Time for failed global warming predictions.

[Stephanie]

 

[Billy_Bob]

1. In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
   
   In the real world...
   
   Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
   Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
   Scientific American
   By Glenn Scherer
   December 6, 2012
   (excerpts)
   Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.
   
   "We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

   So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

   So....BearButt....if you can read what I just posted and draw that absurd conclusion, you are even more insane and retarded than I had assumed.
   
   The rather conservative predictions produced by the IPCC on global warming, CO2 emissions increases, acceleration of ice melting and sea level rise, have not only been successfully met, they have been exceeded. That DOES NOT equal "another failed prediction", you pathetic moron.
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Btw....Where is the sea level rising?

   Almost everywhere, dumbass.
   
   Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show
   Higher temperatures as a result of industrialisation blamed for the acceleration, as scientists warn of potential for 131cm rise by year 2100
   The Guardian
   22 February 2016
   (excerpts)
   
   A young girl wades through the incoming sea water that flooded her house and village in Kiribati. (Photograph: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images)
   
   Sea levels are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years, with the process accelerating because of manmade global warming, according to new studies. An international team of scientists examined two dozen locations across the globe to chart rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm. Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.
   
   Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study, which looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia, said: “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest. It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use.” Sea level rise in the 20th century was mostly manmade, the study authors said. A separate, not-yet-published study by Kopp and others found that since 1950 about two-thirds of the US coastal floods in 27 locales were linked to manmade warming. Study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if seas continued to rise as projected, another 45cm would cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surges during storms. “There is such a tight relationship between sea level and temperature,” he said. “I wish there wasn’t, then we wouldn’t be as worried.”
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   What temperture rise????????.
   Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.

   LOLOLOLOL. That's hilarious.....and very insane.
   
   2015 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2014, the previous record holder. 2016 will very likely be even hotter. Every year since 1998 has been hotter than every year before 1998. Just released analysis indicates that this last March was the hottest March on record, following the hottest February on record. With this new record hot March, the Earth's seven highest monthly temperature departures from average on record have all occurred in the past seven months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken, another new all time record in itself. March also marked the 375th consecutive month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average, going back to December 1984, over 30 years. It was also the most any month has been above average in the 135-year instrumental temperature record.
   
   Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies
   

   

Why do always feel like I need to light up a joint and put on a tin foil hat when you post?????



Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.



NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

New York Times

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Fig.D.gif (525×438)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you POOR retarded nutjob!

We're talking about the human caused increase in temperatures over most of the Earth's surface, moron.

The USA covers only about 2% of the Earth's surface. Your bullshit is idiotically meaningless. As are you!

Still finding oil and gas

Offshore discovery could make Brazil major oil exporter


Massive Oil Discovery In Australia Is Deathblow For Saudis


Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights - Israeli media

Still finding it doesn't mean it's limitless.

I give up with you, you don't understand the human nature, the politics, the future technology or economics of it. Plus I forgot to mention we make oil out of food and could make a heck of a lot more out of the likes of hemp.For fuel and plastics (even though the plastics made out of it sucks today, but who knows what the future holds?)


.



.

I'm sure you do give up.

I asked you to PROVE something. You've given one article from the 1970s where they predicted oil would dry up by around now. This doesn't prove anything other than what people assumed back then.

You can't make your argument.

Human nature. I'm still baffled as to how you think human nature and amount of oil left on planet Earth are connected.

Yes, you can make oil out of other stuff. This is what we call changing the argument massively. We're talking about petroleum oil.

But you know what happened when they started using bio-fuel don't you? Food prices went through the roof.

(I'm going to show you how you back your argument up too)

Biofuel crops: food security must come first | Ben Phalan

"Since 2003, the UK and other EU countries have effectively poured billions of euros into biofuels, on the premise that they reduce emissions from transport. "

"At the same time, they damage biodiversity, hurt some of the world's poorest people bypushing up food prices, "

"Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. When millions of hectares of land are switched from food to biofuel crops, food prices rise and food production is displaced, triggering a domino-like chain of events ending in cropland expansion elsewhere, including into the tropical forests of Southeast Asia and the savannas of South America and Africa. This is iLUC."

