More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[skookerasbil]

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.

Bripat bro.....don't even bother with this meathead. These people have serious connect the dots issues......fascinating to me on some level. These people really do believe there are no special interests connected to green energy. What can you do? That's why I spend zero effort posting up anything trying to change the mindset of said nutters and focus just on presenting the burst the bubble facts for the curious who happen to wander into this forum looking for some direction.......which is why I have such a fucking hoot in here!


Back to the winning........


90 computer models of temperature projections vs reality!!! >>>>


90 climate model projectons versus reality | Watts Up With That?



Exactly why you get more lay people running over the to the side of the skeptics. The graph within is good for a few laughs!!

 

[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?

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

You're getting a pat on the head from Fox and company. Even worse than getting paid off in money.

 

[PMZ]

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.

The same condition has never stopped you from pretending to determine accuracy.

 

[PMZ]

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?

Are you really dumb enough to believe that fossil fuels are in unlimited supply?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Correct. Many federal governments fund the UN which funds the IPCC. Science is not free.
What's the problem with paying people to do their job?

Do you work for free?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Be specific.

 

[PMZ]

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?

First tell us why you tried to present production data as demand.

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Congrats Comrade.. You pass the totalitarian purity test.. And FLUNK "the rational person test" if you think an "opinion page editor" is the qualified go-to guy on matters of factual atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and statistics..

You jokers can't even think straight.. You're gonna put the chains on willingly and with glee.
How many others think an opinion editors opinion is worth the price of an LA Times?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Are you really dumb enough to believe that fossil fuels are in unlimited supply?

I'm not dumb enough to recommend we waste trillions of dollars on less efficient, less reliable sources of energy.

Weren't you doomers claiming we'd be out of US oil by now?
Look at us, not even tapping what we should in Alaska and we're soon passing Saudi production.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Where's your chart showing demand?

First tell us why you tried to present production data as demand.

As soon as you tell me why you claimed our record spending on fossil fuel production was zero spending on fossil fuel production.

 

[PMZ]

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.

Congrats Comrade.. You pass the totalitarian purity test.. And "the rational person test" if you think an "opinion page editor" is the qualified go-to guy on matters of factual atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and statistics..

You jokers can't even think straight.. You're gonna put the chains on willingly and with glee.
How many others think an opinion editors opinion is worth the price of an LA Times?

The difference between liberals and conservatives is the value of truth. Conservatives don't care if things are true as long as they are politically useful.

 

[PMZ]

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

Are you really dumb enough to believe that fossil fuels are in unlimited supply?

I'm not dumb enough to recommend we waste trillions of dollars on less efficient, less reliable sources of energy.

Weren't you doomers claiming we'd be out of US oil by now?
Look at us, not even tapping what we should in Alaska and we're soon passing Saudi production.

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now. Nobody.

Some have said, accurately, that we are in the expensive, low quality side of the supply curve and facing unprecedented global demand. Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Explain the economics of that to us. How many dollars per gallon is unaffordable?

 

[PMZ]

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.

Congrats Comrade.. You pass the totalitarian purity test.. And "the rational person test" if you think an "opinion page editor" is the qualified go-to guy on matters of factual atmospheric physics and thermodynamics and statistics..

You jokers can't even think straight.. You're gonna put the chains on willingly and with glee.
How many others think an opinion editors opinion is worth the price of an LA Times?

This from a Fox addict. God help us.

 

[westwall]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you really dumb enough to believe that fossil fuels are in unlimited supply?

I'm not dumb enough to recommend we waste trillions of dollars on less efficient, less reliable sources of energy.

Weren't you doomers claiming we'd be out of US oil by now?
Look at us, not even tapping what we should in Alaska and we're soon passing Saudi production.

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now. Nobody.

Some have said, accurately, that we are in the expensive, low quality side of the supply curve and facing unprecedented global demand. Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Explain the economics of that to us. How many dollars per gallon is unaffordable?

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

Let's see, you could spend $30,000 to save $600 a year. Is that efficient?

You could spend billions on wind power that still requires a gas power plant to run when the wind stops blowing. Is running a nat gas plant 30% or 50% of the time efficient?

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now.

You guys haven't whined that we shouldn't tap the ANWR, because it would only last 5 years? That we shouldn't drill offshore, because it'll only supply us for a few years?

Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Money spent for reliable power that works is more affordable than money spent on unreliable power.
And I'd like a link for anyone that ever said it's affordable forever.

 

[PMZ]

I'm not dumb enough to recommend we waste trillions of dollars on less efficient, less reliable sources of energy.

Weren't you doomers claiming we'd be out of US oil by now?
Look at us, not even tapping what we should in Alaska and we're soon passing Saudi production.

