Find it here
Believers in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have some ‘splaining to do.
Year-over-year the Arctic sea ice extent increased by approximately 30%.
[...]
Lots of cool pictures and graphs at the link.
More leftie bullshit deconstructed with fact.
It’s not true. Can’t be. Nope. Just because you present these FACTS doesn’t mean we’re all not in dire, dire peril.
The nerve. Thinking that facts are going to change anything. Yeesh. Park your SUV, mister.
The future ain’t what it used to be.....
I’ve said it before I’ll say it again--
Gorebull warming, the greatest farce ever told.
But...um...er… facts shouldn’t interfere with my “feelings” should they ?.....Cause I jus feel “so” sorry for the baby penguins, baby seals, and lil’ baby polar bears...sniffle snifle...sigh…
And don’t even mention sea floor volcanic vents, ya big boogerheads!
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I can’t wait to see the leftist trolls come on here and tell you that it isn’t true and how dare you use science to debunk one of their religious beliefs.
Check out:
Goon’s North Dakota Red Neck
Goon’s World
I have been searching for the article at Xinhua about the Chinese Arctic expedition this summer. They had to hold in port because ice was to heavy along their projected route. In July. I’ll link it as soon as I locate it again, their archives are a nightmare.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
It’s an old forwarded… but I can’t help but post it.
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month (not including 8 bathrooms). In natural gas alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern ‘snow belt,’ either. He ‘pays’ back his usage though (woop-dee-doo). It’s in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this house incorporates every ‘green’ feature current home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional
heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned ‘environmentalist’ (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford , Texas . Also known as ‘the Texas White House,’ it is the private residence of the President of the United States , George W. Bush.
"Experience… that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn.” -CS Lewis
I think the cause is natural global cooling.
We need to institute a hunting season on Polar Bears to keep them from migrating down here as it cools.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Interesting Robert, I note you don’t post an image of the sea ice extent yourself. Are you hiding something?
Well, hopefully you see the colour scale on the left of each image. This indicates the percentage of sea that is covered by ice. We can see that there is more ice floes (red) - areas of sea ice with less than 100% coverage. Also rather worryingly, a large piece of contiguous (that has been intact for more than two years) ice seems to have calved from the main bulk. Compare these images with August 06 and the loss of sea ice (particularly contiguous) is even more marked.
There is a discrepancy between the years, but this is not surprising as the weather conditions have not been static during this time. Duh!
This graph shows how far off a 1979-2000 mean the sea ice extent is. We are fast approaching a similar status and if the areas of ice floe are anything to go by, this year could be worse.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
I am beginning to see a pattern. Ice sheet melts and breaks up, refreezes, melts and breaks up again, almost like a cyclical sort of thing.
I wonder how the Arctic Icesheet was behaving in the decade or so before each of the coldest periods of the Little Ice Ages. And consider. What modern science is regarding as “normal” were the conditions in the Northern Hemisphere and Arctic Ocean regions they could reach in the period from 1550 to present. Exactly what dictates that this is the norm?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Man: What part of this didn’t you understand?
Lots of cool pictures and graphs at the link.
How is that “hiding” anything? Is a feeble attempt at personal attack all you have?
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
I am beginning to see a pattern. Ice sheet melts and breaks up, refreezes, melts and breaks up again, almost like a cyclical sort of thing.Well, duh!
The loss of permafrost within the Arctic Circle, which has not been unfrozen for millenia, is a probably a good indication that the current melting is not the norm, although theWhat modern science is regarding as “normal” were the conditions in the Northern Hemisphere and Arctic Ocean regions they [sea ice] could reach in the period from 1550 to present. Exactly what dictates that this is the norm?
EOS, the Journal of the American Geophysical Union published a paper in 2002 in which it was stated:
...the Arctic cryosphere is still within the envelope of glacial-interglacial cycles that have characterized the past 800,000 years. However, although the Arctic is still not as warm as it was during the Eemian interglacial 125,000 years ago, the present rate of sea ice loss will likely push the system out of this natural envelope within a century… There is no paleoclimatic evidence for a seasonally ice free Arctic during the last 800 millennia.