"Dr. Ben Phalan is a research associate in conservation science at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, and is the Zukerman junior research fellow in global food security at King's College."

Biofuels are driving food prices higher | Tim Rice

"Biofuels are driving food prices higher"

"This year began with record-breaking food prices that experts warn could lead to another fully fledged global food crisis. Rising food prices contributed to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and sparked riots in several other countries. A food crisis three years ago also brought impoverished people on to the streets when they couldn't afford to buy staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn. Not surprising when poor people spend up to 80% of their income on food."

"There are numerous causes to the recent price rises, but biofuels remain a significant piece of the puzzle. About 40% of US corn goes into biofuels."

BBC NEWS | Business | Biofuel demand makes food expensive

"Biofuel demand makes food expensive"

So, you see, it's not as simple as to say "we can just get oil from other places".

1. We dont currently need bio fuels. Between NG, and other fossil fuels, we have about 750 years in reserves (or more as technologies grow and make new RESERVES USABLE.

2. Coal has over 1,000 years in reserve. With clean coal technologies we have today there is no need for your expensive and unreliable solar and wind.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind. Your left wing nut bag president making things twice as expensive as they have to be is shear lunacy. Europe is running away from your lunacy as is china.

There are ways to be responsible for our atmosphere that do not require we shoot ourselves in the feet. CO2 is now shown a non issues in the planets warming and a very minor player in the planets temperature control...

But hey, your to stupid and invested in the lie to see that you have been lied to by your masters.

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
   
   In the real world...
   
   Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
   Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
   Scientific American
   By Glenn Scherer
   December 6, 2012
   (excerpts)
   Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.
   
   "We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

   So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

   So....BearButt....if you can read what I just posted and draw that absurd conclusion, you are even more insane and retarded than I had assumed.
   
   The rather conservative predictions produced by the IPCC on global warming, CO2 emissions increases, acceleration of ice melting and sea level rise, have not only been successfully met, they have been exceeded. That DOES NOT equal "another failed prediction", you pathetic moron.
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Btw....Where is the sea level rising?

   Almost everywhere, dumbass.
   
   Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show
   Higher temperatures as a result of industrialisation blamed for the acceleration, as scientists warn of potential for 131cm rise by year 2100
   The Guardian
   22 February 2016
   (excerpts)
   
   A young girl wades through the incoming sea water that flooded her house and village in Kiribati. (Photograph: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images)
   
   Sea levels are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years, with the process accelerating because of manmade global warming, according to new studies. An international team of scientists examined two dozen locations across the globe to chart rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm. Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.
   
   Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study, which looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia, said: “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest. It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use.” Sea level rise in the 20th century was mostly manmade, the study authors said. A separate, not-yet-published study by Kopp and others found that since 1950 about two-thirds of the US coastal floods in 27 locales were linked to manmade warming. Study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if seas continued to rise as projected, another 45cm would cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surges during storms. “There is such a tight relationship between sea level and temperature,” he said. “I wish there wasn’t, then we wouldn’t be as worried.”
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   What temperture rise????????.
   Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.

   LOLOLOLOL. That's hilarious.....and very insane.
   
   2015 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2014, the previous record holder. 2016 will very likely be even hotter. Every year since 1998 has been hotter than every year before 1998. Just released analysis indicates that this last March was the hottest March on record, following the hottest February on record. With this new record hot March, the Earth's seven highest monthly temperature departures from average on record have all occurred in the past seven months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken, another new all time record in itself. March also marked the 375th consecutive month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average, going back to December 1984, over 30 years. It was also the most any month has been above average in the 135-year instrumental temperature record.
   
   Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies
   

   

Why do always feel like I need to light up a joint and put on a tin foil hat when you post?????



Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.



NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

New York Times

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Fig.D.gif (525×438)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you POOR retarded nutjob!

We're talking about the human caused increase in temperatures over most of the Earth's surface, moron.

The USA covers only about 2% of the Earth's surface. Your bullshit is idiotically meaningless. As are you!

Still finding oil and gas

Offshore discovery could make Brazil major oil exporter


Massive Oil Discovery In Australia Is Deathblow For Saudis


Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights - Israeli media

Still finding it doesn't mean it's limitless.

