Why we should listen to the 97%

[PredFan]

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%.

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked.
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!

Nice recital of the gospel according to FOX.

I agree that you are 97 percent of the problems with this country and offer 0 percent of the solutions that we need.

That’s why democracy is sending you packing.

We have seen enough of your crap.

Every thing that you touch turns to crap. Most recently the House of Representatives. Before that, the Whitehouse.

Hey dumbass, you are talking out of your ass. We haven't done any of that stuff idiot. I wouldn't expect a low-information stooge like you to get the sarcasm in my post anyway. Why don't you go play in the street?

 

[PredFan]

There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure. It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.

What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.

No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans, what the electorate sees is pure incompetence. The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.

This country didn't start failing until the Democrats took over Congress in 2006 nit wit. The democrat party has been taking us down the tubes ever since.

 

[PredFan]

There is no better example of Dunning-Kruger than the GOP being unable to even recognize the extent of their decades of failure. It's like like their strategy to destroy the country is to make their role in government incompetent.

What they are being taught of course is that they might ignore their failures but the American electorate doesn't.

No matter how hard Fox and Rush and The Donald campaign for Republicans, what the electorate sees is pure incompetence. The worst President in our history followed by a House majority that has accomplished absolutely nothing for years.

This is off-topic, but...

If you want government to run well, it might not be a good idea to vote for someone who thinks government itself is a bad thing and should be eliminated. They have announced in advance they will do as bad a job as they can manage.

The worst thing in the world that can happen is a government that runs well.

 

[Abraham3]

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%.

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked.
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!

I bet you couldn't find 3% of Americans that would agree with all that. I'd say you've damn near given grounds for your own deportation, except I can't think of a nation that'd take you. Maybe some Somali warlord.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you get back on any actual global warming points? This post obviously belongs on a politics page. And I was enjoying our chat. I'll go look.

 

[PredFan]

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%.

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked.
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!

I bet you couldn't find 3% of Americans that would agree with all that. I'd say you've damn near given grounds for your own deportation, except I can't think of a nation that'd take you. Maybe some Somali warlord.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you get back on any actual global warming points? This post obviously belongs on a politics page. And I was enjoying our chat. I'll go look.

So you think I'm part of the 3%? I note how the liberals here don't have the mental capacity to understand sarcasm.

 

[Abraham3]

Why should we listen to the 97%?

Because I'm part of the 97%.

Now, listen to me:

Socialism can never work and has never worked.
Welfare and food stamps should ONLY be temporary and anyone who get's pregnant and gives birth while on welfare or food stamps should be prosecuted for child abuse.
Guns are legal and a guaranteed right to all Americans.
Every voter should be required to pass a test before allowed to vote.
All corporate welfare should be abolished.
The FairTax should be the law of the land.
Civil Unions should have all of the rights and privilages of marriages.
All illegal aliens should be deported. Children of these aliens born here can stay upon evaluation on an individual case by case basis.
Drugs should be legal.
The Department of Education should be abolished.
Obama should be impeached.
Nancy Pelosi should be jailed.
We should close all of our embasies in the Middle East, arm Israel to the teeth and tell them to call us when they are done.
Pull out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and any Asscrackistan, and mercilessly blow up any Al-Queda training camps we identify, to hell with asking permission.
We should begin fracking immediately, and build the pipeline that obama killed.
We should build several hundred more nuclear power plants in this country.
We should pull out of the UN and sent them packing.
Of course, we should abolish obamacare.

I am the 97% LISTEN TO ME!

I bet you couldn't find 3% of Americans that would agree with all that. I'd say you've damn near given grounds for your own deportation, except I can't think of a nation that'd take you. Maybe some Somali warlord.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you get back on any actual global warming points? This post obviously belongs on a politics page. And I was enjoying our chat. I'll go look.

So you think I'm part of the 3%? I note how the liberals here don't have the mental capacity to understand sarcasm.

I saw no sarcasm. I still see no sarcasm. I bet you don't do well with jokes either.

Now what does any of this have to do with Professor Dresser's analysis showing that the proper choice under the current circumstances is moving to restrict carbon emissions?

 

[Snookie]

"Pretty sure" but not totally sure?

What did government ever contribute to society? Do you think pyramids were beneficial for all the serfs who built them?

Now, this is the new record.

You didn't answer the question. How did the grunts who built the pyramids benefit from them? How did the ziggurates? How did they benefit from palaces? How did they benefit from taxation?

