White House: Strong economy best way to combat Climate Change

[Wyatt earp]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.

It started to happen before we started to do that idiot.



.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.

I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.

Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.

It started to happen before we started to do that idiot.



.

Like hell. Link to a credible source that states that.

 

[Old Rocks]

If he had equivocated with that point, the remark MIGHT have been 3% less stupid. He did not. Fact is, the market is not designed to reduce carbon footprints, and reduce the size of the plastic island in the pacific.

Uh-huh and where do you figure the necessary resources & technology will come from to "reduce carbon footprints" if not from "the market"?

Government investment in technology. It's how we got to the moon, dipshit. .

LOL, Where do the resources for "government investment in technology" come from? Try not to swallow your tongue while you're thinking about the answer, K?

"It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance." --- Murray N. Rothbard

OK I think I see what your dumb ass is saying.

LOL, do you always get this angry when someone points out how flawed your idiotic arguments are? If so, you must spend your days in a constant state of agitation since I have yet to see you make an argument that isn't more full of holes than a ton of swiss cheese.

You agree that green technology is necessary to save the environment. In order to fund investment in green technologies, we need tax revenue.

Only government worshiping central planners think that "tax revenue" is a necessity for technology to advance, here's a hint : no amount of government "investment" will make any difference if the market isn't interested in consuming the fruits of said "investment", if consumers want "cleaner" technology private enterprise will provide it at a price consumers are willing to pay for it, if the market doesn't want it no amount of government "investment" and authoritarian posturing will make them want it.

On the bright side your childish tail wagging the dog arguments are amusing....

Goddamn, another totally dumb fuck with the meme that the government can do nothing right. What stupid asses you people are. I suppose that you think that the Corp of Discovery was a total waste of money as it came in ten times over budget, and way late.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.

I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.

Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.

No matter how much you kick and scream we are not going back to the 1100s running around half naked hunting buffalo....


BTW don't you have an AGW cult March to go to in Washington in a few weeks to beg for some more grant money?



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.

It started to happen before we started to do that idiot.



.

Like hell. Link to a credible source that states that.

The only link you think is credible is from your lying faggot supreme leader Michael Mann..


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.

It started to happen before we started to do that idiot.



.

Like hell. Link to a credible source that states that.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

Scientists will agree to anything that keeps their funding coming in.

A real Trumpster. All science is bad, all scientists are money grubbing assholes. Only Trump is pure as the driven snow and never lies or does anything that would damage the people of this nation. LOL

 

[Old Rocks]

There's nothing natural about the changes we've seen over the past half-century, and pretty much all climatologists agree on that, you fucking moron.

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.

It started to happen before we started to do that idiot.



.

Like hell. Link to a credible source that states that.

The only link you think is credible is from your lying faggot supreme leader Michael Mann..


.

Hey Cocksuck, here you go;

National Academies Synthesis Report

1) The authors of the report accurately report the considerable uncertainties that were acknowledged by seminal earlier studies. In particular, Mann et al 1999, which was entitled (emphasis added) “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, emphasized the uncertainties and caveats, particularly with regard to reconstructing large-scale surface temperature patterns prior to about AD 1600

The report makes due note of this (pg. 119 of the report):

The Mann et al. large-scale surface temperature reconstructions were the first to include explicit statistical error bars, which provide an indication of the confidence that can be placed in the results. In the Mann et al. work, the error bars were relatively small back to about A.D. 1600, but much larger for A.D. 1000–1600. The lower precision during earlier times is caused primarily by the limited availability of annually resolved paleoclimate data: That is, the farther back in time, the harder it is to find evidence that provides reliable annual information. For the period before about A.D. 900, annual data series are very few in number, and the non-annually resolved data used in reconstructions introduce additional uncertainties.

2) The authors accurately note that, despite those uncertainties, the key conclusions reached by those studies (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater, not lesser, after nearly an additional decade of research (pg. 109 of the report):

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

You can read and download the whole report right here for free. Real scientists doing real science, not willfully ignorant idiots spewing their ignorance for all the see.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do you have to post that idiocy before you realize that is what it is?

 

[Old Rocks]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.

I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.

Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.

No matter how much you kick and scream we are not going back to the 1100s running around half naked hunting buffalo....


BTW don't you have an AGW cult March to go to in Washington in a few weeks to beg for some more grant money?



.

You are the one trying to preserve old dirty damaging tech. Solar and wind are both less costly now than even dirty coal. And with the grid scale batteries that are being built as we post, they are 24/7. No, we are moving forward, encumbered by kicking, screaming ignoramouses like you.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I see another one slept in the 2nd grade when they were talking about Ice ages and stuff


.