Robert,
I don’t need to indulge in personal attacks when I have facts, truth and science on my side, rather than wild speculation.
The following graph shows sea ice extent by age in March 2007 and 2008. Note the extent of old ice.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Robert,
I don’t need to indulge in personal attacks when I have facts, truth and science on my side, rather than wild speculation.
Then, why did you accuse me of “hiding something”, when I clearly said the the pictures and graphs were in the article?
Nice dodge and self-promotion, but you are still wrong.
Why only go back to 1550? That’s the problem with your “analysis”.
Besides, talking about “norms” in the context of world climate is foolish, to say the least. The “norm” is change.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Flamer, the problem is, everything you are telling me is computer model conjecture. Computer models can not forecast regional weather in 120 day increments, and yet, you want me to go along with dragging the entire human race back to a pre-Industrial level of technology based on a computer generated fantasy. Not going to happen.
As little as 10-12 thousand years ago the temps, globally, were substantially higher than now, and you actually want people to throw away 3000 years of technological and agricultural advances because a computer tells you that a 10th of a degree shift is going to kill the planet. Really?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Then, why did you accuse me of “hiding something”, when I clearly said the the pictures and graphs were in the article?
Because it is not the most difficult of tasks to copy and paste images into posts oneself. Why not do that to illustrate your point? My suggestion is that you deliberately didn’t post it, because you knew that it would not stand up to scrutiny at all and would expose your lies and half-truths to be more rightist hyperbole.
If I was wrong, then I apologise for jumping to conclusions and/or causing offence.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
My suggestion is that you deliberately didn’t post it, because you knew that it would not stand up to scrutiny at all and would expose your lies and half-truths to be more rightist hyperbole. You mischaracterize my choice to lead the readers to the illustrations, rather than take up space unnecessarily. BTW, I’m not a “rightist”, I’m a conservative, and I don’t indulge in hyperbole; I excerpted an accurate article. Two more attempts at personal attack in lieu of factual argument.
If I was wrong, then I apologise for jumping to conclusions and/or causing offence. Why did you attack the messenger in the first place? Your apology doesn’t ring true; you intended to try to invalidate me personally, rather than deal with the facts in the article. Shame on you!
All those of good character should be offended at your tactic.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Again, Man; why only go back to 1550? I think that’s just being dishonest to get a predetermined result. Both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age should be included, don’t you think?
Even so, none of the computer models by you global warmingists are able to take data from the past and have it yield what is going on in the present, and so are demonstrably bunk.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
the problem is, everything you are telling me is computer model conjecture
That is a lie. I have given you computer records of sea ice extent, including sea ice extent by age. I have presented you with a peer-reviewed scientific paper which has evaluated historical records of sea ice extent and (lack of) evidence for contiguous interseasonal open water in the Arctic region.
You turn to ranting about the typical climate change deniers’ bugbears, despite the fact they have long ago been discredited as the bullshit that they truly are.
You can taste defeat, can’t you?
Computer models can not forecast regional weather in 120 day increments, Long range climate modelling is the fastest growing and most reliable form of computer simulation currently in useand yet, you want me to go along with dragging the entire human race back to a pre-Industrial level of technology I don’t, nor have I ever advocated this. Nor, I might add, do any climate scientists based on a computer generated fantasy. Not going to happen.Why does a drive for energy efficiency and cleaner, less polluting technologies scare you so much? Investment in developing and refining new technologies to meet this challenge will stimulate industrial development, not hinder it as you maintain. Whereas, continuing with a business as usual policy whilst sticking with (essentially unchanged) Twentieth century technologies is desirable why? Where’s the development in that scenario? I see only stagnation.
