More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[westwall]

Classic far left debate strategy on display here........when you get your ass pwned in the topic of discussion, change the subject!!!


Cool!!!


I'll just use the thread then to add to the already dozens of links presented on this thread that do indeed illustrate the utter decimation of the AGW k00ks via proof the skeptics are winning!!!

Exactly. Meanwhile the whole scam is coming apart at the seams.
Canada signed off the Kyoto protocol.
Australia had enough too.
Britain`s David Cameron just announced a review of green energy taxes
BBC News - David Cameron to review green energy taxes
And the German Government cancelled the 95 gr CO2 per km emission limit for cars that the EU bureaucrats tried to impose on German car makers.
Meanwhile IPCC predictions are being debunked as gross exaggerations to a degree where the IPCC chooses to remain silent rather than disputing the critics.
Uno-Klimareport: IPCC-Verhandlungen in Stockholm schwierig - SPIEGEL ONLINE
None of the "explanations" for the "missing heat" measures up to closer scrutiny and the latest IPCC response is to declare the last 15 years as "statistically insignificant":
In addition to that closer audits of the AR5 conclusions revealed that several of their statements were not based on any real data but on internal opinion polls amongst IPCC "scientists". Who they were the IPCC is not willing to disclose either.


The subject of this thread was "More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!"...wasn`t it?
But as you already pointed out:

Classic far left debate strategy on display here........when you get your ass pawned in the topic of discussion, change the subject!!!

Is "PMZ" some sort of "numan" after birth?
I wonder.
He sounds and acts much the same, same tactic, same dumb gibberish and has earned as many red dots per time as "numan" did.

The topic is PROOF skeptics are winning. I assume that if skeptics were winning the proof would be no action towards sustainable energy.

I have yet to read here any evidence, much less proof, of that.

How's that tidal power system in New Zealand doing? Oh yeah...it's NOT.

 

[westwall]

The topic is PROOF skeptics are winning. I assume that if skeptics were winning the proof would be no action towards sustainable energy.

I have yet to read here any evidence, much less proof, of that.

Again you are way off the topic. What the hell does "action towards sustainable energy" or the lack of it have to do with the IPCC blunders which have been exposed?
There will always be some idiots who haven`t found out yet what it takes to build or rebuild a power grid that can supply power on demand....which you need for your sustenance.
Fact is that many of these "green energy" countries have been building up more fuel fired power plant capacity, ranging from coal to natural and fracked shale gas.
"sustainable energy"...another feel good knee jerk liberal buzzword.
Solar can`t even sustain you for 24 consecutive hours on any given day and if wind farms could then nobody would build any more fossil fuel or coal fired power plants. Same goes for the transportation sector."Sustainable" battery power that can`t "sustain" you beyond a couple of hours driving time either.
I`m still waiting for that "alternative" you kept bragging about, when I posted what it really takes to make wind and solar a commercially usable power source and how entire mountain ranges in Germany are decapitated and excavated for that purpose.
In most areas of the US you don`t even have a suitable terrain to build these pumped high elevation storage basins....and that`s where the heaviest & most energy intensive industrial users are.
And I guarantee you that the state counties which have the suitable terrain will say "not in my backyard"...just like Europeans react now.
There are already threads for this topic...this one is about the crap reports the IPCC has published and the fact that there is nothing but "grey data" and silence to "explain" why none of it materialized.
Not only are the skeptics winning, the IPCC has become so irrelevant in the news media, that none of those who had been invited to the 25.th conference even bothered to show up !

Sustainable energy is an absolutely necessary and unavoidable transition for humanity.

The IPCC is the source of knowledge on the economic consequences of going through that transition more slowly or rapidly.

Denialists advise slowly, based only on what they wish was true.

Scientists advise that slowly is very costly and are putting knowledge to work figuring out the details.

That is the topic here.

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

 

[flacaltenn]

The SC is just a gang of political cronies who rule however their political masters want them to rule.