Damn, another idiot willfully demonstrating their idiocy. You must have slept through the 2nd grade, and quit school after that. The Milankovic Cycles control the ice ages. And by those cycles, we should be slowly cooling as we had been for a thousand years until we started dumping GHGs into the atmosphere. Now, in spite of a cooling solar cycle, and being in the cooling period of the Milankovic Cycles, we are very rapidly warming.

It started to happen before we started to do that idiot.



.

Like hell. Link to a credible source that states that.

The only link you think is credible is from your lying faggot supreme leader Michael Mann..


.

Hey Cocksuck, here you go;

National Academies Synthesis Report

1) The authors of the report accurately report the considerable uncertainties that were acknowledged by seminal earlier studies. In particular, Mann et al 1999, which was entitled (emphasis added) “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations, emphasized the uncertainties and caveats, particularly with regard to reconstructing large-scale surface temperature patterns prior to about AD 1600

The report makes due note of this (pg. 119 of the report):

The Mann et al. large-scale surface temperature reconstructions were the first to include explicit statistical error bars, which provide an indication of the confidence that can be placed in the results. In the Mann et al. work, the error bars were relatively small back to about A.D. 1600, but much larger for A.D. 1000–1600. The lower precision during earlier times is caused primarily by the limited availability of annually resolved paleoclimate data: That is, the farther back in time, the harder it is to find evidence that provides reliable annual information. For the period before about A.D. 900, annual data series are very few in number, and the non-annually resolved data used in reconstructions introduce additional uncertainties.

2) The authors accurately note that, despite those uncertainties, the key conclusions reached by those studies (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater, not lesser, after nearly an additional decade of research (pg. 109 of the report):

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

You can read and download the whole report right here for free. Real scientists doing real science, not willfully ignorant idiots spewing their ignorance for all the see.

Zzzzzzzzzz tired of that egotistical junk science lying moron.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do we need to tell you to pull your head out of your ass?

In the real world.....

The world can be powered by alternative energy, using today's technology, in 20-40 years, says Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson
A new study – co-authored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson and UC-Davis researcher Mark A. Delucchi – analyzing what is needed to convert the world's energy supplies to clean and sustainable sources says that it can be done with today's technology at costs roughly comparable to conventional energy. But converting will be a massive undertaking on the scale of the moon landings. What is needed most is the societal and political will to make it happen.
University of Stanford News Report
BY LOUIS BERGERON
January 26, 2011
If someone told you there was a way you could save 2.5 million to 3 million lives a year and simultaneously halt global warming, reduce air and water pollution and develop secure, reliable energy sources – nearly all with existing technology and at costs comparable with what we spend on energy today – why wouldn't you do it?

According to a new study coauthored by Stanford researcher Mark Z. Jacobson, we could accomplish all that by converting the world to clean, renewable energy sources and forgoing fossil fuels.

"Based on our findings, there are no technological or economic barriers to converting the entire world to clean, renewable energy sources," said Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering. "It is a question of whether we have the societal and political will."
***

RENEWABLE ENERGY MYTHS
6 MYTHS ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY,
BLOWN AWAY
MYTH 1
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS TOO EXPENSIVE
In recent years the costs of wind and solar energy have declined substantially. Today renewable technologies are the most economical solution for new capacity in a growing number of countries and regions, and are typically the most economic solution for new grid-connected capacity where good resources are available.

• Citigroup: The age of renewable energy is beginning. Increasingly cost competitive with coal, gas and nuclear in the US. Source

• HSBC: Wind energy is now cost competitive with new-build coal capacity in India. Solar to reach parity around 2016-18. Source

• Deutsche Bank: solar now competitive without subsidies in at least 19 markets globally. In 2014 prices to decline further. Source

• Unsubsidised renewable energy is now cheaper than electricity from new coal and gas fired power plants in Australia. Source

But it doesn't stop there. There are no input costs for wind and solar energy. So for example, while one needs to buy coal for a coal-fired power plant to generate electricity (and coal mining itself has massive environmental costs), solar and wind energy don’t have input costs like that – sunlight and wind are free. As a result, they replace more expensive production in the electricity market, loweringwholesale electricity prices. This is good for consumers but – unsurprisingly – upsets the producers of dirty energy.

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF COAL AND NUCLEAR
Market price aside, coal and nuclear power have huge hidden costs that aren’t included in the price that you and I pay for electricity.

We’re talking about the costs of water pollution, health impacts, the plant’s huge water footprint, and climate change.

For instance, in the United States, accounting for these hidden costs, conservatively doubles to triplesthe price of electricity from coal per kWh generated. In South Africa, the Energy utility Eskom is currently building a coal-fired power plant, and it’s estimated that the plant will cause damage of up to 5.7 bln US$ for every year it operates.

These massive costs aren't taken into account when the price of coal power is calculated -- but they are still very real!

