MIT professor: global warming is a ‘religion’

[PMZ]

Those words mean you still can't tell me the CO2 levels in 2080. LOL!

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

That depends on your ingenious plan to save the planet, doesn't it?

Not mine. Ours. That is everyone but conservatives who are incapable of even the smallest contribution to problem solving. The worst kind of Parasite

 

[PMZ]

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil." Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity. So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year. IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood. Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century. What's the cost of that? They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded. Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

How much did we spend on super storm Sandy? How often will that bill come due?

You know those firefighters in Colorado that gave it all doing their job? We going to just write them off?

Drought. Where to you propose that we grow things when the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.

I'm sure that we can do for our port cities what we did for the Big Easy when they get below sea level. Not for free though.

The US is lucky because we have a small population compared to our resources. Not China or India though. They might get fiesty when the people start dropping.

Remember how much Bush spent on protecting our oil supply? Big part of the $17T in unpaid bills his policies got us.

Yeah, I don't blame you for sticking your head in the sand. The real world is a scarry place. We won't leave you behind though until we have to.

 

[PMZ]

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is.



Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil." Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity. So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year. IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood. Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century. What's the cost of that? They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded. Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

How much did we spend on super storm Sandy? How often will that bill come due?

You know those firefighters in Colorado that gave it all doing their job? We going to just write them off?

Drought. Where to you propose that we grow things when the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.

I'm sure that we can do for our port cities what we did for the Big Easy when they get below sea level. Not for free though.

The US is lucky because we have a small population compared to our resources. Not China or India though. They might get fiesty when the people start dropping.

Remember how much Bush spent on protecting our oil supply? Big part of the $17T in unpaid bills his policies got us.

Yeah, I don't blame you for sticking your head in the sand. The real world is a scarry place. We won't leave you behind though until we have to.

All of Fox's revenue is advertising revenue.

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis?

I agree, following your liberal spending ideas with no basis is a bad idea.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil." Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity. So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year. IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood. Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century. What's the cost of that? They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded. Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?

 

[PMZ]

You tell me how many tons of CO2 will be dumped into the atmosphere between now and 2080 Toddbot.

Waiting for your input. Tons into the atmosphere between now and then, along with the evidence and assumptions.

You seem much quicker to ask questions than answer but I guess that's the disadvantage of no data, no models, no theories, no ideas, no organization, no resources, no science.

But, what could possibly go wrong with spending trillions with no basis? The Fox boobs and boobies say no problem. Who are you to argue?

Skeptics don't propose $trillions. We propose to spend nothing at all. You want to spend the money, so it's incumbent on you to make your case for it.

Oh boy. Another believer with an unlimited source of free energy. Can't wait to hear the details. Did you get them from the Fox boobs and boobies too?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

What you have is what the Fox boobs and boobies are paid by big oil to instruct you to believe.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science.

That's awesome! What do they say CO2 levels will be in 2080?

Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example.

What are you whining about?

Still waiting for you.

The person in favor of spending tens of trillions need to show we'll get our moneys worth.
Don't be a typical lazy liberal, get to work!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science. The most advanced that there is.

It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is.



Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil." Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity. So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year. IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.

That is less than zero. What little you know is wrong. Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example. You are just the way that they want you. Barefoot and pregnant.

Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood. Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century. What's the cost of that? They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded. Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

How much did we spend on super storm Sandy? How often will that bill come due?

You know those firefighters in Colorado that gave it all doing their job? We going to just write them off?

Drought. Where to you propose that we grow things when the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.

I'm sure that we can do for our port cities what we did for the Big Easy when they get below sea level. Not for free though.

The US is lucky because we have a small population compared to our resources. Not China or India though. They might get fiesty when the people start dropping.

Remember how much Bush spent on protecting our oil supply? Big part of the $17T in unpaid bills his policies got us.

Yeah, I don't blame you for sticking your head in the sand. The real world is a scarry place. We won't leave you behind though until we have to.

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

Excellent idea!

How many years supply of oil is available?

 

[PMZ]

We have a basis for our decisions. IPCC climate science.

That's awesome! What do they say CO2 levels will be in 2080?

Your belief that there is a zero cost alternative is just one example.

What are you whining about?

Still waiting for you.

The person in favor of spending tens of trillions need to show we'll get our moneys worth.
Don't be a typical lazy liberal, get to work!

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what. The question is only sooner or later. Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy. Later, we'll spend it on adapting to a new climate, then spend it again on sustainable energy.

You have zero science to make that decision on. You want to let Fox News guess at it.

The real world will have IPCC science to base it on.

These don't seem like tough concepts. I'm amazed that they're beyond anybody.

 

[PMZ]

It's only the most "advance" propaganda there is.