This says: "I oppose the Constitution of the United States". That says "I hate this nation". That says "If I only had the balls, I'd be a traitor".

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

PeterF SHOULD be an honorary American because he understands the process better than 80% of our voters.. A 5 to 4 decision may have the power of law in this country, but it is STILL opinion. And neither the 4 or the 5 have a lock on the truth.. It's a matter of what the political balance was a decade before the decision when the appointments were made.

The FACT that we get so many 5 to 4 decisions should tell you that the debate on that topic isn't really over.. In MANY CASES, All it takes to OVERTURN a Supreme Ct ruling ---- is for Congress to rewrite the law..

 

[PMZ]

This says: "I oppose the Constitution of the United States". That says "I hate this nation". That says "If I only had the balls, I'd be a traitor".

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

PeterF SHOULD be an honorary American because he understands the process better than 80% of our voters.. A 5 to 4 decision may have the power of law in this country, but it is STILL opinion. And neither the 4 or the 5 have a lock on the truth.. It's a matter of what the political balance was a decade before the decision when the appointments were made.

The FACT that we get so many 5 to 4 decisions should tell you that the debate on that topic isn't really over.. In MANY CASES, All it takes to OVERTURN a Supreme Ct ruling ---- is for Congress to rewrite the law..

Here's a profound thought. If there is an unconstitutional part to a law, the unconstitutional part can be changed and perhaps made constitutional.

Nobody can overturn or appeal a SCOTUS verdict.

 

[PMZ]

This says: "I oppose the Constitution of the United States". That says "I hate this nation". That says "If I only had the balls, I'd be a traitor".

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

PeterF SHOULD be an honorary American because he understands the process better than 80% of our voters.. A 5 to 4 decision may have the power of law in this country, but it is STILL opinion. And neither the 4 or the 5 have a lock on the truth.. It's a matter of what the political balance was a decade before the decision when the appointments were made.

The FACT that we get so many 5 to 4 decisions should tell you that the debate on that topic isn't really over.. In MANY CASES, All it takes to OVERTURN a Supreme Ct ruling ---- is for Congress to rewrite the law..

All law is sombody's opinion until it becomes a majority opinion of Congress. And it can be overturned by a majority opinion of SCOTUS. And we elect government by majority opinions. That's what democracies do.

 

[PMZ]

Again you are way off the topic. What the hell does "action towards sustainable energy" or the lack of it have to do with the IPCC blunders which have been exposed?
There will always be some idiots who haven`t found out yet what it takes to build or rebuild a power grid that can supply power on demand....which you need for your sustenance.
Fact is that many of these "green energy" countries have been building up more fuel fired power plant capacity, ranging from coal to natural and fracked shale gas.
"sustainable energy"...another feel good knee jerk liberal buzzword.
Solar can`t even sustain you for 24 consecutive hours on any given day and if wind farms could then nobody would build any more fossil fuel or coal fired power plants. Same goes for the transportation sector."Sustainable" battery power that can`t "sustain" you beyond a couple of hours driving time either.
I`m still waiting for that "alternative" you kept bragging about, when I posted what it really takes to make wind and solar a commercially usable power source and how entire mountain ranges in Germany are decapitated and excavated for that purpose.
In most areas of the US you don`t even have a suitable terrain to build these pumped high elevation storage basins....and that`s where the heaviest & most energy intensive industrial users are.
And I guarantee you that the state counties which have the suitable terrain will say "not in my backyard"...just like Europeans react now.
There are already threads for this topic...this one is about the crap reports the IPCC has published and the fact that there is nothing but "grey data" and silence to "explain" why none of it materialized.
Not only are the skeptics winning, the IPCC has become so irrelevant in the news media, that none of those who had been invited to the 25.th conference even bothered to show up !

Sustainable energy is an absolutely necessary and unavoidable transition for humanity.

The IPCC is the source of knowledge on the economic consequences of going through that transition more slowly or rapidly.

Denialists advise slowly, based only on what they wish was true.

