Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's nothing wrong with wind, solar or renewable energy.
That is all that needs to be understood.
That's right, if you spend your own money on them.
Stop using taxpayer funds.
How about taxpayers subsidizing out of sight fossil fuel costs as rising global demand meets falling supply and expensive extraction and refining? Should we have to subsidize the stupidity that created not being prepared for such a predictable event?
I have never heard of ThinkProgress and do not visit DailyKOS (at least I can honestly say I have never typed either URL into a browser). I do visit Skeptical Science.com, RealClimate.org, NSIDC, NCDC, NOAA, NASA and will follow links I find on CNN, BBC, CBS, NPR and PBS, particularly if they point to edu sites. Those are what I consider the likeliest to be objective and accurate.
I expect (and am RARELY disappointed) to find subjective and inaccurate data on sites likes WattsUpWithThat, ClimateAudit, ClimateDepot, ClimateSkeptic and the British tabloids that inexplicably feature so prominently in this 'debate'. I expect the same from folks like Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Roger Pielke Sr, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, Steve McIntyre, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Richard Lindzen, Chris DeFreitas, Don Easterbrook, William Happer, David Legates and S Fred Singer.
ABRAHAM'S ACCEPTABLE SITES FOR CLIMATE INFORMATION (AASCI)
Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Climate Resrouces
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
this is one of the main stumbling blocks to communication between warmers and skeptics. you do not like the attitude or focus of people like McIntyre or Watts, so you automatically dismiss anything they say. its a catch-22.
where do you go to seek out possible criticisms of new papers and studies? no where, if it goes through peer review it is good enough for you, right? what about papers that make it through pal review with obvious (or even not so obvious) mistakes? climate science is a closed shop and private criticisms are kept behind closed doors, with the public no wiser, as climategate and the recent release of the SkS secret forum comments make blatantly clear.
I dont care if you dislike McIntyre, etc but their questions and criticisms must be answered. actually you do yourself a disservice by ignoring Climate Audit and the others because that is where the discussion with 'real' scientists happens, often with the climate scientists having to back down from their claims. Way, Marcott, Gergis, Steig, etc. I guarantee you will learn more about science and statistics at Climate Audit than anywhere else, especially in the grey areas.
You keep addressing the politics. Don't confuse them with the science.
One thing you've got to give the Skook, is he never allows facts to dilute his sit down comedy routine.
But here is how the Obama administration see's the science mattering where energy is concerned............
Hmmm.....but the AGW nutters say "don't confuse the science with politics"!!!
One thing you've got to give the Skook, is he never allows facts to dilute his sit down comedy routine.
this is one of the main stumbling blocks to communication between warmers and skeptics. you do not like the attitude or focus of people like McIntyre or Watts, so you automatically dismiss anything they say. its a catch-22.
where do you go to seek out possible criticisms of new papers and studies? no where, if it goes through peer review it is good enough for you, right? what about papers that make it through pal review with obvious (or even not so obvious) mistakes? climate science is a closed shop and private criticisms are kept behind closed doors, with the public no wiser, as climategate and the recent release of the SkS secret forum comments make blatantly clear.
I dont care if you dislike McIntyre, etc but their questions and criticisms must be answered. actually you do yourself a disservice by ignoring Climate Audit and the others because that is where the discussion with 'real' scientists happens, often with the climate scientists having to back down from their claims. Way, Marcott, Gergis, Steig, etc. I guarantee you will learn more about science and statistics at Climate Audit than anywhere else, especially in the grey areas.
You keep addressing the politics. Don't confuse them with the science.
This guy missed a few memo's along the way.
As it would be by far the economic choice.
Higher and bigger area = more power.
Absolutely. Also, private energy companies have done quite a bit of research and found solutions to making more efficient scrubbers in their coal plants to avoid air pollution. They keep pushing for under 99% clean air from all their plants, and returning cooled waters to streams for the maintenance of healthy natural fish populations as well.That's right, private energy companies building natural gas plants with their own money.
Building "green energy" plants with tax dollars.
Private industries must learn from their mistakes. Otherwise, they couldn't stay in business.
Government in businesses can raise rates fivefold in a handful of years (TVA, 1970s) and major improvements often come under the scrutiny of a Congressional committee that has other things to do, so may have to table the discussion for months before granting funds for something that will save money in the long run. Even when scrubbers can clean the air, a POTUS determined to get rid of coal usage can close down existing plants citing anything else except that the POTUS saying he would get rid of coal generating plants if given the chance.
[ame="http://youtu.be/SK6HzdXpCQw"]Obama Wants to Bankrupt Coal Plants - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://youtu.be/iJ55UzAsp6M"]Obama/Joe Biden "No Coal Plants Here in America" - YouTube[/ame]
They ought to be ashamed of themselves for being behind the times, and for ignoring exactly how clean the new scrubbers are making already-existing coal generation. Joe Biden's threat and fear-mongering were based on history older than 30 years ago, and 40 in some areas.
PMZ: If Biden's hysterical rhetoric isn't a mandate against coal generation, I don't know what is!
You can scrub fossil fuel products of combustion all day, but it has no impact on CO2 and therefore AGW.
There's nothing wrong with wind, solar or renewable energy.
That is all that needs to be understood.
I agree s0n........almost everybody agrees. But its never going to be anything more than a fringe energy source. Like I said......its just the way it is.
So, when fossil fuels are gone, it's back to the caves?
I have never heard of ThinkProgress and do not visit DailyKOS (at least I can honestly say I have never typed either URL into a browser). I do visit Skeptical Science.com, RealClimate.org, NSIDC, NCDC, NOAA, NASA and will follow links I find on CNN, BBC, CBS, NPR and PBS, particularly if they point to edu sites. Those are what I consider the likeliest to be objective and accurate.