They created jobs, jobs, jobs.

 

[PMZ]

I bet you couldn't find 3% of Americans that would agree with all that. I'd say you've damn near given grounds for your own deportation, except I can't think of a nation that'd take you. Maybe some Somali warlord.

Perhaps I missed it, but did you get back on any actual global warming points? This post obviously belongs on a politics page. And I was enjoying our chat. I'll go look.

So you think I'm part of the 3%? I note how the liberals here don't have the mental capacity to understand sarcasm.

I saw no sarcasm. I still see no sarcasm. I bet you don't do well with jokes either.

Now what does any of this have to do with Professor Dresser's analysis showing that the proper choice under the current circumstances is moving to restrict carbon emissions?

The right is simply imploding in on themselves. They don't even pretend to have the interest of the country at heart anymore.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

They don't care how. They don't care why. The don't care about the consequences. They don't feel that they owe anyone an explanation or rational.

They believe that the cult is entitled.

I suppose all of the old European autocracies did too. That they were born for privilege. They were owed power and allegiance.

The French people disagreed. The American people disagreed. Abe Lincoln disagreed.

To America's credit we don't have to disagree violently.

Just vote them completely and permanently out of DC.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you think I'm part of the 3%? I note how the liberals here don't have the mental capacity to understand sarcasm.

I saw no sarcasm. I still see no sarcasm. I bet you don't do well with jokes either.

Now what does any of this have to do with Professor Dresser's analysis showing that the proper choice under the current circumstances is moving to restrict carbon emissions?

The right is simply imploding in on themselves. They don't even pretend to have the interest of the country at heart anymore.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

They don't care how. They don't care why. The don't care about the consequences. They don't feel that they owe anyone an explanation or rational.

They believe that the cult is entitled.

I suppose all of the old European autocracies did too. That they were born for privilege. They were owed power and allegiance.

The French people disagreed. The American people disagreed. Abe Lincoln disagreed.

To America's credit we don't have to disagree violently.

Just vote them completely and permanently out of DC.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

 

[PMZ]

I saw no sarcasm. I still see no sarcasm. I bet you don't do well with jokes either.

Now what does any of this have to do with Professor Dresser's analysis showing that the proper choice under the current circumstances is moving to restrict carbon emissions?

The right is simply imploding in on themselves. They don't even pretend to have the interest of the country at heart anymore.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

They don't care how. They don't care why. The don't care about the consequences. They don't feel that they owe anyone an explanation or rational.

They believe that the cult is entitled.

I suppose all of the old European autocracies did too. That they were born for privilege. They were owed power and allegiance.

The French people disagreed. The American people disagreed. Abe Lincoln disagreed.

To America's credit we don't have to disagree violently.

Just vote them completely and permanently out of DC.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, then natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The right is simply imploding in on themselves. They don't even pretend to have the interest of the country at heart anymore.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

They don't care how. They don't care why. The don't care about the consequences. They don't feel that they owe anyone an explanation or rational.

They believe that the cult is entitled.

I suppose all of the old European autocracies did too. That they were born for privilege. They were owed power and allegiance.

The French people disagreed. The American people disagreed. Abe Lincoln disagreed.

To America's credit we don't have to disagree violently.

Just vote them completely and permanently out of DC.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, than natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

And you want us to spend $70 trillion, not knowing, or caring, the reduction in CO2 that will buy.

That's just nuts.

 

[PMZ]

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, than natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

And you want us to spend $70 trillion, not knowing, or caring, the reduction in CO2 that will buy.

That's just nuts.

The $70T figure is yours. What's it include?

What's your plan?????

 

[FA_Q2]

The right is simply imploding in on themselves. They don't even pretend to have the interest of the country at heart anymore.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

They don't care how. They don't care why. The don't care about the consequences. They don't feel that they owe anyone an explanation or rational.

They believe that the cult is entitled.

I suppose all of the old European autocracies did too. That they were born for privilege. They were owed power and allegiance.

The French people disagreed. The American people disagreed. Abe Lincoln disagreed.

To America's credit we don't have to disagree violently.

Just vote them completely and permanently out of DC.

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, then natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

Every single plan that the warmers have put up solves nothing of the bolded portions you mention. The most stark of your dire problems lies in the very thing that you pointed out – the increase in demand (and use) of fossil fuels from upcoming economies. Such entities are going to make the US look small.

