Why is climate science political?

[code1211]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

Save money by spending money on things that will have no impact on anything?

Economics 1-0-none.

 

[code1211]

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

Oh you mean loans that have a defualt rate 10 times less then private loans and of which have aloready created 4 dollars in benifits for evcery dollar spent
perhaps if you didnt chery pick and act like a retard you wouldnt be one

Do you have a link to support anything that you just posted?

 

[code1211]

Prove it. Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream. You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit. Now we get to see how little you understand economics. This should be funny as hell.

There are a number of ways that national governments, cities, institutions and private households can and already are saving money by reacting to climate change, but let's start with one from an institution, and then perhaps move on to governments.

King's College in London began refurbishment of its campus buildings some years ago, with the aims of reducing its carbon footprint and cutting costs. After anylising everything from lighting to HVAC to windows, they initiated a series of measures.

In the first year of the project, they cut emissions by 3,000t, and made savings estimated at £4.4 million. The HVAC installation paid for itself within 12 months.

I hope you found this entertaining.

Link?

 

[westwall]

Prove it. Energy costs determine costs of products up and down the produce stream. You show me how you can double energy costs and people will benefit. Now we get to see how little you understand economics. This should be funny as hell.

There are a number of ways that national governments, cities, institutions and private households can and already are saving money by reacting to climate change, but let's start with one from an institution, and then perhaps move on to governments.

King's College in London began refurbishment of its campus buildings some years ago, with the aims of reducing its carbon footprint and cutting costs. After anylising everything from lighting to HVAC to windows, they initiated a series of measures.

In the first year of the project, they cut emissions by 3,000t, and made savings estimated at £4.4 million. The HVAC installation paid for itself within 12 months.

I hope you found this entertaining.

How about a link to the claim there Tex. It takes YEARS for projects like that to pay for themselves. In fact most of the technology will be obsolete by the time it pays for itself. GM just spent 3 million dollars on solar cells for one of its factories. It will take around a hundred years for it to pay for itself. The problem is the solar array will wear out and be reduced to scrap in around 25 years.

Do you see that problem or are you a form over substance person?





GM Receives $3 Million Solar Investment for Volt Plant

 

[saveliberty]

I like how it took years to refurbish the building, but the payback happened in 12 months...

 

[westwall]

And here is an example of how a country can save money.

A private company in New Zealand has been testing tidal power turbines in Cook Strait, NZ.

Based on the performance of the pilot program, 200 turbines could produce enough power to supply New Zealand's total electricity demand by 150%. (This is an optimal figure, which I stress is essentially theoretical)

The turbines produce virtually 0 emmissions, are invisible, and produce electricity more cheaply than the coal plants they will replace. They have less environmental impact than hydro, and require very little maintenance.

Of course I understand that you will laugh at this, but for the companies creating jobs and export dollars, and for the private citizens who get to see the coal plants closed, I doubt they will agree with you.

Here is some info on the pilot:

The turbine Neptune intends installing at a cost of $10 million 4.5km off Wellington’s Island Bay will have a maximum generation capacity of 1MW – enough for about 500 homes.

That is a fraction of the 12GW of power – 1.5 times New Zealand’s present generation capacity – Bathurst calculates could be extracted from Cook Strait at a cost of billions.

It is intended that the turbines will be made in New Zealand. The 14m-diameter machines are made of carbon fibre so yacht builders are potential manufacturing partners.

The turbine’s carbon fibre construction should give it three times the generation capacity per tonne of a conventional wind turbine, Bathurst said.

cryptogon.com » New Zealand: Cook Strait Tidal Energy Project Getting Underway

Nowhere do these people claim that the energy is cheaper then from fossil fuel sources. Also tidal energy (which I hope will be developed BTW) is useful in very small areas of the globe.

 

[westwall]

Actually, no the rate of decline now is around double that of 1950 - and yes, I can back that up.

Check Arendt's work on the Alaska glaciers for this- here: Assessing the influence of Alaska glaciers is slippery work

This is an overview, but the study is available oneline (you may have to register)

Wrong again Tojo. Here are a couple of images showing the rate of loss prior to 1850. It was SIGNIFICANTLY greater than today. Also I posted a link to the USGS and they have historical images showing the rate of loss. Finally here is a map showing the terminus of the Glacier Bay glaciers beginning in 1760-80 (when they were first noted by Europeans). As you can see the melt prior to 1950 was profound.

You're as accurate here as your statement that there are no glaciers on Mt. Kilimanjaro. In other words abject failure. Do you know anything?

Westwall -

This is really, really poor posting from you.

Do you understand the difference between looking at a single example, and looking at a vast number of glaciers?

If so - then stop presenting single examples, and start to look at the material presented.


PS. I stand corrected about Kilimanjaro's glaciers. I didn't know that it had any - it certainly didn't look to when I flew over it!

Please note I posted examples from both the northern and southern hemispheres. You post papers based on computer models. These are actual observations made on the ground. I think they are a bit stronger than computer models. Your "data" is based on cherry picked data at best.

 

[westwall]

We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.

I agree.

Already on this thread we have seen people complain that climate change is based on cherry-picked data - and then use 2 out of 130,000 glaciers to back up their claims.