All that would require cooperation and support of many governments putting aside existing priorities, which is not going to happen. Further it would require active support of businesses around the globe. That of course is not going to happen either. In 20 to 40 years, most of the largest businesses will have different ownership. Their CEO's will have been long gone. Their shareholders will have retired or just made their killing in the market. Most national leaders will be in their grave.

I think the scientist are right. Global climate change is happening and it will accelerate. I do not agree that the nations of this earth will be able make the necessary changes in time to prevent massive loss of life and planet wide devastation. So in effect, I believe we will fiddle as Rome burns. The few descendants that remain in a few hundred years will curse us and wonder how we could have been such fools.

Sadly, you are correct. The willfully ignorant asses on this board are prime examples of why this will run it's course. Sadly, those most adversely affected will be the people that benefited the least from the use of fossil fuels.

No matter how much you kick and scream we are not going back to the 1100s running around half naked hunting buffalo....


BTW don't you have an AGW cult March to go to in Washington in a few weeks to beg for some more grant money?



.

You are the one trying to preserve old dirty damaging tech. Solar and wind are both less costly now than even dirty coal. And with the grid scale batteries that are being built as we post, they are 24/7. No, we are moving forward, encumbered by kicking, screaming ignoramouses like you.

Take away the damn subsidies and no one could afford it, Jesus who are you trying to fool?

 

[yiostheoy]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

You need to start your monologue with an analysis of what climate change is.

Just because you don't like the new rhetoric out of The White House does not make your own rhetoric a winner.

You need to justify it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

You could not be more wrong. We should be, by the natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, slowly cooling, not in a very rapid warming. So, you claim that this is part of a natural cycle? How about pointing out what that cycle is? And what is driving it?

And what? The only way the Milankovic cycles work if you believe the entire earth was cooling between 1940 thru 1970 not just the northern hemisphere which was observed.
So what was it did they change the numbers or was the earth really cooling then?


.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

It always amazes me that denier cult retards like this one are so stupid they can believe that the existence of "natural cycles" that influence the Earth's climate absolutely precludes the possible existence of un-natural factors, created by the activities of seven and a half billion humans, that also can affect the climate.

It's like believing that because forest fires were started naturally by lightning and volcanoes for hundreds of millions of years, no forest fires in our time have ever been started by humans.

Deniers are insane!

In the real world, the un-natural 46% increase in atmospheric levels of a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2, that is a result of human activities and that has happened mostly in the last half century or so, is the scientifically confirmed cause of the abrupt, rapid, and accelerating global warming and consequent changes that the world is experiencing.

How many trillions do we need to spend on windmills to prevent any future change in the climate?

How many times do you have to post that idiocy before you realize that is what it is?

How much money do we have to waste on "green energy" that doesn't have a measureable impact on climate, until you realize your idiocy?

 

[SSDD]

There is literally nothing dumber than that statement.

I agree. You can't combat climate change, as it is a natural cycle of the planet.

You could not be more wrong. We should be, by the natural cycles, the Milankovic Cycles, slowly cooling, not in a very rapid warming. So, you claim that this is part of a natural cycle? How about pointing out what that cycle is? And what is driving it?

So now you believe we know all of the long term natural cycles, and know the precise timetable upon which they operate...and in addition, we know all of the shorter term cycles and how they effect the longer term cycles?...in short, you believe that we know exactly how energy moves through the system and how each various sub system effects the larger system?

You sound like a cultist who professes to know the unknowable...

And the only place the temperature is rapidly warming is in computer models and tortured data sets...

 

[SSDD]

Climate change for those that would be actually informed. Big dummies like Bear need not read it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Another link to your big book of cultist dogma?...I have asked a few dozen times before and you have run away with your tail tucked every time...so I will ask again...can you point to anything in that steaming pile that could be called actual observed, measured, quantified data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Here is a cycle that is predictable...you will not bring anything forward from your big book of dogma, because there is nothing there that even you would call actual evidence...that link is the discussion board equivalent of squid ink...

 

[SSDD]

Mine has scientific support.

Really? I challenge you to provide one single shred of observed, measured, quantified, data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....just one. I have been asking for decades and to date, no warmer has ever been able to provide any such data and what scraps they have provided only proved that they had been fooled by people who set out to fool them.

So lets see just one scrap of actual evidence supporting your belief...if all of science is settled on your side, surely they should be able to provide you a single shred of actual evidence supporting the claim...and when you find that you can't answer my challenge of one shred of actual evidence, you should ask yourself how it came to be that the science is claimed to be settled when there is no actual evidence in support of it. Or that's what you would ask yourself if you were a thinking person...not many warmers are thinking people though...they are lemmings.....programmed to believe and follow...programmed to OBEY.

 

[SSDD]

But go ahead and ban be right before you reply to another of my posts, you prick.

Silencing the other side is a liberal characteristic...it is what your side does when they can't win the argument on its own merits....modern liberalism has a long history of doing exactly that.