Other than advertising revenue, FOX doesn't get any money from "Big Oil." Neither does Rush or Sean Hannity. So-called "climate scientists" on the other hand, get $billions from the federal government every year. IF you believe the positions people take are influenced by money, then you should be far more skeptical of the motives and integrity of "climate scientists" than FOX news or Rush Limbaugh.



Warmist cult members have yet to provide any hard evidence that there will be any costs with ignoring the hysterical Chicken Little rants of the warmist priesthood. Even the IPCC admits that sea level will increase less than a foot over the next century. What's the cost of that? They have recently admitted that their hysterical claims about hurricanes and tornadoes are unfounded. Where's the cost there?

Can you please enumerate these exorbitant costs you keep referring to?

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

How much did we spend on super storm Sandy? How often will that bill come due?

You know those firefighters in Colorado that gave it all doing their job? We going to just write them off?

Drought. Where to you propose that we grow things when the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.

I'm sure that we can do for our port cities what we did for the Big Easy when they get below sea level. Not for free though.

The US is lucky because we have a small population compared to our resources. Not China or India though. They might get fiesty when the people start dropping.

Remember how much Bush spent on protecting our oil supply? Big part of the $17T in unpaid bills his policies got us.

Yeah, I don't blame you for sticking your head in the sand. The real world is a scarry place. We won't leave you behind though until we have to.

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

Excellent idea!

How many years supply of oil is available?

Depends on how much we're willing to pay for obsolete fuel.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Still waiting for you.

The person in favor of spending tens of trillions need to show we'll get our moneys worth.
Don't be a typical lazy liberal, get to work!

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what. The question is only sooner or later. Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy. Later, we'll spend it on adapting to a new climate, then spend it again on sustainable energy.

You have zero science to make that decision on. You want to let Fox News guess at it.

The real world will have IPCC science to base it on.

These don't seem like tough concepts. I'm amazed that they're beyond anybody.

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what.

Assume we spend it on the green wish list, how much lower is CO2 in 2080?
10 ppm? Less?

Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy.

If we do, how much CO2 do we keep out of the atmosphere?
I need to know if spending money on less reliable, more expensive energy has an upside.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

How much did we spend on super storm Sandy? How often will that bill come due?

You know those firefighters in Colorado that gave it all doing their job? We going to just write them off?

Drought. Where to you propose that we grow things when the Ogallala Aquifer dries up.

I'm sure that we can do for our port cities what we did for the Big Easy when they get below sea level. Not for free though.

The US is lucky because we have a small population compared to our resources. Not China or India though. They might get fiesty when the people start dropping.

Remember how much Bush spent on protecting our oil supply? Big part of the $17T in unpaid bills his policies got us.

Yeah, I don't blame you for sticking your head in the sand. The real world is a scarry place. We won't leave you behind though until we have to.

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

Excellent idea!

How many years supply of oil is available?

Depends on how much we're willing to pay for obsolete fuel.

Which obsolete fuel powers your Prius?

 

[PMZ]

Are you aware of the concept of supply and demand? Apply it to oil as a starter.

Excellent idea!

How many years supply of oil is available?

Depends on how much we're willing to pay for obsolete fuel.

Which obsolete fuel powers your Prius?

Gasoline.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Depends on how much we're willing to pay for obsolete fuel.

Which obsolete fuel powers your Prius?

Gasoline.

Which one generates the electricity for your Prius?

 

[PMZ]

The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

They are not the problem however. They are the cause of the problem.

The problems are rising sea levels from melting snow and ice, and a changing distribution of rainfall, and a less stable climate. All very costly consequences. Some of those costs are unavoidable now. Action on our part can avoid cost growth beyond what's unavoidable now.

The two choices are to put all of the carbon that fossil fuels have sequestered for millions of years back in the atmosphere while we're replacing them with sustainable energy, or only some of what's not yet released, and save some on adapting to a new climate. The cost of the change to sustainable energy is unavoidable.

The only way to know the least expensive choice is by using IPCC climate science. The Toddbot would rather just guess.

 

[PMZ]

Which obsolete fuel powers your Prius?

Gasoline.

Which one generates the electricity for your Prius?

Gasoline.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

They are not the problem however. They are the cause of the problem.

The problems are rising sea levels from melting snow and ice, and a changing distribution of rainfall, and a less stable climate. All very costly consequences. Some of those costs are unavoidable now. Action on our part can avoid cost growth beyond what's unavoidable now.

The two choices are to put all of the carbon that fossil fuels have sequestered for millions of years back in the atmosphere while we're replacing them with sustainable energy, or only some of what's not yet released, and save some on adapting to a new climate.

The only way to know the least expensive choice is by using IPCC climate science. The Toddbot would rather just guess.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

Then we shouldn't waste tens of trillions to make them rise more slowly.