As little as 10-12 thousand years ago the temps, globally, were substantially higher than now,can you back this up? I’d like to see this evidence, because I have grave doubts as to it’s existence and you actually want people to throw away 3000 years of technological and agricultural advances because a computer tells you that a 10th of a degree shift is going to kill the planet. Really?Wow! You really are talking shit now. Again, I never said this, nor do any climate change campaigners. That is just crap that deniers come out with when they don’t have any more junk science to throw into the arena.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Man: Human-caused global warming is an unproven hypothesis, nothing more. It is entirely proper to question it, and to demand accurate proof and complete substantiation before any action is even considered on this hypothesis. In any case, big govt is not a solution to anything. You should know that much, if you know anything.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
I’m not a “rightist”, I’m a conservative,If a centrist (myself) can be described as a “leftie/leftist” then a conservative can certainly be described as a “rightie/rightist”. Sticks and stones, Robert. and I don’t indulge in hyperbole. This is a lie
I hadn’t mentioned 1550. It was 2H9 that brought it up - I have no idea from whence he plucked that date. There is no dishonesty if I haven’t mentioned it, is there? You resort to personal attack, yet for some reason, I anticipate you will claim innocence in this. I certainly wouldn’t anticipate an apology for your false accusation, but if you were to apologise, I wouldn’t throw it back in your face like a spoiled brat.Again, Man; why only go back to 1550?
I thought you had some understanding of economics? If you do, then you will have experience of probabilistic computer simulations and the way in which they can be effective.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
I just watched “Ice Road Truckers” last night on the history channel, looks like they were driving on the Arctic Ocean Ice pack this year, while there was plenty of daylight, recently, orders have gone up for ice breaker type ships for use in the Arctic too. Seems to me the people who live & work there would know more about the real world conditions than computer modelers in the temperate areas, but I’m strange that way.
"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”
A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years
Man: Human-caused global warming is an unproven hypothesis, nothing moreUnproven yes, but this is science and nothing is ever proven. There is however, overwhelming evidence in support of the hypothesis and overwhelming consensus amongst 99.99% of climate scientists. That’s okay though, the pundits on Fox say it’s bunkum, so it must be. It is entirely proper to question it, and to demand accurate proof and complete substantiation before any action is even considered on this hypothesisAre you totally insane. There was never completely accurate proof nor complete substantiation of the effects of PCBs and CFCs, just overwhelming evidence and overwhelming scientific consensus. . In any case, big govt is not a solution to anything. You should know that much, if you know anything. If all else fails, make the (feeble and non-existent) connection between climate scientists/ global warming and socialism/marxism.
No hyperbole here, guv’nor!
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
If a centrist (myself) You are no centrist; the US Constitution is a centrist document, and it warns against central govt control and supports individual independence. Your global warming hypothesis is a leftie notion. can be described as a “leftie/leftist” then a conservative can certainly be described as a “rightie/rightist”. Even if you really were a “centrist”, that doesn’t make me a “rightist”; your logic is flawed. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Sticks and stones, Robert. Childish. </b> and I don’t indulge in hyperbole. This is a lie Another personal attack in lieu of any facts. That seems to be your style, Man.</blockquote>
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
...but this is science and nothing is ever proven.
Pure bullshit; science is about proof, not the “consensus” of those who are profiting from the global warming scareology(Al Gore, tobacco, oil and carbon credit multimillionaire).
The only “weight of evidence” comes from the domination of the news media by leftist who wish to destroy the free enterprise system and its obvious superiority at generating prosperity.
All you have is propaganda.
If all else fails, make the (feeble and non-existent) connection between climate scientists/ global warming and socialism/marxism.
Nailed you, I see. You know that central control of energy is pure socialism, and socialism is sourced in the utopian ideology of Karl Marx. Even though I didn’t mention either one of them, you know damn well what the truth is; it’s your goal to control “the proletariat”, so that they have to do what you think is the right thing. You care nothing for individual independence, “Mr centrist”!
No matter how much you lie about it, science is not a popularity contest. Ask Galileo.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
:
hy·poth·e·sis Listen to the pronunciation of hypothesis
Pronunciation:
\hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural hy·poth·e·ses Listen to the pronunciation of hypotheses \-ˌsēz\
Etymology:
Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put — more at do
Date:
circa 16561 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statementsynonyms hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.
My apologies; “unproven hypothesis” was redundant. If there were enough proof to consider it possible to prove, it would be a theory, and if there were enough proof to establish it as true, it would be a law.