I give up with you, you don't understand the human nature, the politics, the future technology or economics of it. Plus I forgot to mention we make oil out of food and could make a heck of a lot more out of the likes of hemp.For fuel and plastics (even though the plastics made out of it sucks today, but who knows what the future holds?)


.



.

I'm sure you do give up.

I asked you to PROVE something. You've given one article from the 1970s where they predicted oil would dry up by around now. This doesn't prove anything other than what people assumed back then.

You can't make your argument.

Human nature. I'm still baffled as to how you think human nature and amount of oil left on planet Earth are connected.

Yes, you can make oil out of other stuff. This is what we call changing the argument massively. We're talking about petroleum oil.

But you know what happened when they started using bio-fuel don't you? Food prices went through the roof.

(I'm going to show you how you back your argument up too)

Biofuel crops: food security must come first | Ben Phalan

"Since 2003, the UK and other EU countries have effectively poured billions of euros into biofuels, on the premise that they reduce emissions from transport. "

"At the same time, they damage biodiversity, hurt some of the world's poorest people bypushing up food prices, "

"Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. When millions of hectares of land are switched from food to biofuel crops, food prices rise and food production is displaced, triggering a domino-like chain of events ending in cropland expansion elsewhere, including into the tropical forests of Southeast Asia and the savannas of South America and Africa. This is iLUC."

"Dr. Ben Phalan is a research associate in conservation science at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, and is the Zukerman junior research fellow in global food security at King's College."

Biofuels are driving food prices higher | Tim Rice

"Biofuels are driving food prices higher"

"This year began with record-breaking food prices that experts warn could lead to another fully fledged global food crisis. Rising food prices contributed to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and sparked riots in several other countries. A food crisis three years ago also brought impoverished people on to the streets when they couldn't afford to buy staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn. Not surprising when poor people spend up to 80% of their income on food."

"There are numerous causes to the recent price rises, but biofuels remain a significant piece of the puzzle. About 40% of US corn goes into biofuels."

BBC NEWS | Business | Biofuel demand makes food expensive

"Biofuel demand makes food expensive"

So, you see, it's not as simple as to say "we can just get oil from other places".

1. We dont currently need bio fuels. Between NG, and other fossil fuels, we have about 750 years in reserves (or more as technologies grow and make new RESERVES USABLE.

2. Coal has over 1,000 years in reserve. With clean coal technologies we have today there is no need for your expensive and unreliable solar and wind.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind. Your left wing nut bag president making things twice as expensive as they have to be is shear lunacy. Europe is running away from your lunacy as is china.

There are ways to be responsible for our atmosphere that do not require we shoot ourselves in the feet. CO2 is now shown a non issues in the planets warming and a very minor player in the planets temperature control...

But hey, your to stupid and invested in the lie to see that you have been lied to by your masters.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind


Exactly...that's what these doom and gloom folks don't get.


.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
   
   In the real world...
   
   Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
   Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
   Scientific American
   By Glenn Scherer
   December 6, 2012
   (excerpts)
   Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.
   
   "We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

   So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

   So....BearButt....if you can read what I just posted and draw that absurd conclusion, you are even more insane and retarded than I had assumed.
   
   The rather conservative predictions produced by the IPCC on global warming, CO2 emissions increases, acceleration of ice melting and sea level rise, have not only been successfully met, they have been exceeded. That DOES NOT equal "another failed prediction", you pathetic moron.
   
   
   
   
   
   

   Btw....Where is the sea level rising?

   Almost everywhere, dumbass.
   
   Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show
   Higher temperatures as a result of industrialisation blamed for the acceleration, as scientists warn of potential for 131cm rise by year 2100
   The Guardian
   22 February 2016
   (excerpts)
   
   A young girl wades through the incoming sea water that flooded her house and village in Kiribati. (Photograph: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images)
   
   Sea levels are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years, with the process accelerating because of manmade global warming, according to new studies. An international team of scientists examined two dozen locations across the globe to chart rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm. Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.
   
   Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study, which looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia, said: “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest. It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use.” Sea level rise in the 20th century was mostly manmade, the study authors said. A separate, not-yet-published study by Kopp and others found that since 1950 about two-thirds of the US coastal floods in 27 locales were linked to manmade warming. Study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if seas continued to rise as projected, another 45cm would cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surges during storms. “There is such a tight relationship between sea level and temperature,” he said. “I wish there wasn’t, then we wouldn’t be as worried.”
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

   What temperture rise????????.
   Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.

   LOLOLOLOL. That's hilarious.....and very insane.
   
   2015 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2014, the previous record holder. 2016 will very likely be even hotter. Every year since 1998 has been hotter than every year before 1998. Just released analysis indicates that this last March was the hottest March on record, following the hottest February on record. With this new record hot March, the Earth's seven highest monthly temperature departures from average on record have all occurred in the past seven months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken, another new all time record in itself. March also marked the 375th consecutive month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average, going back to December 1984, over 30 years. It was also the most any month has been above average in the 135-year instrumental temperature record.
   
   Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies
   

   

Why do always feel like I need to light up a joint and put on a tin foil hat when you post?????



Prior to the year 2000, NASA showed US temperatures cooling since the 1930’s, and 1934 much warmer than 1998.



NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling

Whither U.S. Climate?
By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought.

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

NOAA and CRU also reported no warming in the US during the century prior to 1989.

February 04, 1989

Last week, scientists from the United States Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that a study of temperature readings for the contiguous 48 states over the last century showed there had been no significant change in average temperature over that period. Dr. (Phil) Jones said in a telephone interview today that his own results for the 48 states agreed with those findings.

New York Times

Right after the year 2000, NASA and NOAA dramatically altered US climate history, making the past much colder and the present much warmer. The animation below shows how NASA cooled 1934 and warmed 1998, to make 1998 the hottest year in US history instead of 1934. This alteration turned a long term cooling trend since 1930 into a warming trend.

Fig.D.gif (525×438)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL.......you POOR retarded nutjob!

We're talking about the human caused increase in temperatures over most of the Earth's surface, moron.

The USA covers only about 2% of the Earth's surface. Your bullshit is idiotically meaningless. As are you!

Still finding oil and gas

Offshore discovery could make Brazil major oil exporter


Massive Oil Discovery In Australia Is Deathblow For Saudis


Huge oil discovery in Golan Heights - Israeli media

Still finding it doesn't mean it's limitless.

I give up with you, you don't understand the human nature, the politics, the future technology or economics of it. Plus I forgot to mention we make oil out of food and could make a heck of a lot more out of the likes of hemp.For fuel and plastics (even though the plastics made out of it sucks today, but who knows what the future holds?)


.



.

I'm sure you do give up.

I asked you to PROVE something. You've given one article from the 1970s where they predicted oil would dry up by around now. This doesn't prove anything other than what people assumed back then.

You can't make your argument.

Human nature. I'm still baffled as to how you think human nature and amount of oil left on planet Earth are connected.

Yes, you can make oil out of other stuff. This is what we call changing the argument massively. We're talking about petroleum oil.

But you know what happened when they started using bio-fuel don't you? Food prices went through the roof.

(I'm going to show you how you back your argument up too)

Biofuel crops: food security must come first | Ben Phalan

"Since 2003, the UK and other EU countries have effectively poured billions of euros into biofuels, on the premise that they reduce emissions from transport. "

"At the same time, they damage biodiversity, hurt some of the world's poorest people bypushing up food prices, "

"Biofuel crops increase emissions through land clearance, fertiliser use, and by displacing other crops. When millions of hectares of land are switched from food to biofuel crops, food prices rise and food production is displaced, triggering a domino-like chain of events ending in cropland expansion elsewhere, including into the tropical forests of Southeast Asia and the savannas of South America and Africa. This is iLUC."

"Dr. Ben Phalan is a research associate in conservation science at the Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, and is the Zukerman junior research fellow in global food security at King's College."

