More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[flacaltenn]

The whole false-equivalence charade is cracking. Newspapers are starting to treat denialists like flat earthers.

On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com
---
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.
---

Yeah -- that's right.. Endorse censorship and fuck free enquiry.. Can't have the news managed properly without it...

Good job...

Anyone else want to heartily endorse this? ANYBODY?

 

[Abraham3]

It seems they ran the letter. So to what censorship do you refer? And how is free enquiry affect in the slightest?

My apologies, I had not read the link. It seems they did not publish it. Standby while I finish the article.

Okay. I heartily endorse the LA Times decision not to publish letters containing factual inaccuracies.

 

[bripat9643]

You have an odd sense of "winning". I take it that you are the idiot that continues to fight is a burning building.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual. EIA, CBO, and the like, make projections on the assumption that past behavior will continue. It is noteworthy that the IPCC presents multiple scenarios, only one of which is "business as usual".

It is also kind of odd how you pick and choose model projections, only using the ones you like and rejecting the ones you don't like.

Taking the IPCC scenarios along side EIA and other economic projections, it is obvious that the EIA projection will change because the IPCC projections make it an unsustainable scenario. All the EIA projection does is tell us which of the IPCC scenarios we are currently on.

With a little effort, we can use historic data to gauge the probability that public policy will continue on the current course or along one of the IPCC scenarios. That, though, is outside the realm of eithe the IPCC or EIA. Even the CBO doesn't tackle that question as they provide multiple economic scenarios.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual.

That's true. If we stop shoveling tax dollars at less efficient, less reliable energy, non-hydro renewable would shrink instead of grow.

Yeah.. so your point is what? That the free market alone is insufficient and the EPA is neccessary?

precisely the opposite. The EPA is an obstacle to progress. Almost everything that makes life worth living is the result of the free market.

That the reason people deny climate change is based on faulty economic conclusions that drive a fantasy unrelated to science?

You're the one who believes massive taxes won't cost the taxpayers anything.

Talk about "faulty economic conclusions."

 

[PMZ]

That's a tiny increase considering, "There is zero money being invested in fossil fuel energy production".

As energy demand is flat here, due to waste reduction efforts like higher CAFE standards, it's real progress.

Only conservatives expect sudden and complete solutions. Liberals go for progress. Relentlessly achieved.

As energy demand is flat here,

This looks like flat energy demand?

Liberals go for progress. Relentlessly achieved.

As demonstrated by their constant fight against progress.

It's not demand at all. It's energy production.

 

[bripat9643]

People who believe in global warming also believe in the tooth fairy, Barack Obama, and that Al Gore invented the internet.

-Geaux

People who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming necessarily believe they are smarter than thousands of people with climate-related PhDs doing research in the field.

What does THAT take?

No, we're just not getting a check to believe in AGW, so we can make an impartial judgement.

 

[PMZ]

Despite liberal whining, we'll be using even more coal in 2040 than today.

You have an odd sense of "winning". I take it that you are the idiot that continues to fight is a burning building.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual. EIA, CBO, and the like, make projections on the assumption that past behavior will continue. It is noteworthy that the IPCC presents multiple scenarios, only one of which is "business as usual".

It is also kind of odd how you pick and choose model projections, only using the ones you like and rejecting the ones you don't like.

Taking the IPCC scenarios along side EIA and other economic projections, it is obvious that the EIA projection will change because the IPCC projections make it an unsustainable scenario. All the EIA projection does is tell us which of the IPCC scenarios we are currently on.

With a little effort, we can use historic data to gauge the probability that public policy will continue on the current course or along one of the IPCC scenarios. That, though, is outside the realm of eithe the IPCC or EIA. Even the CBO doesn't tackle that question as they provide multiple economic scenarios.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual.

That's true. If we stop shoveling tax dollars at less efficient, less reliable energy, non-hydro renewable would shrink instead of grow.

Until we run out of fuel or money to pay for it, whichever comes first.

 

[bripat9643]

The whole false-equivalence charade is cracking. Newspapers are starting to treat denialists like flat earthers.

On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com
---
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.
---

Wrong. It's an absolutely correct statement.

The L.A. times is nothing more than a Democrat propaganda organ, so it's hardly surprising that they believe in AGW. It's just another plank in the liberal agenda.

 

[PMZ]

People who believe in global warming also believe in the tooth fairy, Barack Obama, and that Al Gore invented the internet.

-Geaux

People who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming necessarily believe they are smarter than thousands of people with climate-related PhDs doing research in the field.

What does THAT take?

A well funded propaganda effort by those who are making the equivalent of buggy whips at the advent of the automotive revolution.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems they ran the letter. So to what censorship do you refer? And how is free enquiry affect in the slightest?

My apologies, I had not read the link. It seems they did not publish it. Standby while I finish the article.

Okay. I heartily endorse the LA Times decision not to publish letters containing factual inaccuracies.

Letters to the editor aren't required to be "factually accurate." Furthermore, the L.A. Times isn't qualified to determine their accuracy.

 

[PMZ]

You have an odd sense of "winning". I take it that you are the idiot that continues to fight is a burning building.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual. EIA, CBO, and the like, make projections on the assumption that past behavior will continue. It is noteworthy that the IPCC presents multiple scenarios, only one of which is "business as usual".