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now. Nobody.

Some have said, accurately, that we are in the expensive, low quality side of the supply curve and facing unprecedented global demand. Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Explain the economics of that to us. How many dollars per gallon is unaffordable?

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

Let's see, you could spend $30,000 to save $600 a year. Is that efficient?

You could spend billions on wind power that still requires a gas power plant to run when the wind stops blowing. Is running a nat gas plant 30% or 50% of the time efficient?

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now.

You guys haven't whined that we shouldn't tap the ANWR, because it would only last 5 years? That we shouldn't drill offshore, because it'll only supply us for a few years?

Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Money spent for reliable power that works is more affordable than money spent on unreliable power.
And I'd like a link for anyone that ever said it's affordable forever.

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now. Nobody.

Some have said, accurately, that we are in the expensive, low quality side of the supply curve and facing unprecedented global demand. Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Explain the economics of that to us. How many dollars per gallon is unaffordable?

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

Let's see, you could spend $30,000 to save $600 a year. Is that efficient?

You could spend billions on wind power that still requires a gas power plant to run when the wind stops blowing. Is running a nat gas plant 30% or 50% of the time efficient?

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now.

You guys haven't whined that we shouldn't tap the ANWR, because it would only last 5 years? That we shouldn't drill offshore, because it'll only supply us for a few years?

Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Money spent for reliable power that works is more affordable than money spent on unreliable power.
And I'd like a link for anyone that ever said it's affordable forever.

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

 

[Impenitent]

"B'Endiana Natuf and the Volcano of Doom"

A right wing crisis of sorts
A disaster close to our hearts
One more carbon dioxide machine
Extinct, gone from the scene
Call Rush! Call Sean! Call Bono!
We must save the last volcano

Arriving in their corporate jets
Or convoys of hummers and corvettes
They rally at Reagan Internationale
So dour, so pious, so fashionable
Nary a common tree hugger wacko
Thus not a word of enviro mytho

We'll have our statement on the environments
After we make these two announcements
We've selected B' En as our native guide
To save this generator of carbon dioxide
He'll sail for Iceland on the Calypso
That frenchy's ship we got as a repo

A gaseous producer we'll save to prove our points
That a mere compound of life giving elements
Cannot trap heat in the atmosphere
What we deny will be perfectly clear
It will not take inspector Cleauseau
To prove the innocence of CO2

B' En has landed in Iceland he reports
He will initiate our plan of last resorts
For the volcano with the limestone facade
No doubt plugged by Bjork and Sinead
A flyover with Sarah shooting drano
Down the throat of that dormant volcano

With a prayer to Vulcan , B' En departs
No virgin to sacrifice Sarah retorts
(Tucker Carlson didn't answer our query)
The blast and the sound and fury
Signals the spewing of dogma we bestow
Again to the world with this magma flow
___________

 

[PMZ]

How can a fuel-less energy source not be efficient? Nothing in, something out.

Let's see, you could spend $30,000 to save $600 a year. Is that efficient?

You could spend billions on wind power that still requires a gas power plant to run when the wind stops blowing. Is running a nat gas plant 30% or 50% of the time efficient?

I've never heard anybody say that we'd be out of oil by now.

You guys haven't whined that we shouldn't tap the ANWR, because it would only last 5 years? That we shouldn't drill offshore, because it'll only supply us for a few years?

Yet you say that it's affordable forever.

Money spent for reliable power that works is more affordable than money spent on unreliable power.
And I'd like a link for anyone that ever said it's affordable forever.

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

Not 50 years to payback. 50 years to solve.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is nobody like conservatives to kick the can down the road. There is no problem that can't be accommodated for another day. Ignore, ignore, ignore, panic. But blame the delay on others. That’s the important part. Blame, blame, blame.

What a bunch of losers.

You're right, investing in something that will take 50 years to payback your investment isn't kicking the can down the road, that's kicking yourself in the head.

Liberals are good at that.

Not 50 years to payback. 50 years to solve.

We need to waste trillions on unreliable energy, because at least that will make coal cheaper for the Chinese.

Coal said to fuel most of world by ’20
Oct 15,2013 Coal, propelled by rising use in China and India, will surpass oil as the key fuel for the global economy by 2020 despite government efforts to reduce carbon emissions, energy consultancy firm Wood Mackenzie said on Monday.

Global coal consumption is expected to rise by 25 percent by the end of the decade to 4,500 million tons of oil equivalent, overtaking oil at 4,400 million tons, according to Woodmac in a presentation at the World Energy Congress.

Coal said to fuel most of world by ?20-INSIDE Korea JoongAng Daily