Biofuels are driving food prices higher | Tim Rice

"Biofuels are driving food prices higher"

"This year began with record-breaking food prices that experts warn could lead to another fully fledged global food crisis. Rising food prices contributed to the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt and sparked riots in several other countries. A food crisis three years ago also brought impoverished people on to the streets when they couldn't afford to buy staple foods such as rice, wheat and corn. Not surprising when poor people spend up to 80% of their income on food."

"There are numerous causes to the recent price rises, but biofuels remain a significant piece of the puzzle. About 40% of US corn goes into biofuels."

BBC NEWS | Business | Biofuel demand makes food expensive

"Biofuel demand makes food expensive"

So, you see, it's not as simple as to say "we can just get oil from other places".

1. We dont currently need bio fuels. Between NG, and other fossil fuels, we have about 750 years in reserves (or more as technologies grow and make new RESERVES USABLE.

2. Coal has over 1,000 years in reserve. With clean coal technologies we have today there is no need for your expensive and unreliable solar and wind.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind. Your left wing nut bag president making things twice as expensive as they have to be is shear lunacy. Europe is running away from your lunacy as is china.

There are ways to be responsible for our atmosphere that do not require we shoot ourselves in the feet. CO2 is now shown a non issues in the planets warming and a very minor player in the planets temperature control...

But hey, your to stupid and invested in the lie to see that you have been lied to by your masters.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind


Exactly...that's what these doom and gloom folks don't get.


.

Plenty of time? How much is plenty of time exactly? Maybe something will go wrong and everything will be irreversible by the time you think we've had enough time.

 

[Theowl32]

Well, here are some more failed global warming predictions.

2007

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-...e-from-global-warming-related-causes-by-2012/

——————–

“Top NASA experts predicted an ice-free Arctic for 2012, and it has happened.”

Ice Free Arctic Update

and…

Gore’s “ice free Arctic” prediction from five years ago, falsified by nature itself

Nature proves Al Gore wrong again

——————–

No Global Warming For Almost Sixteen Years

No Global Warming For Almost Sixteen Years

——————–

Major change in UK Meteorology Office global warming forecast

Major change in UK Met Office global warming forecast

——————–

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This [2013-14] Winter Coming

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming

——————–

Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions

Top 5 failed 'snow free' and 'ice free' predictions | The Daily Caller

Let me know if you want more in order to get the reactions from the left who have no clue how to deal with their ineptitude.

We were right then, like we are right now.

Hey left wing global warming believers!!!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well, here are some more failed global warming predictions.

2007

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012

http://wattsupwiththat.com/climate-...e-from-global-warming-related-causes-by-2012/

——————–

“Top NASA experts predicted an ice-free Arctic for 2012, and it has happened.”

Ice Free Arctic Update

and…

Gore’s “ice free Arctic” prediction from five years ago, falsified by nature itself

Nature proves Al Gore wrong again

——————–

No Global Warming For Almost Sixteen Years

No Global Warming For Almost Sixteen Years

——————–

Major change in UK Meteorology Office global warming forecast

Major change in UK Met Office global warming forecast

——————–

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This [2013-14] Winter Coming

The Official Forecast of the U.S. Government Never Saw This Winter Coming

——————–

Top 5 failed ‘snow free’ and ‘ice free’ predictions

Top 5 failed 'snow free' and 'ice free' predictions | The Daily Caller

Let me know if you want more in order to get the reactions from the left who have no clue how to deal with their ineptitude.

We were right then, like we are right now.

Hey left wing global warming believers!!!

What do you think a prediction is?

 

[Stephanie]

I'm trying to see what your point is, but failing....

oh you get it. We might be warming some but it's NATURAL and Mother earth has been warming and cooling for millions of YEARS before Scientist were able to be BOUGHT off

 

[RollingThunder]

"Who sounds crazier?"

GOOD QUESTION!

Who does sound crazier? Those who accept reality and trust the scientific experts and the evidence obvious to everybody that confirms anthropogenic global warming and climate changes.....or those, like you, who deny reality for ideological reasons and reject the virtually unanimous testimony of the scientific experts on the climate who say that mankind's activities are warming the planet and rapidly changing previously stable climate patterns, while clinging to anti-science myths about supposed 'natural cycles' that they can't identify that are supposedly causing the observed warming.