That’s science, btw. Global warming propaganda bears no resemblance to science. It’s pseudoscience, at best.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
MOFAL, have you confirmed the findings with those who actually live and work in the Arctic region? The last thing the anybody in the world needs is another do-gooder stifling anothers means of survival for said anothers own benefit. That’s always failed miserably, case in point look at the history of the United Nations.
"we should select our leaders on principle first, electability second.”
A young man whose wisdom far exceeds his years
Nice trip, Robert. You only have semantics to fall back on to, because you cannot discredit the evidence which supports the THEORY of climate change. Calling it propaganda does not make it so. Obviously you have no understanding of science, so you spin and spin, I’m surprised you are not dizzy, with all the rightist bullshit that spews from you.
You know that central control of energy is pure socialism I see, it’s either one thing or the other. I can’t possibly advocate private enterprise investing in energy efficiency and renewables, because I have accepted the science of climate change, so I must be involved in the plot to take over the world. Of course, there is the question of a few private companies controlling the principal supplies of energy. If, in a cleaner future, the principal sources of energy were renewables, who would control the supplies? The answer: no-one., and socialism is sourced in the utopian ideology of Karl Marx. Even though I didn’t mention either one of them,you’ve made enough mention of your suspicion of climate scientists and their (supposed) Machiavellian plot to establish a global socialist state through environmental legislation you know damn well what the truth is; it’s your goal to control “the proletariat”, so that they have to do what you think is the right thing. Is this really my goal? Good job I have you to tell me what I’m thinking and what my goals are. I don’t think that it is even possible to impel everyone to do what you want them to do in a democracy, such as the one you or I live in. The best way to persuade people to save energy without losing quality of life, is to show how their lives and finances would be better off if they effectuated change themselves. Not very socialist of me, eh?
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
MOFAL, have you confirmed the findings with those who actually live and work in the Arctic region?
Have you confirmed this or are relying on “Ice Truckers” as proof enough that there is more contiguous in the Arctic than last year? Because that is the point. It does not matter if there is more sea ice, what matters is the type of ice - thinner ice sheets melt faster.
Spartacus, I am relying on peer-reviewed scientific studies and satellite data. This clearly shows that sea ice is extent in March of this year was similar to that of 2007, but this year there was much more that was only one year old and less than 1 metre thick.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Nice trip, Robert. You only have semantics to fall back on to, because you cannot discredit the evidence which supports the THEORY of climate change.
In the first place, it’s an hypothesis, which has yet to attain the scientific status of a theory, so you’re being disingenuous here.
Real science consists of hearing all sides, up to the point where a scientific law is established, but you global warming propagandists are moving to suppress any and all dissent right now, even while it is still an hypothesis.
Not exactly scientific of you. In fact, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is still being debated, and there are those who think it will never be scientifically proven. Why then, do you globalwarmingists try so hard to stop any debate on your hypothesis? What are you afraid of?
you’ve made enough mention of your suspicion of climate scientists and their (supposed) Machiavellian plot to establish a global socialist state through environmental legislation
You made up the “Machiavellian” part; I never said that, so you lie. It’s just simple socialism; control the supply to control the market and thus, the population. Nothing new here; it’s been a part of every socialist “experiment” in the history of the world.
...I can’t possibly advocate private enterprise investing in energy efficiency and renewables…
More bullshit from you; I have said over and over again that superior products need no subsidies or mandates. There is no unsubsidized or non-mandated “investment"(spending) in any of the so-called “alternative energies”, because they are inferior products. Those who would invest in those schemes would go out of business, which is why you central control types fleece the taxpayers through subsidies and mandates. Central control is more important to you than economic viability, which is why you are socialists.
BTW, if investment doesn’t turn a profit, it’s spending.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
If your global warming stuff isn’t propaganda, why are you trying so hard to stifle any and all dissent? The most successful propaganda tactic is to make sure only one side of the story gets told; your side. Eventually, everyone forgets that there ever was another side, and can then be successfully manipulated.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
BTW, I notice you have yet to answer my question about the Medieval Warming Period(warmer than it is today), and why your “scientific studies” don’t include it.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
And now we get the"nothing is ever proven” meme. Sorry, all kinds of scientific hypothesis are proven every day. As you sit reading this, inhaling and exhaling, scientific hypothesis are being proven. Otherwise humans would not be able to make artificial lungs or hearts, dialysis machines, anything having to do with electricity, construction and engineering.