I expect (and am RARELY disappointed) to find subjective and inaccurate data on sites likes WattsUpWithThat, ClimateAudit, ClimateDepot, ClimateSkeptic and the British tabloids that inexplicably feature so prominently in this 'debate'. I expect the same from folks like Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Roger Pielke Sr, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, Steve McIntyre, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Richard Lindzen, Chris DeFreitas, Don Easterbrook, William Happer, David Legates and S Fred Singer.
ABRAHAM'S ACCEPTABLE SITES FOR CLIMATE INFORMATION (AASCI)
Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Climate Resrouces
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
this is one of the main stumbling blocks to communication between warmers and skeptics. you do not like the attitude or focus of people like McIntyre or Watts, so you automatically dismiss anything they say. its a catch-22.
where do you go to seek out possible criticisms of new papers and studies? no where, if it goes through peer review it is good enough for you, right? what about papers that make it through pal review with obvious (or even not so obvious) mistakes? climate science is a closed shop and private criticisms are kept behind closed doors, with the public no wiser, as climategate and the recent release of the SkS secret forum comments make blatantly clear.
I dont care if you dislike McIntyre, etc but their questions and criticisms must be answered. actually you do yourself a disservice by ignoring Climate Audit and the others because that is where the discussion with 'real' scientists happens, often with the climate scientists having to back down from their claims. Way, Marcott, Gergis, Steig, etc. I guarantee you will learn more about science and statistics at Climate Audit than anywhere else, especially in the grey areas.
Climate science has been created by the IPCC. Step by step. Those that are current in it wrote AR5. That's the definitive document for the current state of climate science. It's the foundation for what's to follow.
You keep addressing the politics. Don't confuse them with the science.
One thing you've got to give the Skook, is he never allows facts to dilute his sit down comedy routine.
I have never heard of ThinkProgress and do not visit DailyKOS (at least I can honestly say I have never typed either URL into a browser). I do visit Skeptical Science.com, RealClimate.org, NSIDC, NCDC, NOAA, NASA and will follow links I find on CNN, BBC, CBS, NPR and PBS, particularly if they point to edu sites. Those are what I consider the likeliest to be objective and accurate.
I expect (and am RARELY disappointed) to find subjective and inaccurate data on sites likes WattsUpWithThat, ClimateAudit, ClimateDepot, ClimateSkeptic and the British tabloids that inexplicably feature so prominently in this 'debate'. I expect the same from folks like Anthony Watts, Bob Tisdale, Roger Pielke Sr, Roy Spencer, Christopher Monckton, Steve McIntyre, Willie Soon, Sallie Bailunas, Richard Lindzen, Chris DeFreitas, Don Easterbrook, William Happer, David Legates and S Fred Singer.
ABRAHAM'S ACCEPTABLE SITES FOR CLIMATE INFORMATION (AASCI)
Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined
RealClimate: Climate science from climate scientists
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)
National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) | The world's largest active archive of weather and climate data producing and supplying data and publications for the world.
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Climate Resrouces
Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
this is one of the main stumbling blocks to communication between warmers and skeptics. you do not like the attitude or focus of people like McIntyre or Watts, so you automatically dismiss anything they say. its a catch-22.
where do you go to seek out possible criticisms of new papers and studies? no where, if it goes through peer review it is good enough for you, right? what about papers that make it through pal review with obvious (or even not so obvious) mistakes? climate science is a closed shop and private criticisms are kept behind closed doors, with the public no wiser, as climategate and the recent release of the SkS secret forum comments make blatantly clear.
I dont care if you dislike McIntyre, etc but their questions and criticisms must be answered. actually you do yourself a disservice by ignoring Climate Audit and the others because that is where the discussion with 'real' scientists happens, often with the climate scientists having to back down from their claims. Way, Marcott, Gergis, Steig, etc. I guarantee you will learn more about science and statistics at Climate Audit than anywhere else, especially in the grey areas.
Climate science has been created by the IPCC. Step by step. Those that are current in it wrote AR5. That's the definitive document for the current state of climate science. It's the foundation for what's to follow.
You keep addressing the politics. Don't confuse them with the science.
this is one of the main stumbling blocks to communication between warmers and skeptics. you do not like the attitude or focus of people like McIntyre or Watts, so you automatically dismiss anything they say. its a catch-22.
where do you go to seek out possible criticisms of new papers and studies? no where, if it goes through peer review it is good enough for you, right? what about papers that make it through pal review with obvious (or even not so obvious) mistakes? climate science is a closed shop and private criticisms are kept behind closed doors, with the public no wiser, as climategate and the recent release of the SkS secret forum comments make blatantly clear.
I dont care if you dislike McIntyre, etc but their questions and criticisms must be answered. actually you do yourself a disservice by ignoring Climate Audit and the others because that is where the discussion with 'real' scientists happens, often with the climate scientists having to back down from their claims. Way, Marcott, Gergis, Steig, etc. I guarantee you will learn more about science and statistics at Climate Audit than anywhere else, especially in the grey areas.
Climate science has been created by the IPCC. Step by step. Those that are current in it wrote AR5. That's the definitive document for the current state of climate science. It's the foundation for what's to follow.
You keep addressing the politics. Don't confuse them with the science.
Are you just too stupid to be able to understand what is being discussed at Climate Audit? Do you have any knowledge about the data sets or methodologies being used? They talk about the nuts and bolts that build climate science, not the politics except when it affects how CS is being done.
You are foolishly accepting the Cliffs Notes version of climate Science when you could actually be learning what is being done.
One thing you've got to give the Skook, is he never allows facts to dilute his sit down comedy routine.
Just like you never let the facts dilute your greed for taxpayer subsidies for unreliable energy.