 

[jc456]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

post up the link with evidence where it was proven discredited.

 

[jc456]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

since there is no evidence this is just mumbo jumbo presented to take up space on a message board. Feel free at any fking time to acually supply evidence to this junk and perhaps I'll reconsider my thoughts on the subject.

 

[jc456]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

er.... they probably do? What the fk is that? They got stuck in summer ice which in the act alone they were totally clueless. So again, you have zip to add to the discussion cause all you're doing is posting garbage.

 

[jc456]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

Lmao...



Btw....Where is the sea level rising retard?


What temperture rise????????.


Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.


.

Actually it's not 50/50 it will be hotter or colder next year. It's probably a 66% chance it will be hotter next year.

or 66% it will be colder. I have more evidence than you that mine is more accurate. Read AR5 and the pause. go for it.

 

[RollingThunder]

1. We dont currently need bio fuels. Between NG, and other fossil fuels, we have about 750 years in reserves (or more as technologies grow and make new RESERVES USABLE.

2. Coal has over 1,000 years in reserve. With clean coal technologies we have today there is no need for your expensive and unreliable solar and wind.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind. Your left wing nut bag president making things twice as expensive as they have to be is shear lunacy. Europe is running away from your lunacy as is china.

There are ways to be responsible for our atmosphere that do not require we shoot ourselves in the feet. CO2 is now shown a non issues in the planets warming and a very minor player in the planets temperature control...

But hey, your to stupid and invested in the lie to see that you have been lied to by your masters.

Total nutjob insanity, Boober. As usual for you.

Aside from your wacky delusions about CO2 and your crackpot rejection of the reality of CO2's inherent nature as a greenhouse gas, your delusions about fossil fuels are very laughable. The world is very close to legally requiring that all of the oil, coal and gas that are still underground, stay underground.

 

[jc456]

The irony of this poster is that the other side gets loads of funding from oil companies. Hmmmm forgot to mention that or you were using a biased cartoon?

As for getting stuck in ice, well, it's not our fault you don't understand how the world works.

obviously, neither do those scientists who got stuck, eh?

Er..... they probably do. However when you're in such places, you're always taking a risk.

People assume that the further the ice spreads, the more ice there is. Not true. It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted, then when it freezes again the wind is taking it out further and making the ice sheet larger, even though there is a lot less ice actually there.

It's been said that the ice cap in Antarctica has spread because the ice has melted,

what causes the melt when the temperature never goes above -20 degree F. Pray tell this should be good. I'll tell you why after you can explain your statement.

 

[jc456]

In relation to this whole deranged, bullshit filled denier cult thread....LOLOLOLOLOLOL.

In the real world...

Climate Science Predictions Prove Too Conservative
Checking 20 years worth of projections shows that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has consistently underestimated the pace and impacts of global warming
Scientific American
By Glenn Scherer
December 6, 2012
(excerpts)
Across two decades and thousands of pages of reports, the world's most authoritative voice on climate science has consistently understated the rate and intensity of climate change and the danger those impacts represent, say a growing number of studies on the topic. Climate experts warn that the IPCC's failure to adequately project the threats that rising global carbon emissions represent has serious consequences: The IPCC’s overly conservative reading of the science, they say, means governments and the public could be blindsided by the rapid onset of the flooding, extreme storms, drought, and other impacts associated with catastrophic global warming.

"We're underestimating the fact that climate change is rearing its head," said Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and a lead author of key sections of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports. "And we're underestimating the role of humans, and this means we're underestimating what it means for the future and what we should be planning for." A comparison of past IPCC predictions against 22 years of weather data and the latest climate science find that the IPCC has consistently underplayed the intensity of global warming in each of its four major reports released since 1990. The drastic decline of summer Arctic sea ice is one recent example: In the 2007 report, the IPCC concluded the Arctic would not lose its summer ice before 2070 at the earliest. But the ice pack has shrunk far faster than any scenario scientists felt policymakers should consider; now researchers say the region could see ice-free summers within 20 years. Sea-level rise is another. In its 2001 report, the IPCC predicted an annual sea-level rise of less than 2 millimeters per year. But from 1993 through 2006, the oceans actually rose 3.3 millimeters per year, more than 50 percent above that projection. Yet since that 2007 assessment, numerous observations and studies have shown that the speed and ferocity of climate change are outpacing IPCC projections on many fronts, including CO2 emissions, temperature rise, continental ice-sheet melt, Arctic sea ice decline, and sea level rise.

