More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[orogenicman]

OK.....this is funny as shit. Remember 2006.......around the time of Al Gores stoopid fraudulent movie that got the alarmist contingent all fired up that the world was finally embracing global warming and we'd soon see an end of fossil fuels.


Evidently.......not!!!



CHART: Crude Oil Rail Shipments Up 8,358% Since 2006

CHART: Crude Oil Rail Shipments Up 8,358% Since 2006

Orogenicman's law - an AGW thread typically has run its course when the losing side tries to use Al Gore to make a point. Congratulations, LOSER!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

OK.....this is funny as shit. Remember 2006.......around the time of Al Gores stoopid fraudulent movie that got the alarmist contingent all fired up that the world was finally embracing global warming and we'd soon see an end of fossil fuels.


Evidently.......not!!!



CHART: Crude Oil Rail Shipments Up 8,358% Since 2006

CHART: Crude Oil Rail Shipments Up 8,358% Since 2006

Orogenicman's law - an AGW thread typically has run its course when the losing side tries to use Al Gore to make a point. Congratulations, LOSER!

It's true, Al Gore is a loser.

 

[Abraham3]

"....when the LOSING side tries to use Al Gore".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"....when the LOSING side tries to use Al Gore".

You know warmers stopped trying to use him.

Because he's such a big target.

 

[HenryBHough]

But has Algore stopped using them?

 

[skookerasbil]

51,000 "views" of lose.

 

[skookerasbil]

On DRUDGE right now.........and Im laughing!!!!



ANTARCTIC SEA ICE 25% ABOVE NORMAL


Sea Ice Update February 17 2014 ? Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Still 25% above normal | sunshine hours






Historic levels of lose for the AGW nutters.

 

[polarbear]

So what you are saying is that you have no issues with this:

And that all the environmental destruction and the lives of the people impacted by it are completely irrelevant to your cash register morality. I'm sure Jesus is proud of you.

You have an issue with it, because it`s a coal mine !
"cash register mentality"...I`ll show you an example:

Lithium extraction an environmental resource curse for Tibet

• China scaling up lithium extraction for electric cars and smart phones
• Electric cars to inflict most damage
  But the real game changer that has made yesterday’s industrial waste liquor tomorrow’s hot investment stock, is the electric car. The amount of lithium in the li-ion batteries driving electric cars is measured in kilograms, rather than grams. And this growing demand will be satisfied by extracting lithium from the accessible Tsaidam Basin and even the inaccessible Drangyer Tsaka.

In April 2011, Tibet Mineral Development Corporation raised 1.21 billion yuan (US$187.22 million) through a non-public offering of shares to eight investors to recapitalise its subsidiaries. One of those subsidiaries, Tibet Zabuye Lithium

Gee, I wonder who aside from Buffet, Gates and Al Gore the other 5 investors were
You figure these enviro heroes promote those electric shit cars because they want to save the planet?

I`m pretty they did not invest any of their money in the bamboo bicycle business:

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UNFCCC’s Christiana Figueres rode bicycles made of bamboo in Ghana. The project employs 30 women–20 bike assemblers and 10 farmers. Bamboo trees that are not cut to produce bike frames help sequester carbon dioxide. Growing bamboo helps prevent soil erosion and improves water and air quality. Large initiatives, such as a financing scheme in the Philippines to unlock resources needed to address climate change, were also presented.

It doesn`t just take a lot more Lithium mines to go "renewable energy".
It also takes a lot more Copper.




Copper mining in Katanga:

Copper contamination from the abandoned Mt Oxide mine near Mount Isa is turning local waterways bright blue :

The Tyrone Copper Mine is one of several large copper pits located near the Continental Divide in the Silver City area:

But people like you don`t have any such issues with any of the other mines which aren`t a part of your irrational CO2 Angst...just coal and oil resource extraction.

 

[orogenicman]

Let me ask you a question. Does copper and lithium mining concern you? They worry me. And for the record, I have never promoted widespread use of electric cars. Why you would think that is some gotcha against my point that man DOES change the environment is the real mystery here.

And for the record, pure lithium does not occur in nature. The primary ore of lithium is spodumene, a lithium aluminium inosilicate that is only dangerous if the powder is inhaled over a long period of time.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

[MENTION=29707]Toddsterpatriot[/MENTION]

poor [MENTION=29707]Toddsterpatriot[/MENTION] "A Gallup Survey conducted in 1958 found that only 44 percent of Americans believed smoking caused cancer"

In 50 years, imagine the laughter at the thought that we could change the climate by wasting trillions on wind and solar.

Trillions? Oh you poor deluded fool. Where do you make this stuff up?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

[MENTION=29707]Toddsterpatriot[/MENTION]

poor [MENTION=29707]Toddsterpatriot[/MENTION] "A Gallup Survey conducted in 1958 found that only 44 percent of Americans believed smoking caused cancer"

In 50 years, imagine the laughter at the thought that we could change the climate by wasting trillions on wind and solar.

Trillions? Oh you poor deluded fool. Where do you make this stuff up?

Warmers don't want us to waste trillions?

How much do they want us to waste? Break it down.

 

[polarbear]

The difference between science and "climatology" is that scientists are skeptics by nature and aren`t satisfied with estimates and a "consensus".



