Keep It In The Ground Act

[FA_Q2]

Wow Isaac you just ruined my day. I had given you high marks for your great postings about attack back at Islam. Now you go and sidle up with GW wackos? I am going to have to hunt the board and remove all the WINNER tags I put on you. I thought you were one of the smart ones?

I'm always glad to disappoint people.

I don't live in a box dobey, though you have a great need to put people in boxes and close the lid tight.

Real life isn't black and white it is in color.

Then why are you here supporting such an asinine black and white 'solution.'

The true idiocy of this particular measure is not rooted in the facts of AGW. That is rather immaterial to the fact that such a drastic and all encompassing 'solution' is the height of idiocy. The sole outcome of such would do little more than crush the American economy and leave other much worse nations like China to take over.

 

[Dot Com]

It is coming, whether most people know it or not.

The only way to avert the coming disaster is to keep the carbon in the ground. Now, if the energy industry or the government were to fund and come up with a device that removed the carbon and CO2 from burning coal, oil, and natural gas before it entered the atmosphere, GREAT. Problem also solved. The only thing that will work is keeping the carbon, in the form of CO2, from entering the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how that is done. If we can figure out how to do that then problem solved and we can burn away.

If anyone can post up a link where the energy industry is working towards such goals and devices please do.

Otherwise the point is mute. And it doesn't matter if most people don't understand this is the reality. It is the reality.

Let us know when you are moving to a cave. We'll miss you.

Are you a climate change denier? I didn't anticipate that.

I am a skeptic of liberal solutions to just about every problem under the sun, pun intended.

Hmmmm. I think you are struggling with this one. My advice.......go with the scientists. They know stuff.

weeell..... maybe not something like say...... a geologist for instance. A chemist perhapslike the Pope for example would carry more weight as Chemists have a deep understanding of the interplay of different elements

 

[FA_Q2]

When you look at nonsense such as that you must ask yourself....if the Sun suddenly went out...what would happen? Would that magical CO2 molecule keep us warm?

This is quite possibly the dumbest defense of the theory the sun is causing global warming I have ever heard.

Then you're pretty stupid. The claim that a trace gas "controls" global temperature is absurd. Were the Sun to go out the Earth would, within hours, begin freezing. Within days it would be a block of ice. No amount of CO2 could prevent that. The solar activity is at levels not seen for over 700 years. The last time they were this low we got to enjoy a "Little Ice Age".

Feel free to whistle Dixie, but you and the whole "theory" of AGW is wrong. Catastrophically so.

?

Your statements are completely counter to your conclusion though. IF the suns effect on the earth were at its lowest levels in 700 years AND the last time we seen that level we were in an ice age then clearly the same should be true now. We should be experiencing an ice age.

We are not.

Ergo - AGW has solid merit within the context of that single fact we are discussing. That was the thrust of G5000's post as far as I could gather. There is an issue if we are seeing sun activity DECREASE and yet global temperatures are increasing.

Explain where you were going with your statements because your conclusion is not adding up here.

 

[Dot Com]

Here ya go.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

It's fairly comprehensive.....and fluid.

Enjoy.

it had the Lamar Smith (R) Dog & Pony Show listed: Lamar Smith, climate scientist witch hunter

 

[westwall]

Here ya go.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

It's fairly comprehensive.....and fluid.

Enjoy.

You do realize that that is nothing but opinion.....right? There is no factual evidence in the entire post. You really need to do better than that.

It is not a post. It is a website with pages and pages filled with factual information. You'll need a bit of time there to appreciate it. I'm a bit disappointed in your unwillingness to visit the evidence. You present yourself as a person who wants to review the matter fully.

Yes, and it is run by the leading fraudsters in the agw movement. That being said I asked you to provide a link to a single paper that is not derived by computer model and you present a propaganda website. Like I said. You need to do better.

 

[westwall]

When you look at nonsense such as that you must ask yourself....if the Sun suddenly went out...what would happen? Would that magical CO2 molecule keep us warm?

This is quite possibly the dumbest defense of the theory the sun is causing global warming I have ever heard.

Then you're pretty stupid. The claim that a trace gas "controls" global temperature is absurd. Were the Sun to go out the Earth would, within hours, begin freezing. Within days it would be a block of ice. No amount of CO2 could prevent that. The solar activity is at levels not seen for over 700 years. The last time they were this low we got to enjoy a "Little Ice Age".