The sad part is that a simple point was brought up eons ago in this very thread – the FACT that all the ‘solutions’ that your side wants to throw at us do not change the total carbon output on this planet by more than one or two percent.

At the end of the day, even following the ‘advice’ of the warmers we end up in the EXACT same place as we were going to anyway.

The ONLY solution is to technologically find something that truly solves the problem. Wind and solar are not going to do so and are but a tiny sliver of an actual solution. TINY.

 

[PMZ]

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, then natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

Every single plan that the warmers have put up solves nothing of the bolded portions you mention. The most stark of your dire problems lies in the very thing that you pointed out – the increase in demand (and use) of fossil fuels from upcoming economies. Such entities are going to make the US look small.

The sad part is that a simple point was brought up eons ago in this very thread – the FACT that all the ‘solutions’ that your side wants to throw at us do not change the total carbon output on this planet by more than one or two percent.

At the end of the day, even following the ‘advice’ of the warmers we end up in the EXACT same place as we were going to anyway.

The ONLY solution is to technologically find something that truly solves the problem. Wind and solar are not going to do so and are but a tiny sliver of an actual solution. TINY.

So what's your plan? Sounds like you have a single solution that solves all.

 

[PMZ]

They have one goal. To impose on everyone else what have been told is best for them.

Yes! They want to impose $70 trillion in costs to reduce CO2 by a tiny amount.

Oh, wait, that's you guys.

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, then natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

Every single plan that the warmers have put up solves nothing of the bolded portions you mention. The most stark of your dire problems lies in the very thing that you pointed out – the increase in demand (and use) Uof fossil fuels from upcoming economies. Such entities are going to make the US look small.

The sad part is that a simple point was brought up eons ago in this very thread – the FACT that all the ‘solutions’ that your side wants to throw at us do not change the total carbon output on this planet by more than one or two percent.

At the end of the day, even following the ‘advice’ of the warmers we end up in the EXACT same place as we were going to anyway.

The ONLY solution is to technologically find something that truly solves the problem. Wind and solar are not going to do so and are but a tiny sliver of an actual solution. TINY.

There are two choices left open to us. A) Put all of the carbon that's been sequestered underground in recoverable fossil fuels back in the atmosphere from wence it came. B) Or put less than that.

It's a pretty easy guess that the cost of adapting civilization to the already inevitable new climate would be less for B) than A). What the IPCC is working on now is to develop the science that will put some cost figures on those alternatives.

There never has been any doubt of the need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy. Some question of how long it will take mankind to develop and implement the replacement system. It's possible that we're all ready out of time. It's possible, not.

If there is some float, then the next question is, if we achieve the replacement before all of the carbon now sequestered is in the atmosphere, what would that save us in costs for adapting to a new climate?

It will take much more science and engineering than now available to answer those questions. All obstacles in the way of the IPCC doing that need to be removed. The faster we have answers the more choice we'll have when we get them.

 

[westwall]

Ahhh yes, your favorite lie.

There is no way to reduce the current CO2 load that we've already dumped into the atmosphere. Some day, nobody knows when, the consequences of our past behavior will be known to us. When the earth has reachieved stability at today's atmospheric GHG concentration. Of course, by then, we will have dumped millions of tons more of CO2, so the consequences will continue to get worse until we've stopped dumping, and the earth has raised it's temperature enough to create enough OLR to rebalance with incoming solar radiation.

Science has proven with certainty that the more fossil fuel waste that we dump, the more different our future climate will be. We have seen convincing evidence already of three of the consequences. Increased extreme weather. Redistribution of annual rainfall. Rising sea levels. All already upon us. All will continue to worsen as we dump more and until the earth reachieves energy balance.

Common sense dictates that all of the fossil fuels left in the ground are the highest cost to recover, lowest quality most expensive to refine left overs.

Data shows us the the demand for those dregs is increasing every day as the huge populations of developing countries demand the economic benefits that we have traditionally enjoyed.

Common sense dictates that all fossil fuels will run out. Oil first, then natural gas, then coal.

Then what? What is your plan? You seem to know what nobody else does, that the solution to all that will cost $70T. What is the solution that costs that much? What are less expensive alternatives? How do you know?

Pretend that you're a liberal and will take responsibility.

What is your plan?

Every single plan that the warmers have put up solves nothing of the bolded portions you mention. The most stark of your dire problems lies in the very thing that you pointed out – the increase in demand (and use) Uof fossil fuels from upcoming economies. Such entities are going to make the US look small.