Frigid South Pole atmosphere reveals flaw in global circulation models

CHAMPAIGN, Ill. -- Atmospheric measurements made at Earth's geographic poles provide a convenient way of validating and calibrating global circulation models. Such measurements also might provide some of the first conclusive evidence of global change in the middle and upper atmospheres. But new data shows that the current models are wrong: Temperatures over the South Pole are much colder in winter than scientists had anticipated.

Gardner's group was the first to make upper atmosphere temperature measurements over the South Pole. From December 1999 until October 2001, the scientists operated a laser radar (lidar) system at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. By combining the lidar data with balloon measurements of the troposphere and lower stratosphere, the scientists recorded temperatures from the surface to an altitude of about 70 miles.


"Our results suggest that wintertime warming due to sinking air masses is not as strong as the models have assumed," Gardner said. "But, in all fairness, since no one had made these measurements before, modelers have been forced to estimate the values. And, in this case, their estimates were wrong."


"Current global circulation models apparently overpredict the amount of down-welling, because they show warmer temperatures than we observed," Gardner said.

 

[polarbear]

The difference between science and "climatology" is that scientists are skeptics by nature and aren`t satisfied with estimates and a "consensus".

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/full/ngeo1580.html

An update on Earth's energy balance in light of the latest global observations

Climate change is governed by changes to the global energy balance. At the top of the atmosphere, this balance is monitored globally by satellite sensors that provide measurements of energy flowing to and from Earth. By contrast, observations at the surface are limited mostly to land areas. As a result, the global balance of energy fluxes within the atmosphere or at Earth's surface cannot be derived directly from measured fluxes, and is therefore uncertain.
.....
Moreover, the latest satellite observations of global precipitation indicate that more precipitation is generated than previously thought. This additional precipitation is sustained by more energy leaving the surface by evaporation — that is, in the form of latent heat flux — and thereby offsets much of the increase in longwave flux to the surface.

"...and thereby offsets much of the increase in long wave flux to the surface." is a polite way of saying that it throws the AGWarming energy out the window..

 

[orogenicman]

@Toddsterpatriot

In 50 years, imagine the laughter at the thought that we could change the climate by wasting trillions on wind and solar.

Trillions? Oh you poor deluded fool. Where do you make this stuff up?

Warmers don't want us to waste trillions?

How much do they want us to waste? Break it down.

It's a red herring because it assumes that climate scientists want or even believe that an investment in the future is a waste of money.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

@Toddsterpatriot

Trillions? Oh you poor deluded fool. Where do you make this stuff up?

Warmers don't want us to waste trillions?

How much do they want us to waste? Break it down.

It's a red herring because it assumes that climate scientists want or even believe that an investment in the future is a waste of money.

Was Solyndra an investment in the future?

 

[orogenicman]

Warmers don't want us to waste trillions?

How much do they want us to waste? Break it down.

It's a red herring because it assumes that climate scientists want or even believe that an investment in the future is a waste of money.

Was Solyndra an investment in the future?

Was the spruce goose? Look, every innovation, invention, enterprise, etc, is going to have its successes and its failures. Do you deny this? Why should alternative energy be any different? The Marble Hill Nuclear power plant was a massive financial disaster (far worse than Solyndra), and yet 30 years later, we are looking at building more nukes to help with carbon emissions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's a red herring because it assumes that climate scientists want or even believe that an investment in the future is a waste of money.

Was Solyndra an investment in the future?

Was the spruce goose? Look, every innovation, invention, enterprise, etc, is going to have its successes and its failures. Do you deny this? Why should alternative energy be any different? The Marble Hill Nuclear power plant was a massive financial disaster (far worse than Solyndra), and yet 30 years later, we are looking at building more nukes to help with carbon emissions.

Warmers want us to waste trillions on less reliable energy.
If they were serious, they'd back more nukes, instead of birdie blenders and solar.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Was Solyndra an investment in the future?

Was the spruce goose? Look, every innovation, invention, enterprise, etc, is going to have its successes and its failures. Do you deny this? Why should alternative energy be any different? The Marble Hill Nuclear power plant was a massive financial disaster (far worse than Solyndra), and yet 30 years later, we are looking at building more nukes to help with carbon emissions.

Warmers want us to waste trillions on less reliable energy.
If they were serious, they'd back more nukes, instead of birdie blenders and solar.

I do back nukes and fusion Investing in 100 new nuke plants and fusion research is something I am rooting for.

 

[orogenicman]

Was Solyndra an investment in the future?

Was the spruce goose? Look, every innovation, invention, enterprise, etc, is going to have its successes and its failures. Do you deny this? Why should alternative energy be any different? The Marble Hill Nuclear power plant was a massive financial disaster (far worse than Solyndra), and yet 30 years later, we are looking at building more nukes to help with carbon emissions.

Warmers want us to waste trillions on less reliable energy.
If they were serious, they'd back more nukes, instead of birdie blenders and solar.

Well, there you go again, making unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Was the spruce goose? Look, every innovation, invention, enterprise, etc, is going to have its successes and its failures. Do you deny this? Why should alternative energy be any different? The Marble Hill Nuclear power plant was a massive financial disaster (far worse than Solyndra), and yet 30 years later, we are looking at building more nukes to help with carbon emissions.

Warmers want us to waste trillions on less reliable energy.
If they were serious, they'd back more nukes, instead of birdie blenders and solar.

I do back nukes and fusion Investing in 100 new nuke plants and fusion research is something I am rooting for.

You're an atypical warmer.