Feel free to whistle Dixie, but you and the whole "theory" of AGW is wrong. Catastrophically so.

?

Your statements are completely counter to your conclusion though. IF the suns effect on the earth were at its lowest levels in 700 years AND the last time we seen that level we were in an ice age then clearly the same should be true now. We should be experiencing an ice age.

We are not.

Ergo - AGW has solid merit within the context of that single fact we are discussing. That was the thrust of G5000's post as far as I could gather. There is an issue if we are seeing sun activity DECREASE and yet global temperatures are increasing.

Explain where you were going with your statements because your conclusion is not adding up here.

No, 700 years ago the Solar activity dropped to this level and the LIA was the result. I suggest you learn to read with comprehension. We are now experiencing a pause in the warming that began in 1850 (when the LIA ended) and are now teetering on a drop in temp that will bring on another LIA.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Here ya go.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

It's fairly comprehensive.....and fluid.

Enjoy.

You do realize that that is nothing but opinion.....right? There is no factual evidence in the entire post. You really need to do better than that.

It is not a post. It is a website with pages and pages filled with factual information. You'll need a bit of time there to appreciate it. I'm a bit disappointed in your unwillingness to visit the evidence. You present yourself as a person who wants to review the matter fully.

Yes, and it is run by the leading fraudsters in the agw movement. That being said I asked you to provide a link to a single paper that is not derived by computer model and you present a propaganda website. Like I said. You need to do better.

Boring! You aren't an honest player here. (Additional spaces added to make your quoting just a little bit tedious)

 

[my2¢]

Simply brilliant - this idiot's proposal would have us more dependent on Middle-East oil.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simply brilliant - this idiot's proposal would have us more dependent on Middle-East oil.

Liberals don't have to be logical.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd like to triple nuclear to 300gw and invest 50 billion into fusion research.

Sounds like a good idea?

After you put 25 years of SS back into the account. And balance the budget.

How about end the stupid tax cuts and stop the wars? Would do more to balance the budget.

 

[westwall]

Here ya go.

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined

It's fairly comprehensive.....and fluid.

Enjoy.

You do realize that that is nothing but opinion.....right? There is no factual evidence in the entire post. You really need to do better than that.

It is not a post. It is a website with pages and pages filled with factual information. You'll need a bit of time there to appreciate it. I'm a bit disappointed in your unwillingness to visit the evidence. You present yourself as a person who wants to review the matter fully.

Yes, and it is run by the leading fraudsters in the agw movement. That being said I asked you to provide a link to a single paper that is not derived by computer model and you present a propaganda website. Like I said. You need to do better.

Boring! You aren't an honest player here. (Additional spaces added to make your quoting just a little bit tedious)

Actually it's you that is the dishonest player. I find it astounding that you truly do not seem to understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. I asked you to do a simple task. Find me ONE study in support of AGW that is not derived from a computer model. Just one.

YOU failed.

 

[FA_Q2]

When you look at nonsense such as that you must ask yourself....if the Sun suddenly went out...what would happen? Would that magical CO2 molecule keep us warm?

This is quite possibly the dumbest defense of the theory the sun is causing global warming I have ever heard.

Then you're pretty stupid. The claim that a trace gas "controls" global temperature is absurd. Were the Sun to go out the Earth would, within hours, begin freezing. Within days it would be a block of ice. No amount of CO2 could prevent that. The solar activity is at levels not seen for over 700 years. The last time they were this low we got to enjoy a "Little Ice Age".

Feel free to whistle Dixie, but you and the whole "theory" of AGW is wrong. Catastrophically so.

?

Your statements are completely counter to your conclusion though. IF the suns effect on the earth were at its lowest levels in 700 years AND the last time we seen that level we were in an ice age then clearly the same should be true now. We should be experiencing an ice age.

We are not.

Ergo - AGW has solid merit within the context of that single fact we are discussing. That was the thrust of G5000's post as far as I could gather. There is an issue if we are seeing sun activity DECREASE and yet global temperatures are increasing.

Explain where you were going with your statements because your conclusion is not adding up here.

No, 700 years ago the Solar activity dropped to this level and the LIA was the result. I suggest you learn to read with comprehension. We are now experiencing a pause in the warming that began in 1850 (when the LIA ended) and are now teetering on a drop in temp that will bring on another LIA.

So your supposition, without the asinine insults added, is that the drop in temperature is coming and that the lull in sun activity has not resulted in dropping temperatures because it has not been long enough.