The sad part is that a simple point was brought up eons ago in this very thread – the FACT that all the ‘solutions’ that your side wants to throw at us do not change the total carbon output on this planet by more than one or two percent.

At the end of the day, even following the ‘advice’ of the warmers we end up in the EXACT same place as we were going to anyway.

The ONLY solution is to technologically find something that truly solves the problem. Wind and solar are not going to do so and are but a tiny sliver of an actual solution. TINY.

There are two choices left open to us. A) Put all of the carbon that's been sequestered underground in recoverable fossil fuels back in the atmosphere from wence it came. B) Or put less than that.

It's a pretty easy guess that the cost of adapting civilization to the already inevitable new climate would be less for B) than A). What the IPCC is working on now is to develop the science that will put some cost figures on those alternatives.

There never has been any doubt of the need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy. Some question of how long it will take mankind to develop and implement the replacement system. It's possible that we're all ready out of time. It's possible, not.

If there is some float, then the next question is, if we achieve the replacement before all of the carbon now sequestered is in the atmosphere, what would that save us in costs for adapting to a new climate?

It will take much more science and engineering than now available to answer those questions. All obstacles in the way of the IPCC doing that need to be removed. The faster we have answers the more choice we'll have when we get them.

Let's opt for plan "C" wherein we actually determine through actual experimentation whether the AGW claims are merited. Then, if they are, we do a survey to determine if a warmer world might actually be more beneficial anyway. No one has looked at that yet. Why not?

 

[PMZ]

Every single plan that the warmers have put up solves nothing of the bolded portions you mention. The most stark of your dire problems lies in the very thing that you pointed out – the increase in demand (and use) Uof fossil fuels from upcoming economies. Such entities are going to make the US look small.

The sad part is that a simple point was brought up eons ago in this very thread – the FACT that all the ‘solutions’ that your side wants to throw at us do not change the total carbon output on this planet by more than one or two percent.

At the end of the day, even following the ‘advice’ of the warmers we end up in the EXACT same place as we were going to anyway.

The ONLY solution is to technologically find something that truly solves the problem. Wind and solar are not going to do so and are but a tiny sliver of an actual solution. TINY.

There are two choices left open to us. A) Put all of the carbon that's been sequestered underground in recoverable fossil fuels back in the atmosphere from wence it came. B) Or put less than that.

It's a pretty easy guess that the cost of adapting civilization to the already inevitable new climate would be less for B) than A). What the IPCC is working on now is to develop the science that will put some cost figures on those alternatives.

There never has been any doubt of the need to replace fossil fuels with sustainable energy. Some question of how long it will take mankind to develop and implement the replacement system. It's possible that we're all ready out of time. It's possible, not.

If there is some float, then the next question is, if we achieve the replacement before all of the carbon now sequestered is in the atmosphere, what would that save us in costs for adapting to a new climate?

It will take much more science and engineering than now available to answer those questions. All obstacles in the way of the IPCC doing that need to be removed. The faster we have answers the more choice we'll have when we get them.

Let's opt for plan "C" wherein we actually determine through actual experimentation whether the AGW claims are merited. Then, if they are, we do a survey to determine if a warmer world might actually be more beneficial anyway. No one has looked at that yet. Why not?

We've done that with the IPCC. If you want to do it also, feel free. Gather up the climate scientists available to you, give them the mission, money, and resources and let them go.

Think of how cool it will be if they find something that adds to what the IPCC has found.

We're not waiting though. Hopefully you can catch up.

 

[Abraham3]

WestWall,

Have you not read AR4? Why do you seem so unfamiliar with its contents?

 

[bripat9643]

You are funny. You are confident in controlled fusion which has never been achieved in a useful way but uncertain about wind and solar that are being built everyday all over the world.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy. Given the evidence we have so far, they never will.

We have 200 years to perfect fusion power. I think our scientists are up to the task.

To whom do you think that your scientific or engineering opinions matter?

They obviously matter to you. Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time trying to slap them down.

 

[PMZ]

Wind and Solar power have never demonstrated the ability to power an industrial economy. Given the evidence we have so far, they never will.

We have 200 years to perfect fusion power. I think our scientists are up to the task.

To whom do you think that your scientific or engineering opinions matter?

They obviously matter to you. Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time trying to slap them down.

I don't think that things that are wrong should be foisted on the public.