Scientists advise that slowly is very costly and are putting knowledge to work figuring out the details.

That is the topic here.

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

 

[flacaltenn]

Sustainable energy is an absolutely necessary and unavoidable transition for humanity.

The IPCC is the source of knowledge on the economic consequences of going through that transition more slowly or rapidly.

Denialists advise slowly, based only on what they wish was true.

Scientists advise that slowly is very costly and are putting knowledge to work figuring out the details.

That is the topic here.

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Hydrogen and Nuclear will never run out..

 

[PMZ]

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Hydrogen and Nuclear will never run out..

That's why they are sustainable.

 

[flacaltenn]

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Hydrogen and Nuclear will never run out..

That's why they are sustainable.

True eco-nuts would disagree with that definition...
Sustainable only applies to stuff they like...

 

[flacaltenn]

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

PeterF SHOULD be an honorary American because he understands the process better than 80% of our voters.. A 5 to 4 decision may have the power of law in this country, but it is STILL opinion. And neither the 4 or the 5 have a lock on the truth.. It's a matter of what the political balance was a decade before the decision when the appointments were made.

The FACT that we get so many 5 to 4 decisions should tell you that the debate on that topic isn't really over.. In MANY CASES, All it takes to OVERTURN a Supreme Ct ruling ---- is for Congress to rewrite the law..

Here's a profound thought. If there is an unconstitutional part to a law, the unconstitutional part can be changed and perhaps made constitutional.

Nobody can overturn or appeal a SCOTUS verdict.

Bullshit... In the case of eminent domain, the Supreme Court BEGGED the states to go write more specific property taking clauses.. They WANTED to be over-ruled by more definitive laws. And exactly that happened. We got BETTER AND STRONGER property protection in MOST states because the Supremes Mocked them into writing better laws.

MANY TIMES -- it's a single section of a law that needs re-writing even tho the Supremes elect to blow out the entirety of the law because of the impact of that one piddling detail.. Law-makers have options to "overturn" SC rulings all the time.

My point was --- in a 5 to 4 ruling --- "Constitutional" or "unConstitutional" is still arguable..

 

[Peterf]

This says: "I oppose the Constitution of the United States". That says "I hate this nation". That says "If I only had the balls, I'd be a traitor".

I am not an American. But I am unable to accept that politically appointed group of lawyers is infallible. Or that a different bunch would not come to quite different conclusions.


So distrusting your Supreme Court - or mine, or anyone's - does not make a person a traitor, even if his distrust is misplaced. If his distrust IS justified it makes him a wise patriot.

PeterF SHOULD be an honorary American because he understands the process better than 80% of our voters.. A 5 to 4 decision may have the power of law in this country, but it is STILL opinion. And neither the 4 or the 5 have a lock on the truth.. It's a matter of what the political balance was a decade before the decision when the appointments were made.

The FACT that we get so many 5 to 4 decisions should tell you that the debate on that topic isn't really over.. In MANY CASES, All it takes to OVERTURN a Supreme Ct ruling ---- is for Congress to rewrite the law..

I do not deserve the honour which you propose but thanks anyway!

Americans revere their constitution which is fine and dandy. But imo they should not regard it as perfect; like all human artifacts it is imperfect and its flaws will be magnified over time, if only because those who wrote it could not imagine today's United States.

You make the point very well. The constitution often, very often, needs to be interpreted. And the act of interpretation is, of necessity, political.

 

[skookerasbil]

Sustainable energy is an absolutely necessary and unavoidable transition for humanity.

The IPCC is the source of knowledge on the economic consequences of going through that transition more slowly or rapidly.

Denialists advise slowly, based only on what they wish was true.

Scientists advise that slowly is very costly and are putting knowledge to work figuring out the details.

That is the topic here.

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Absolutely irrelevant. A moot point s0n!! Realville sucks for guys like this......but its still Realville for a huge majority who don't think its such a good idea to throw away our cell phones, walk to work, freeze our asses off, pay double the electric bill, seal up our fireplaces, kill off our livestock etc.....etc.......