 

[westwall]

When you look at nonsense such as that you must ask yourself....if the Sun suddenly went out...what would happen? Would that magical CO2 molecule keep us warm?

This is quite possibly the dumbest defense of the theory the sun is causing global warming I have ever heard.

Then you're pretty stupid. The claim that a trace gas "controls" global temperature is absurd. Were the Sun to go out the Earth would, within hours, begin freezing. Within days it would be a block of ice. No amount of CO2 could prevent that. The solar activity is at levels not seen for over 700 years. The last time they were this low we got to enjoy a "Little Ice Age".

Feel free to whistle Dixie, but you and the whole "theory" of AGW is wrong. Catastrophically so.

?

Your statements are completely counter to your conclusion though. IF the suns effect on the earth were at its lowest levels in 700 years AND the last time we seen that level we were in an ice age then clearly the same should be true now. We should be experiencing an ice age.

We are not.

Ergo - AGW has solid merit within the context of that single fact we are discussing. That was the thrust of G5000's post as far as I could gather. There is an issue if we are seeing sun activity DECREASE and yet global temperatures are increasing.

Explain where you were going with your statements because your conclusion is not adding up here.

No, 700 years ago the Solar activity dropped to this level and the LIA was the result. I suggest you learn to read with comprehension. We are now experiencing a pause in the warming that began in 1850 (when the LIA ended) and are now teetering on a drop in temp that will bring on another LIA.

So your supposition, without the asinine insults added, is that the drop in temperature is coming and that the lull in sun activity has not resulted in dropping temperatures because it has not been long enough.

Correct. The Earth operates on a time scale much slower than our pitifully short lives. Events that began decades ago will only begin to manifest in a way that we notice in a few more decades. The Vostock ice core data shows this to good effect. The evidence shows that first warming occurrs and then, up to 800 years later the CO2 levels rise. Based on actual empirical data the current rise in CO2 can be attributed to the warming of the Medieval Warming Period which amazingly enough, or not, happened 800 years ago.

Science tells us that correlation does not equal causation so i will not claim the MWP to be the proximal cause, but there is more evidence to support that theory than there is supporting the theory that CO2 governs global temperature.

 

[Picaro]

Holy shit!

Mr. Merkley (for himself, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Sanders, Mrs. Boxer, Mrs. Gillibrand, Mr. Leahy, and Ms. Warren) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A Bill To prohibit drilling in the outer Continental Shelf, to prohibit coal leases on Federal land, and for other purposes.

(a) Findings.—Congress finds that—

(1) from 1880 through 2014, global temperatures have increased by about 0.9 degrees Celsius;

(2) the vast majority of global warming that has occurred over the past 50 years was due to human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels;

And so forth and so on.


So Merkley, et al. propose this:

(2) the Federal Government should pursue management of Federal land and waters for the benefit of the people of the United States by not issuing any new lease or renewing any nonproducing lease for coal, oil, or natural gas in any Federal land or waters.

Don't care about the 'climate change' argument, which is moot in view of the pollution Red China is pouring out in massive quantities, but it makes long term strategic and national security sense not to strip our own country of natural resources and instead use up everybody elses first. So yes, I would support those bills.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It is coming, whether most people know it or not.

The only way to avert the coming disaster is to keep the carbon in the ground. Now, if the energy industry or the government were to fund and come up with a device that removed the carbon and CO2 from burning coal, oil, and natural gas before it entered the atmosphere, GREAT. Problem also solved. The only thing that will work is keeping the carbon, in the form of CO2, from entering the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how that is done. If we can figure out how to do that then problem solved and we can burn away.

If anyone can post up a link where the energy industry is working towards such goals and devices please do.

Otherwise the point is mute. And it doesn't matter if most people don't understand this is the reality. It is the reality.

if the earth is a couple degrees warmer it won't be a disaster

and by the way the phrase is "the point is moot" not mute

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'd like to triple nuclear to 300gw and invest 50 billion into fusion research.

Sounds like a good idea?

After you put 25 years of SS back into the account. And balance the budget.

How about end the stupid tax cuts and stop the wars? Would do more to balance the budget.

How about end the stupid tax cuts

Which taxes would you raise? How high?

Would do more to balance the budget.


If the Obameconomy is so great, we could cut spending back to 2007 levels.
That would have given us about $450 billion in surplus revenue in FY 2015.