Too many things don’t mesh in this. Too many jagged edges.
Climate change is not an aberration. It is the climate, functioning as it has for millions of years(don’t tell Nman that, it will just start an whole ugly scene)and it will continue to do for millions more. And I am just not ready to commit the human race to a step backwards, A stagger back to low energy. Low agricultural output. Travel at the pace of a human stride. With the corresponding decrease in the speed of moving food.
No, not going there. Not over computer models.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Two: This anti-technology crap started at the time of the Industrial Revolution, when some just couldn’t accept the changes wrought by technology. There were two men who spoke for this type of thinking, Ned Ludd and Thomas Malthus, and their ideological descendants are now the enviro/global warming people. It’s an old message of fear.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
"Spartacus, I am relying on peer-reviewed scientific studies and satellite data. This clearly shows that sea ice is extent in March of this year was similar to that of 2007, but this year there was much more that was only one year old and less than 1 metre thick.”
And when it is 4 meters thick next March?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
If your global warming stuff isn’t propaganda, why are you trying so hard to stifle any and all dissent?
I do not try to stifle dissent, I merely try to get evidence for the dissenter’s case. If no evidence is forthcoming, then it can safely be assumed that the dissenter is talking out of his arse.
You consistently lie about my motives and the motives of climate scientists. There is no socialist plot, whether in plain sight or hidden from view, to control the population through it’s energy use. I repeat, an energy economy dominated by renewables would have no one entity, whether private or governmental in control of the energy source.
You are lying, righty!I have said over and over again that superior products need no subsidies or mandates. There is no unsubsidized or non-mandated “investment"(spending) in any of the so-called “alternative energies”, because they are inferior products. Those who would invest in those schemes would go out of business, which is why you central control types fleece the taxpayers through subsidies and mandates
Big businesses themselves have called for governmental legislation to force them to improve energy efficiency, because they know it would not be in their interests to do anything about it if they don’t have to. The desire for mandates is there, you just choose to ignore it.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
I do not try to stifle dissent, Personal attack is specifically designed to silence dissent, so yes, you have. I merely try to get evidence for the dissenter’s case. Only by your “rules” of evidence, which are self-serving, by definition. You are really objecting to the presentation of other views, and using that as an excuse. If the dissent is really not valid, it will fall on its own. If no evidence is forthcoming, then it can safely be assumed that the dissenter is talking out of his arse. Another no-content personal attack(and childish, to boot).
Yes, by your self-serving rules, anyone who disagrees with you is “talking out his arse”; very scientific. /sarcasm
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Flamer:
There is however, overwhelming evidence in support of the hypothesis and overwhelming consensus amongst 99.99% of climate scientists.
That’s a lie. Tell you what you name 9,999 climate scientists who buy into the man made global warming stuff and I’ll name two that don’t.
The only reason why you’d have to resort to such a fantastic exaggeration is you (or more likely whoever is feeding you these lies) has an agenda.
On the other hand the part about 99.99% of Socialists buying into global warming is very likely true.
Furthermore as Robert has said, make some predictions of conditions 5, 10, 15 years in the future. If you hit those predictions maybe we’ll believe you.
In fact we don’t have to wait, we can go back and check out the predictions these same climate quacks have predicted 5, 10 and even 20 years ago. What we’ll find out is that the Farmers Almanac is more reliable than what they are.
Furthermore if you haven’t realized it we have been in a warming period the last 10,000 years to so since the last ice age. Remarking that we are still warming from that (permafrost) is pretty effing stupid.
More so when it comes to sea ice, what was sea ice like during the medieval warm period or the Roman warm period? Inquiring minds want to know.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
As I pointed out to you just the other day, fossil fuel and nuclear technologies are heavily subsidised. (sic)
You mean heavily taxed. How much did the oil industry pay in taxes last year?
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
As I pointed out to you just the other day, fossil fuel and nuclear technologies are heavily subsidised.