So proof positive another failed prediction according to your link

So....BearButt....if you can read what I just posted and draw that absurd conclusion, you are even more insane and retarded than I had assumed.

The rather conservative predictions produced by the IPCC on global warming, CO2 emissions increases, acceleration of ice melting and sea level rise, have not only been successfully met, they have been exceeded. That DOES NOT equal "another failed prediction", you pathetic moron.

Btw....Where is the sea level rising?

Almost everywhere, dumbass.

Sea levels rising at fastest rate in 2,800 years due to global warming, studies show
Higher temperatures as a result of industrialisation blamed for the acceleration, as scientists warn of potential for 131cm rise by year 2100
The Guardian
22 February 2016
(excerpts)

A young girl wades through the incoming sea water that flooded her house and village in Kiribati. (Photograph: Jonas Gratzer/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Sea levels are rising several times faster than they have in the past 2,800 years, with the process accelerating because of manmade global warming, according to new studies. An international team of scientists examined two dozen locations across the globe to chart rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world’s industrialisation, the fastest seas rose was about 3cm to 4cm a century. During that time global sea levels did not get much higher or lower than 7.6cm above or below the 2,000-year average. But in the 20th century the world’s seas rose 14cm. Two different studies published on Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences said that by 2100 the world’s oceans would rise between 28cm to 131cm, depending on how much heat-trapping gas Earth’s industries and vehicles expel.

Rutgers earth and planetary sciences professor Bob Kopp, lead author of the study, which looked back at sea levels over the past three millennia, said: “There’s no question that the 20th century is the fastest. It’s because of the temperature increase in the 20th century which has been driven by fossil fuel use.” Sea level rise in the 20th century was mostly manmade, the study authors said. A separate, not-yet-published study by Kopp and others found that since 1950 about two-thirds of the US coastal floods in 27 locales were linked to manmade warming. Study co-author Stefan Rahmstorf, of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, said that if seas continued to rise as projected, another 45cm would cause lots of problems and expense, especially with surges during storms. “There is such a tight relationship between sea level and temperature,” he said. “I wish there wasn’t, then we wouldn’t be as worried.”

What temperture rise????????.
Any idiot has a 50/50 chance Will be colder or hotter next year.

LOLOLOLOL. That's hilarious.....and very insane.

2015 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2014, the previous record holder. 2016 will very likely be even hotter. Every year since 1998 has been hotter than every year before 1998. Just released analysis indicates that this last March was the hottest March on record, following the hottest February on record. With this new record hot March, the Earth's seven highest monthly temperature departures from average on record have all occurred in the past seven months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken, another new all time record in itself. March also marked the 375th consecutive month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average, going back to December 1984, over 30 years. It was also the most any month has been above average in the 135-year instrumental temperature record.

Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

still don't know the difference between flooding and sea level rise I see. dude you should quit while you might have some dignity left. I doubt it, but give it a go.

 

[jc456]

Each one can be verified, if anyone wants to do it!

Science has known co2 warms the atmosphere for well over a century...People in the field of climate were mostly saying warming around the 1950's, 60's and 70's. A few scientist may of said that the cooling that was taking place in the 70's could lead to glaciation.

nope, science has not. If so, post up the test results from those experiments.

 

[RollingThunder]

What will you do Stephanie when oil costs $1,000/bbl?

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

they all think oil is from dead dinosaurs. I laugh at that. what a wives tail they believe. The earth's core makes it. It will always make it.

And JustCrazy and BearButt once again reveal just how completely crazy they really are by trying to push another deranged bit of discredited crackpot pseudo-science that they 'believe in' for purely political/ideological reasons, with no science involved.