We've seen people claim that there is no climate change because storms killed more people a century ago than they do today - and then ignore data showing there are more serious storms today.

We've even seen people claim glaciers melted faster a century ago - despite a dozen scientific reports proving the exact opposite.

Although the sceptics like to point out sloppy science - they don't seem averse to it themselves.

If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels? Pot meet kettle. I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time. You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before. So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?

Pot meet kettle AGAIN. You jackasses claim to be all about the data but you IGNORE the historical record. And you claim to care about accuracy? What a load of horse shit.

 

[saveliberty]

We don't re-green because the fascists will do anything they can, to stop this or sensible evolution, of any public agenda.

I agree.

Already on this thread we have seen people complain that climate change is based on cherry-picked data - and then use 2 out of 130,000 glaciers to back up their claims.

We've seen people claim that there is no climate change because storms killed more people a century ago than they do today - and then ignore data showing there are more serious storms today.

We've even seen people claim glaciers melted faster a century ago - despite a dozen scientific reports proving the exact opposite.

Although the sceptics like to point out sloppy science - they don't seem averse to it themselves.

The two most studied glaciers, but don't let that stop you faithers.

The most serious metric should be deaths and you admit that is down. As for damage, I presume you mean dollars of damage. Of course you conveniently ignore inflation, development and the fact we have had some really light years as far as storms go mixed in there. Typical of the faithers to ignore all data that doesn't fit their religion.

 

[skookerasbil]

Back in the winter of 2000, I had to supervise a client who had a nervous brekdown........he was put on 10 North at the local University Hospital. In other words, the psych ward.

Never forget speaking to a man a few times. Long brown hair and shaggy beard. Kept talking about the Federal Bureau of Incompetence ( FBI ) and told me he was Jesus..........several times.


Reading this thread reminds me of that week..............the guy was in a whole world all his own...............like a handful on this thread.

 

[code1211]

Bob & Fitz -

No, green energy isn't cost-effective. It is hamstrung, by fuck-tards.

Then please look at the model of tidal energy provided earlier and explaim how it is not cost effective.

Again - one single project can provide enough electricity for 4 million people.

It is entirely invisible.

It requires an initial investment of less than a hydro dam or nuclear power station.

Most of the parts required can be produce locally.

What are the parts made of and how well will they sustain in Salt Water?

 

[code1211]

Problem is, malthusian ecofascists don't want ANY of these three safe, proven and effective power sources made. One floods too much land, the other might meltdown, and the last can never be 'clean enough'.

So we're left with jokes, science projects and the continuously failed ideas of kooks and weirdos to be the backbone of society.

I don't agree with that at all.

I support nuclear myself, because other forms of energy (hydro, wind, solar, tidal) simply aren't viable here in Finland, and we get -25C in winter.

But it has to be said - the case against nuclear is fairly strong. Disposal of the waste is an issue which has never been solved, and may not be in our lifetime. I totally respect those who oppose it.

Hydro likewise is a sensible option in many countries, but it is environmentally devastating. Again, I understand the case against it.

Any group insisting on any form of energy can seem a bit fascist, and there are environmental fascists, but it is easy to assume from them that green energy is not viable, whereas in many cases it is safe, clean and practical. It just isn't always effective, depending on local conditions.

Or on applications. Jets don't fly that well on Solar power.

 

[bobgnote]

If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels? Pot meet kettle. I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time. You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before. So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?

Pot meet kettle AGAIN. You jackasses claim to be all about the data but you IGNORE the historical record. And you claim to care about accuracy? What a load of horse shit.

Idiotwall, AGW is happening:

Global Climate Change

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Modern Day Climate Change

Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans -- Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way | ThinkProgress

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

It's getting hotter, while you get stupider. People are responsible, if I show you the 80% of warming-related emissions stat, in there somewhere, but since you aren't very observant, let me remind you, whether humans are the primary cause of warming or simply riding desertification and acidification to hell is not a paramount concern.

What we do to re-green is the paramount concern! Or we face death. That's right. DEATH. Mass extinction event 6! Your stupid denial tricks won't save you.

The last 30 or 40 years are the relevant years because that is the 'hockey stick' your fuck-tard friends are referring to, the upswing, an acceleration, in warming and all related phenomena! Including acidification! Hooking and cross-checking and puckey won't save you or anyone else who is as stupid as you are, you backsliding horse's ass!

 

[code1211]

If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels? Pot meet kettle. I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time. You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before. So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?

Pot meet kettle AGAIN. You jackasses claim to be all about the data but you IGNORE the historical record. And you claim to care about accuracy? What a load of horse shit.

Idiotwall, AGW is happening:

Global Climate Change

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Modern Day Climate Change

Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans -- Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way | ThinkProgress

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

It's getting hotter, while you get stupider. People are responsible, if I show you the 80% of warming-related emissions stat, in there somewhere, but since you aren't very observant, let me remind you, whether humans are the primary cause of warming or simply riding desertification and acidification to hell is not a paramount concern.

What we do to re-green is the paramount concern! Or we face death. That's right. DEATH. Mass extinction event 6! Your stupid denial tricks won't save you.