You’re half right, and half wrong. So-called “fossil fuels” are not subsidized, heavily or otherwise, so you lie there.
Nukes are subsidized, to some extent, but they are also excessively regulated. I favor lifting both subsidies and restrictions, and letting the market decide.
The price of gasoline gives the lie to your claim that stored, concentrated solar energy(coal, gas and oil) are subsidized.
You are using the leftie lie about so-called “tax breaks” to promulgate that bit of propaganda.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Two small quibbles:
There is no unsubsidized or non-mandated “investment"(spending) in any of the so-called “alternative energies”, because they are inferior products.
Actually, there are a lot of private investors putting money into alternate energy companies. Now whether, in the long run, these companies can proliferate and profit without government subsidies and mandates is still a mystery.
and
And now we get the"nothing is ever proven” meme. Sorry, all kinds of scientific hypothesis are proven every day. As you sit reading this, inhaling and exhaling, scientific hypothesis are being proven. Otherwise humans would not be able to make artificial lungs or hearts, dialysis machines, anything having to do with electricity, construction and engineering.
Actually, in scientific research the term “proven” is not used. Anyone with a science background will tell you that nothing is proven; merely there is a body of evidence that suggests the theory/hypothesis is true. And using medicine is a bad example. I’ve read a lot of medical research articles and they always use tentative language.
I have not referenced any scientific studies in this thread that mentioned the medieval warm period, you ignorant fool.BTW, I notice you have yet to answer my question about the Medieval Warming Period (warmer than it is today), and why your “scientific studies” don’t include it.
If you wish to flog a long dead horse however, let me explain that there is no clear evidence of a single period of time during the Middle Ages when warmer temperatures existed throughout the world.
You are trying to trip me up with the same old questions. Don’t you have any new material?
This anti-technology crap started at the time of the Industrial Revolution, when some just couldn’t accept the changes wrought by technology. There were two men who spoke for this type of thinking, Ned Ludd and Thomas Malthus, and their ideological descendants are now the enviro/global warming people.
What makes you think that climate scientist are Luddites and Malthusians? If they are Malthusian, doesn’t that contradict their socialist ideologies? You keep regurgitating the same crap as evidence that climate change is not real, when it has repeatedly been shown to be a lie. I, on the other hand, keep presenting you with new and compelling data that supports the case for anthropogenic climate change.
Why does any response to climate change have to involve technological devolution? What is wrong with improving energy efficiency? Why would improving energy efficiency cause an economic malaise? There is no evidence to support that. Following the Arab oil embargo there was a massive drive for energy efficiency (including government mandates) and the result was a stronger economy without a huge increase in energy consumption.I am just not ready to commit the human race to a step backwards, A stagger back to low energy. Low agricultural output. Travel at the pace of a human stride. With the corresponding decrease in the speed of moving food.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
If you wish to flog a long dead horse however, let me explain that there is
no clear evidence of a single period of time during the Middle Ages when
warmer temperatures existed throughout the world.
Sure throw out the data that doesn’t support your version of the socialist movement.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
You have not satisfactorily answered the first set of questions"You are trying to trip me up with the same old questions. Don’t you have any new material?”, once you do we will move on to volcanic vents in the Arctic Ocean floor.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Ken, I build stuff. The only tentative language I use concerns finish dates and days off.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
I have not referenced any scientific studies in this thread that mentioned the medieval warm period, you ignorant fool. That’s why I asked the question, since you did mention 1550 as a starting point; I asked that question twice. Nice childish personal attack, btw. I guess you just don’t like your propaganda being refuted.
I regard you guys as NeoMalthusians and NeoLuddites, since we are in a different time, obviously. Malthus lived in a monarchy, which is just socialism with an hereditary monarchy, rather than a political one, so no.
Climate change is real, moron; it’s just not caused by humans or by human activity, and no amount of your self-serving propaganda will change that.
As I said before, your agenda is to control energy use, according to your standards, and to remove choice from free individuals, which is what socialism always does.
You justify it by manufacturing this phony scareology, then trying to suppress dissent on the matter, to give the impression that it’s “science”. Real science is about thorough and continuing debate, not the stifling of it to serve a sociopolitical agenda.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Actually, there are a lot of private investors putting money into alternate energy companies.