 

[freedombecki]

The person in favor of spending tens of trillions need to show we'll get our moneys worth.
Don't be a typical lazy liberal, get to work!

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what. The question is only sooner or later. Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy. Later, we'll spend it on adapting to a new climate, then spend it again on sustainable energy.

You have zero science to make that decision on. You want to let Fox News guess at it.

The real world will have IPCC science to base it on.

These don't seem like tough concepts. I'm amazed that they're beyond anybody.

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what.

Assume we spend it on the green wish list, how much lower is CO2 in 2080?
10 ppm? Less?

Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy.

If we do, how much CO2 do we keep out of the atmosphere?
I need to know if spending money on less reliable, more expensive energy has an upside.

PMZ wants trillions, but cannot tell you how much or little reduction there will be at the end of the 6 decades of financing the hoax.

Naughty, naughty!

 

[PMZ]

The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

They are not the problem however. They are the cause of the problem.

The problems are rising sea levels from melting snow and ice, and a changing distribution of rainfall, and a less stable climate. All very costly consequences. Some of those costs are unavoidable now. Action on our part can avoid cost growth beyond what's unavoidable now.

The two choices are to put all of the carbon that fossil fuels have sequestered for millions of years back in the atmosphere while we're replacing them with sustainable energy, or only some of what's not yet released, and save some on adapting to a new climate.

The only way to know the least expensive choice is by using IPCC climate science. The Toddbot would rather just guess.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

Then we shouldn't waste tens of trillions to make them rise more slowly.

The cost of sustainable energy is a given. The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given. The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy.

This really is beyond you, isn't it.

 

[PMZ]

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what. The question is only sooner or later. Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy. Later, we'll spend it on adapting to a new climate, then spend it again on sustainable energy.

You have zero science to make that decision on. You want to let Fox News guess at it.

The real world will have IPCC science to base it on.

These don't seem like tough concepts. I'm amazed that they're beyond anybody.

We're going to spend tens of trillions no matter what.

Assume we spend it on the green wish list, how much lower is CO2 in 2080?
10 ppm? Less?

Sooner, will allow us to spend it on sustainable energy.

If we do, how much CO2 do we keep out of the atmosphere?
I need to know if spending money on less reliable, more expensive energy has an upside.

PMZ wants trillions, but cannot tell you how much or little reduction there will be at the end of the 6 decades of financing the hoax.

Naughty, naughty!

Reduction in what? There will be no reduction. We're talking about the amount of increase. Please try to keep up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Toddbot is fixated on a nonsensical issue to avoid getting involved in real issues.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

They are not the problem however. They are the cause of the problem.

The problems are rising sea levels from melting snow and ice, and a changing distribution of rainfall, and a less stable climate. All very costly consequences. Some of those costs are unavoidable now. Action on our part can avoid cost growth beyond what's unavoidable now.

The two choices are to put all of the carbon that fossil fuels have sequestered for millions of years back in the atmosphere while we're replacing them with sustainable energy, or only some of what's not yet released, and save some on adapting to a new climate.

The only way to know the least expensive choice is by using IPCC climate science. The Toddbot would rather just guess.

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

Then we shouldn't waste tens of trillions to make them rise more slowly.

The cost of sustainable energy is a given. The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given. The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy.

This really is beyond you, isn't it.

The cost of sustainable energy is a given.

Yes, "green" energy is more costly and less reliable.

The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given.

Why waste trillions on your silly CO2 schemes, if a new climate is a better area to spend?

The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy.

You just said we can't reduce CO2 levels, so what else do you need from the IPCC?

 

[PMZ]

Atmospheric GHG concentrations will only go up from here for hundreds of years. There is nothing to make them come down.

Then we shouldn't waste tens of trillions to make them rise more slowly.

The cost of sustainable energy is a given. The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given. The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy.

This really is beyond you, isn't it.

The cost of sustainable energy is a given.

Yes, "green" energy is more costly and less reliable.

The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given.

Why waste trillions on your silly CO2 schemes, if a new climate is a better area to spend?

The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy.

You just said we can't reduce CO2 levels, so what else do you need from the IPCC?

I hope that you're just playing stupid.


The cost of sustainable energy is a given.

Yes, "green" energy is more costly and less reliable.

Sustainable energy will get cheaper over time. Fossil fuel energy more expensive over time due to supply and demand. You do the math.

The cost of adapting to a new climate is a given.

Why waste trillions on your silly CO2 schemes, if a new climate is a better area to spend?

I have no idea what this question even means.

The only decision requiring IPCC science is, can we avoid some of the cost of adapting by moving forward in time some of the cost of sustainable energy.

You just said we can't reduce CO2 levels, so what else do you need from the IPCC?[/QUOTE]

What I said I needed. The least cost path forward.