The last 30 or 40 years are the relevant years because that is the 'hockey stick' your fuck-tard friends are referring to, the upswing, an acceleration, in warming and all related phenomena! Including acidification! Hooking and cross-checking and puckey won't save you or anyone else who is as stupid as you are, you backsliding horse's ass!

Desertification is not a recent phenomenon. The Sahara was not always a desert. It became one before Moses was born.

Was that also caused by driving on freeways?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd - everyone knows that glaciers go through complex cycles or growth and retreat. In normal circumstances, some glaciers are growing while others retreat, and others do neither.

What you seem to have somehow missed is that this complex cycle seem to slow to a halt in 1950, and from then on we have seen 97% of glaciers retreating.

(Check the U. Fairbanks study conducted by Anthony Arendt on this - here is an overview: Assessing the influence of Alaska glaciers is slippery work

Todd - everyone knows that glaciers go through complex cycles or growth and retreat.

Apparently the idiot I'm mocking doesn't know that. Give the moron a hand, would you?

Why not address the point?

You mean the point that glaciers have retreated before?
Sure. What would you like to know.

 

[skookerasbil]

If AGW is happening why are the temps level even in the face of ever rising CO2 levels? Pot meet kettle. I use two glaciers on opposite sides of the world because they are the best documented through time. You asshats use data from the last 30 years and ignore all that came before. So what percentage of the last 3 million years is the last 30 years?

Pot meet kettle AGAIN. You jackasses claim to be all about the data but you IGNORE the historical record. And you claim to care about accuracy? What a load of horse shit.

Idiotwall, AGW is happening:

Global Climate Change

Global Warming: Man or Myth - Modern Day Climate Change

Hottest Decade on Record Would Have Been Even Hotter But for Deep Oceans -- Accelerated Warming May Be On Its Way | ThinkProgress

Basic Information | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

It's getting hotter, while you get stupider. People are responsible, if I show you the 80% of warming-related emissions stat, in there somewhere, but since you aren't very observant, let me remind you, whether humans are the primary cause of warming or simply riding desertification and acidification to hell is not a paramount concern.

What we do to re-green is the paramount concern! Or we face death. That's right. DEATH. Mass extinction event 6! Your stupid denial tricks won't save you.

The last 30 or 40 years are the relevant years because that is the 'hockey stick' your fuck-tard friends are referring to, the upswing, an acceleration, in warming and all related phenomena! Including acidification! Hooking and cross-checking and puckey won't save you or anyone else who is as stupid as you are, you backsliding horse's ass!

Hate to break it to you s0n, the the backsliding horses asses are wINniNg!!!! Your side...........is not.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

Todd -

It is of no concern to me whether you are up to speed on this issue or not. If you'd prefer to be out of the loop - go with that.

Why did you ask me the question if you weren't prepared to listen to the answer?

Please, get me up to speed on the billions that the Solyndra loans saved the US. Thanks!

 

[bobgnote]

Desertification is not a recent phenomenon. The Sahara was not always a desert. It became one before Moses was born.

Was that also caused by driving on freeways?

The Sahara means, the 'deserts,' plural. It is partly former seabed, part former forest.

You are so stupid, over so many posts, don't reach for the funny, you aren't Eddie Griffin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps at the point you are prepared to discuss the matter sensibly.

I say again - countries, cities, business and households in a lot of western countries will save money (and in some cases already are).

You're not obliged to understand how.

Yes, those loans to Solyndra no doubt saved America billions, maybe trillions.

You don't need to explain how.

Oh you mean loans that have a defualt rate 10 times less then private loans and of which have aloready created 4 dollars in benifits for evcery dollar spent
perhaps if you didnt chery pick and act like a retard you wouldnt be one

Solyndra has a default rate "10 times less then private loans"?
What does "10 times less" mean? Besides showing you don't know math either.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

I don't think it is a question of money. In some cases, I suspect some countries will save money in the long run.

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD


How does somebody like this navigate in the real world?? I read some of these posts and there is such a level of disconnect as not to be believed. Pure fantasy stuff.


s0n..........you gotta take a course in how to read tea leaves. Your shit is not at all grounded. Green energy is moving at a snails pace for one reason: its not cost effective by any measure. Any measure. All over the world, any of this "real science" isnt mattering because countries have budgets and people are sick and tired of getting the shit taxed out of them to support this 18th century technology designed to "save the world".


As Thomas Sowell brilliantly identifies in this vid.........far left guys are never concerned with answering two key questions no matter what you re debating:

1) As compared to what?

and

2) At what cost?


Thats why they compromise a small % of us..........most people have the inate ability to recognize that having to answer those two questions is critical.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88]The Difference Between Liberal and Conservative - YouTube[/ame]



Go to 3:40



How do I know with 100% certainty that Im correct and dopes like Saigon are wrong? If Saigon was grounded, Cap and Trade would have been a chip shot field goal in America. Its dead.......as dead as a doornail. Trust me.........people dont give a rats ass about "glacial retreat".

When you combine their scientific ignorance with their economic ignorance, some of these clowns become quite comical. I'm just glad that people have started tuning out their blather.