Lets face it......the environmental k00ks live every minute of their lives in a makey-uppey world where anything is possible if we just collectively decide to do it. How they navigate in the real world is fascinating to me!!

 

[westwall]

Sustainable energy is an absolutely necessary and unavoidable transition for humanity.

The IPCC is the source of knowledge on the economic consequences of going through that transition more slowly or rapidly.

Denialists advise slowly, based only on what they wish was true.

Scientists advise that slowly is very costly and are putting knowledge to work figuring out the details.

That is the topic here.

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Coal certainly will in around 500 years. Oil on the other hand is a question mark. According to current theory yes, it will. In around 100 years. However, if the abiotic theory of oil is found to be accurate then no, it won't.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is the definitive link that nails the whole issue of why the AGW contingent doesn't understand its losing..........

Liberal Denial on Climate Change and Energy | National Review Online



There is a total disconnect between the science and political reality!!!



LMAO......been saying it for years and years!!!



The thought processing on these people ( not the intelligence......there is a big difference ) is fucked.

 

[skookerasbil]

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Coal certainly will in around 500 years. Oil on the other hand is a question mark. According to current theory yes, it will. In around 100 years. However, if the abiotic theory of oil is found to be accurate then no, it won't.

Hey West.....check out my new thread......you're gonna laugh your balls off!!!

 

[mamooth]

Coal certainly will in around 500 years.

That's a wildly obsolete figure, based on coal usage of 40 years ago.

Coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The 948 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves estimated by the Energy Information Administration are equal to about 4,196 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent).[97] The amount of coal burned during 2007 was estimated at 7.075 billion short tons,
---

Doing the math ... 134 years. And that's at current consumption levels. If consumption level rises, the time decreases.

 

[PMZ]

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Coal certainly will in around 500 years. Oil on the other hand is a question mark. According to current theory yes, it will. In around 100 years. However, if the abiotic theory of oil is found to be accurate then no, it won't.

With China and India becoming developed countries at the rate that they are, and demand going up by everyone's population rise, there is no chance that coal will be around for anywhere near 500 years.

There is zero evidence supporting abiotic oil.

There is a great deal of evidence supporting the very expensive consequences of AGW that will make it economical to leave much of that carbon sequestered.

 

[PMZ]

Coal certainly will in around 500 years.

That's a wildly obsolete figure, based on coal usage of 40 years ago.

Coal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The 948 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves estimated by the Energy Information Administration are equal to about 4,196 BBOE (billion barrels of oil equivalent).[97] The amount of coal burned during 2007 was estimated at 7.075 billion short tons,
---

Doing the math ... 134 years. And that's at current consumption levels. If consumption level rises, the time decreases.

If?

 

[PMZ]

Here is the definitive link that nails the whole issue of why the AGW contingent doesn't understand its losing..........

Liberal Denial on Climate Change and Energy | National Review Online



There is a total disconnect between the science and political reality!!!



LMAO......been saying it for years and years!!!



The thought processing on these people ( not the intelligence......there is a big difference ) is fucked.

There is a total disconnect between science (reality) and politics (what people wish was true).

 

[PMZ]

No, not really. ALL "sustainable energy" programs could vanish right now and no one would notice. Well that's not entirely true, the people who live in the areas where the "green" energy systems are manufactured would live longer due to no more pollution.

So you believe that fossil fuels will never run out?

Absolutely irrelevant. A moot point s0n!! Realville sucks for guys like this......but its still Realville for a huge majority who don't think its such a good idea to throw away our cell phones, walk to work, freeze our asses off, pay double the electric bill, seal up our fireplaces, kill off our livestock etc.....etc.......


Lets face it......the environmental k00ks live every minute of their lives in a makey-uppey world where anything is possible if we just collectively decide to do it. How they navigate in the real world is fascinating to me!!

So you're saying that when fossil fuels run out we just go back to wood and peat moss?