It is also kind of odd how you pick and choose model projections, only using the ones you like and rejecting the ones you don't like.

Taking the IPCC scenarios along side EIA and other economic projections, it is obvious that the EIA projection will change because the IPCC projections make it an unsustainable scenario. All the EIA projection does is tell us which of the IPCC scenarios we are currently on.

With a little effort, we can use historic data to gauge the probability that public policy will continue on the current course or along one of the IPCC scenarios. That, though, is outside the realm of eithe the IPCC or EIA. Even the CBO doesn't tackle that question as they provide multiple economic scenarios.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual.

That's true. If we stop shoveling tax dollars at less efficient, less reliable energy, non-hydro renewable would shrink instead of grow.

Yeah.. so your point is what? That the free market alone is insufficient and the EPA is neccessary? That the reason people deny climate change is based on faulty economic conclusions that drive a fantasy unrelated to science?

The free market alone is insufficient and the EPA is necessary.

 

[bripat9643]

People who believe in global warming also believe in the tooth fairy, Barack Obama, and that Al Gore invented the internet.

-Geaux

People who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming necessarily believe they are smarter than thousands of people with climate-related PhDs doing research in the field.

What does THAT take?

A well funded propaganda effort by those who are making the equivalent of buggy whips at the advent of the automotive revolution.

The AGW cult is a well-funded propaganda effort. All it takes to know that it's horseshit is the ability to commit logic.

 

[PMZ]

The whole false-equivalence charade is cracking. Newspapers are starting to treat denialists like flat earthers.

On letters from climate-change deniers - latimes.com
---
Simply put, I do my best to keep errors of fact off the letters page; when one does run, a correction is published. Saying "there's no sign humans have caused climate change" is not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy.
---

Yeah -- that's right.. Endorse censorship and fuck free enquiry.. Can't have the news managed properly without it...

Good job...

Anyone else want to heartily endorse this? ANYBODY?

I endorse accurate, objective reporting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

As energy demand is flat here, due to waste reduction efforts like higher CAFE standards, it's real progress.

Only conservatives expect sudden and complete solutions. Liberals go for progress. Relentlessly achieved.

As energy demand is flat here,

This looks like flat energy demand?

Liberals go for progress. Relentlessly achieved.

As demonstrated by their constant fight against progress.

It's not demand at all. It's energy production.

We're producing energy that we aren't using?

Where are we putting it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You have an odd sense of "winning". I take it that you are the idiot that continues to fight is a burning building.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual. EIA, CBO, and the like, make projections on the assumption that past behavior will continue. It is noteworthy that the IPCC presents multiple scenarios, only one of which is "business as usual".

It is also kind of odd how you pick and choose model projections, only using the ones you like and rejecting the ones you don't like.

Taking the IPCC scenarios along side EIA and other economic projections, it is obvious that the EIA projection will change because the IPCC projections make it an unsustainable scenario. All the EIA projection does is tell us which of the IPCC scenarios we are currently on.

With a little effort, we can use historic data to gauge the probability that public policy will continue on the current course or along one of the IPCC scenarios. That, though, is outside the realm of eithe the IPCC or EIA. Even the CBO doesn't tackle that question as they provide multiple economic scenarios.

Surely you realize that those projections are basednon business as usual.

That's true. If we stop shoveling tax dollars at less efficient, less reliable energy, non-hydro renewable would shrink instead of grow.

Until we run out of fuel or money to pay for it, whichever comes first.

That chart looks like we're running out of fuel?

 

[PMZ]

People who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming necessarily believe they are smarter than thousands of people with climate-related PhDs doing research in the field.

What does THAT take?

A well funded propaganda effort by those who are making the equivalent of buggy whips at the advent of the automotive revolution.

The AGW cult is a well-funded propaganda effort. All it takes to know it's horseshit is the ability to commit logic.

How come you never publish any evidence of this that you wish was true?

 

[PMZ]

As energy demand is flat here,

This looks like flat energy demand?

Liberals go for progress. Relentlessly achieved.

As demonstrated by their constant fight against progress.

It's not demand at all. It's energy production.

We're producing energy that we aren't using?

Where are we putting it?

In the places where we've been using imported fuels.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not demand at all. It's energy production.

We're producing energy that we aren't using?

Where are we putting it?

In the places where we've been using imported fuels.

Where's your chart showing demand?

 

[PMZ]

People who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming necessarily believe they are smarter than thousands of people with climate-related PhDs doing research in the field.

What does THAT take?

A well funded propaganda effort by those who are making the equivalent of buggy whips at the advent of the automotive revolution.

The AGW cult is a well-funded propaganda effort. All it takes to know that it's horseshit is the ability to commit logic.

Well funded by whom?

 

[bripat9643]

A well funded propaganda effort by those who are making the equivalent of buggy whips at the advent of the automotive revolution.

The AGW cult is a well-funded propaganda effort. All it takes to know it's horseshit is the ability to commit logic.

How come you never publish any evidence of this that you wish was true?

I have published all kinds of evidence. The IPCC's latest report is proof that everything it said previously is wrong. In other words, it's propaganda.

 

[bripat9643]

A well funded propaganda effort by those who are making the equivalent of buggy whips at the advent of the automotive revolution.

The AGW cult is a well-funded propaganda effort. All it takes to know that it's horseshit is the ability to commit logic.

Well funded by whom?

The federal government.