Only to take advantage of the subsidies and mandates. The TBoone/Pelosi scam is aiming at ten billion in CA and fed subsidies alone, and the mandates that will require that spending. That’s not investment, that’s graft.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Before you invest any money in a new technology you should have an idea how it will pay you back.
I don’t mind some research money in switch grasses that have the potential at least to produce a payback. (The energy potential is there, the manufacturing isn’t).
On the other hand corn based ethanol is pretty much making the problem worse by making us pay more for 1) our food 2) our taxes and 3)finally if we burn it in our cars as E 85(I use 10% which is fairly efficient).
As far as I’m concerned ethanol from corn subsidies are creating a new bubble in the agriculture industry.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Big businesses themselves have called for governmental legislation to force them to improve energy efficiency, because they know it would not be in their interests to do anything about it if they don’t have to. The desire for mandates is there, you just choose to ignore it.
More self-serving bullshit; big companies only do that because they are threatened by big govt with even more restrictive regulations if they don’t; the costs are always passed on to the taxpayers/consumers anyway. Regulation is the disease, not the cure.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
Toot,
Sure throw out the data that doesn’t support your version of the socialist movement.
Please present this evidence. I will read it and evaluate it as a scientist, which means objectively - not emotionally as you rightists seem to react to the notion of ACC.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
That is your opinion of people you obviously know nothing about. No climate scientist, nor any advocate for action on CC (apart from perhaps Lovelock and his ilk) is promoting the technological neutering of humanity. That is just rightist propaganda and you have been suck right in.I regard you guys as NeoMalthusians and NeoLuddites
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
That’s why I asked the question, since you did mention 1550 as a starting point; I asked that question twice.
You are obviously the fool. The only times the date 1550 was mentioned in one of my posts was when I was quoting 2Hotel9 and then following that when you mistakenly brought it up as something that I had introduced. I told you then that you were mistaken, yet your attempt to force an answer on this just shows how dishonest you truly are.
I have repeatedly asked you people to provide evidence that contradicts ACC. Evidence that would and/or has stood up to peer review. If it is convincing, I will be pleased that I have been shown the light and will happily campaign for the deniers.
big companies only do that [call for govt legislation] because they are threatened by big govt with even more restrictive regulations if they don’t
Canadian businesses call for action
All these companies feel so threatened by GWB’s position on ACC, that they felt the need to tell him he wasn’t doing enough:
Alcoa
American International Group, Inc. (AIG)
Boston Scientific Corporation
BP America Inc.
Caterpillar Inc.
Chrysler LLC
ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
FPL Group, Inc.
General Electric
General Motors Corp.
Johnson & Johnson
Marsh, Inc.
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
NRG Energy, Inc.
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
World Resources Institute
Xerox Corporation
When I suggest that people who cannot provide evidence to support their position are “talking out of their arse”, I am merely calling them liars, as would you if I tried to convince you on ACC by providing a load of unsubstantiated opinion, hyperbole and rightist rhetoric.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Toot, I concur. Biofuels from food crops was a disaster even before it got started. Biofuels from cellulosic waste, from Low Impact High Diversity grassland (prairie/ meadow), from algae are a much more viable option.
This just in:
New technology for biofuel production
which can convert grass, wood, straw, cardboard into biofuels
Why is using new technologies seen as a step backwards?
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
And you still insist that computer models are reason enough to drag the human race back down to a pre-Industrial level of technology. Your “movement” refuses to allow any increase in electric production, no nuclear generated, no gas generated, no hydro generated. You keep trotting out a bunch of sci-fi, fantasy crap and telling everyone they just have to do without(place energy source of choice here) and pay quadruple for the privilege.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
And why do you and your buddies refuse to stop using petroleum and electricity? Prove your point, stop using all these evil technologies. Then maybe someone will believe you. I doubt it, but maybe.
