, considering the numerous studies that show overwhelming consensus among respected scientists that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is indisputable.

at least 97 percent believe in anthropogenic climate change

The study says that the few "contrarian" scientists are a vocal, but small, minority. They also found that those scientists denying human-caused climate change tend to have less expertise in the subject than those who believe in it.
Another survey out of the University of Illinois found that 82 percent of earth scientists (out of more than 3,000 respondents) believe that global temperature shifts are human-caused. Among climate-specific earth scientists who responded, 97.4 percent said they believe in human-caused climate change.
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,"

Awe... Poor little libtard is using John Cooks FALSE STATEMENTS (which are quoted in both papers) as fact when they have been show a lie...

Your entire position is a lie. 90% say so. Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd. Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.

And I don't blame you. Why not sock it to the people? They don't even show up to vote so keep fucking them until they have had enough. Clearly they haven't had enough. The America people are so dumb.

By the way, this is the same thing happening in Michigan with our roads. Michigan allows corporations to put more weight on trucks than any of the other 50 states. That alone is a reason why corporations do business in Michigan. No need to give them more tax breaks although Snyder did give them more. Anyways, the point is that corporate trucks tear up our roads more than our cars do. So corporations should pay for the roads. But Snyder says no. He gave them tax breaks and says we don't have any $ to fix the roads, so he's going to raise our taxes. Basically proving me right. Republicans are only anti tax for the rich. They actually shift the tax burden from the rich onto us. Essentially they are for raising our taxes so they can lower the taxes for the rich. If you are for that, either you are dumb or rich.

Remember for how many years Republicans said NO NEW TAXES? Suddenly they win a 2nd term and sock it to the middle class? Where are all my middle class buddies who vote Republican? Suddenly they are defending tax increases? Interesting. Just like when they win back the white house they will stop being deficit hawks bet me. THey'll double the debt and you won't hear a sound out of their defenders. In fact remember Chaney said debt was good? I do.

Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should

That sounds like a great idea! How do you do it without making "the people pay"?

Todsterpatriot,
This isn't the right thread to be talking economics. But as to who pays what, here's a good place to start.View attachment 34381

You have a link for that silly chart?

Todsterpatriot,
I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart. I can find it But I have a couple more for you. Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Awe... Poor little libtard is using John Cooks FALSE STATEMENTS (which are quoted in both papers) as fact when they have been show a lie...

Your entire position is a lie. 90% say so. Once your side decides it is no longer effective to lie/deny they will argue their second talking point then 3rd. Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should but you guys will fight that until ultimately you will make us the people pay.

And I don't blame you. Why not sock it to the people? They don't even show up to vote so keep fucking them until they have had enough. Clearly they haven't had enough. The America people are so dumb.

By the way, this is the same thing happening in Michigan with our roads. Michigan allows corporations to put more weight on trucks than any of the other 50 states. That alone is a reason why corporations do business in Michigan. No need to give them more tax breaks although Snyder did give them more. Anyways, the point is that corporate trucks tear up our roads more than our cars do. So corporations should pay for the roads. But Snyder says no. He gave them tax breaks and says we don't have any $ to fix the roads, so he's going to raise our taxes. Basically proving me right. Republicans are only anti tax for the rich. They actually shift the tax burden from the rich onto us. Essentially they are for raising our taxes so they can lower the taxes for the rich. If you are for that, either you are dumb or rich.

Remember for how many years Republicans said NO NEW TAXES? Suddenly they win a 2nd term and sock it to the middle class? Where are all my middle class buddies who vote Republican? Suddenly they are defending tax increases? Interesting. Just like when they win back the white house they will stop being deficit hawks bet me. THey'll double the debt and you won't hear a sound out of their defenders. In fact remember Chaney said debt was good? I do.

Eventually we will be arguing with you on who should be the ones to pay for the solution. We as a society should decide that the corporate pollutors that contribute the most to GW should

That sounds like a great idea! How do you do it without making "the people pay"?

Todsterpatriot,
This isn't the right thread to be talking economics. But as to who pays what, here's a good place to start.View attachment 34381

You have a link for that silly chart?

Todsterpatriot,
I take it you're talking about the tax disparity chart. I can find it But I have a couple more for you. Also, if you want to talk abouc such things, I suggest you do so in my thread, "War on the rich: Best idea in the history of man."

View attachment 34438 View attachment 34440

Yeah, thanks for stupid, pointless charts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

 

[cultsmasher]

LOL. Waste trillions converting to non-polluting technology that is not only better but provides cheaper electricity. That is being done right now in those ultra-liberal states of Texas and Oklahoma. The technologies in solar, wind, and grid scale batteries are going to create a more robust grid with cheaper power for all in the near future.

You never cease to amaze me how you can say this bull shit knowing that batteries are decades away from being able to do this.

at just 14 -20 % increses it will take 50-100 years to obtain batteries that could store enough energy to balance the gird and the battery farms would be massive all over the place on earth..

You really are a moron..

source

Billy_Bob,
Excuse me for butting in, but you are all wrong about batteries All that would be needed for any battery is to scale it up. The same is true for capacitors and using them to store electricty for either night time or low wind or low sun days. Coal or oil should only be used as a last resort. Nuclear energy should never be used.