Abiogenic petroleum origin - Wikipedia- is a term used to describe a number of different hypotheses which propose that petroleum and natural gas are formed by inorganic means rather than by the decomposition of organisms. The two principal abiogenic petroleum hypotheses, the deep gas hypothesis of Thomas Gold and the deep abiotic petroleum hypothesis, have been scientifically discredited and are obsolete.[1] Scientific opinion on the origin of oil and gas is that all natural oil and gas deposits on Earth are fossil fuels, and are therefore not abiogenic in origin.

post up the link with evidence where it was proven discredited.

The link is right there in the article, moron. Reference #[1]. Are you feeling all butthurt because your dimwitted myth about endless oil got debunked?

1. Glasby, Geoffrey P (2006). "Abiogenic origin of hydrocarbons: an historical overview" (PDF). Resource Geology 56 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1111/j.1751-3928.2006.tb00271.x. Retrieved 2008-01-29.

 

[westwall]

Each one can be verified, if anyone wants to do it!

Simple-minded bullshit for simple-minded cartoon-brained retards. Cherry-picking and distorting irrelevant quotes doesn't change the reality of what is happening on our planet right now one bit, you silly imbecile.

In the real world....as I have already pointed out...

2015 was the hottest year on record, surpassing 2014, the previous record holder. 2016 will very likely be even hotter. Every year since 1998 has been hotter than every year before 1998. Just released analysis indicates that this last March was the hottest March on record, following the hottest February on record. With this new record hot March, the Earth's seven highest monthly temperature departures from average on record have all occurred in the past seven months. March 2016 also marks the 11th consecutive month that a monthly global temperature record has been broken, another new all time record in itself. March also marked the 375th consecutive month with temperatures higher than the twentieth century average, going back to December 1984, over 30 years. It was also the most any month has been above average in the 135-year instrumental temperature record.

Global Average Surface Temperature Anomalies

How could 2015 be the "warmest year evah" at 58 degrees when 1998 was reported by NOAA to be 62 degress. Riddle us that batman.

 

[Wyatt earp]

1. We dont currently need bio fuels. Between NG, and other fossil fuels, we have about 750 years in reserves (or more as technologies grow and make new RESERVES USABLE.

2. Coal has over 1,000 years in reserve. With clean coal technologies we have today there is no need for your expensive and unreliable solar and wind.

we have plenty of time to get the technology right for solar and wind. Your left wing nut bag president making things twice as expensive as they have to be is shear lunacy. Europe is running away from your lunacy as is china.

There are ways to be responsible for our atmosphere that do not require we shoot ourselves in the feet. CO2 is now shown a non issues in the planets warming and a very minor player in the planets temperature control...

But hey, your to stupid and invested in the lie to see that you have been lied to by your masters.

Total nutjob insanity, Boober. As usual for you.

Aside from your wacky delusions about CO2 and your crackpot rejection of the reality of CO2's inherent nature as a greenhouse gas, your delusions about fossil fuels are very laughable. The world is very close to legally requiring that all of the oil, coal and gas that are still underground, stay underground.

The world is very close to legally requiring that all of the oil, coal and gas that are still underground, stay underground.


WTF?

Tell me more about this new crack pot fantasy of yours?

 

[jc456]

It will never happen, we will never run out ever of oil.

And this advertisement was brought to you by oil companies.

Nope I explained it economic illiterate.



.

Would help if you could have written that last sentence with grammar and stuff. I'm not sure if you're trying to claim I'm economically illiterate or if you explained it so economically illiterate people could understand, either way, you haven't made a case.

Oil companies spend a lot of money advertising so they can stay in business. Some people are just taken in by it.

Where's your evidence that oil will never run out?

So you would be riding a bike right now if the oil company's didn't spend a lot of money to promote fossil fuel ?
and don't say electric cars they were once more popular then gasoline cars in the late 1800s.

God Damn dude you would have to do better then that.


I posted the reason why we would never ever run out of oil, btw they have been predicting that just like climate change since I can remember in the early 70s

I walk to work. Takes me about half an hour. I don't own a car.

You're going to have to do better me thinks.

Where's your EVIDENCE oil won't run out?

Where's your EVIDENCE oil won't run out?
Funny you ask that question, my answer right now is there is no evidence it will run out.

Where is your evidence it will run out?