Oh, and you never did answer. Next March, when the Arctic ice is 4 meters thick, what is your song and dance going to be?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
And you still insist that computer models are reason enough to drag the human race back down to a pre-Industrial level of technology. Your “movement” refuses to allow any increase in electric production, no nuclear generated, no gas generated, no hydro generated. You keep trotting out a bunch of sci-fi, fantasy crap and telling everyone they just have to do without(place energy source of choice here) and pay quadruple for the privilege.
2H9,
There is probably no more feared and despised name among those on the Left than that of Rush Limbaugh, but once more El Rushbo proves himself correct.
What else but “enviro-Nazis” would you label those who demand blind obedience to their policy and no other, while studiously ignoring on behalf of us all the consequences of that which they advocate?
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Is this a prediction from you? I didn’t answer because the question was completely without merit.Oh, and you never did answer. Next March, when the Arctic ice is 4 meters thick, what is your song and dance going to be?
you still insist that computer models are reason enough to drag the human race back down to a pre-Industrial level of technology. Your “movement” refuses to allow any increase in electric production, no nuclear generated, no gas generated, no hydro generated. You keep trotting out a bunch of sci-fi, fantasy crap and telling everyone they just have to do without(place energy source of choice here) and pay quadruple for the privilege.
I have not advocated, nor do climate scientists advocate Luddism.
Repeating the same hyperbolic nonsense does not make it true.
First, it is understood that there is no easy way to wean ourselves of fossil fuels, but wean we must. This would not take the few months/ weeks that it takes to wean a child from breastmilk, but deacades. The trouble is, if we do not invest in the alternatives now, then we will have nothing to wean ourselves on to when we need to.
Second: My “movement” does not refuse anything. “We” are not policy makers, but concerned citizens.
Third: Why would we object to hydro?
Fourth: I give you peer-reviewed scientific papers which you dismiss as sci-fi or fantasy, whilst you provide unsubstantiated “truths” which in fact cannot stand up to rigorous investigation. Who is more believable?
And why do you and your buddies refuse to stop using petroleum and electricity? Prove your point, stop using all these evil technologies. Then maybe someone will believe you. I doubt it, but maybe.
More hyperbole. The argument is not to stop using all current technologies and sources of energy forthwith, but to invest in alternatives. There is no economical argument that could justify immediate cessation of industrial activity and therefore this is not on the agenda.
It is interesting that in the time I have posted to this site, the skeptics have gone from outright denial of CC to saying “We didn’t do it!” Your case falters at every turn, especially as you cannot prove it to be false.
Climate change science does not rely solely on computer models of future climate trends, but on simulations of recent history too (which when applied probabilistically are accurate), on evidence for rapid thaw and melt in polar regions (even during solar minimum), on evidence of acidification of the oceans, on evidence of biodiversity loss, the list goes on and on and there just isn’t the evidence to discredit or contradict all these things.
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
What else but “enviro-Nazis” would you label those who demand blind obedience to their policy and no other, while studiously ignoring on behalf of us all the consequences of that which they advocate?
You could be talking about yourself here. You studiously ignore the consequences of inaction, whilst demanding blind obedience (it is definitely blind obedience if you expect everyone to side with you based on NO EVIDENCE)
Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.
Mano,
Ordinarily, the onus is on those who advocate “change” to justify the policy preference they advocate and detail what they propose, inertia being the greatest force in the universe and all.
Still, if those of you on the Left are actually willing to accept the notion of consequences, and are willing to honestly discuss the demonstrable consequences of various policy options, that would be a very welcome change indeed. A little integrity on substantive policy issues from “youse guys” would be very well received… if you could manage that.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Where’s your 9,999 climate scientists that buy into this global warming scam?
These companies that you list figure they’ll be in a better competitive position with the government clearing the way for them.
They’ll pass along their costs to the consumers who will be the ones to suffer.
Luddites? You be they are. They think that there is some kind of static Earth balance and any change must because of man.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
You studiously ignore the consequences of inaction…
Mere speculation, with a definite political agenda: the theft of ever-increasing amounts of taxpayer money for an unproven solution to an imaginary “problem”. Continuing to do what humans have always done is hardly “blind obedience” to anything; it is the freedom to do what is best for each individual and family, along with freedom from govt coercion.
Nice reversal of truth.
"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.
