Environmental Stuff & Fluff

Flanders

ARCHCONSERVATIVE
Sep 23, 2010
7,628
748
205
The scam is off and running and talking heads are part of it.

“As is almost always the case with government officials and journalists, they were lying.​

Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves
Posted By Bob Unruh On 01/03/2017 @ 4:39 pm

Report on Arctic sea ice unleashes shock waves

Television is making a big deal out of Senate Democrat threats to stall 8 of Donald Trim’s nominees. Seven of those nominees are a smokescreen so Democrats can hide the only nominee they are after. Scott Pruitt is the only nominee whose confirmation is in jeopardy. All of the noise the press is making reeks of a deal. Democrats and their media stooges will go easy on the other seven nominees if Trump withdraws Pruitt.

VIDEO ▼

Will Democrats block Donald Trump's nominees?

Question: How do I know there is a deal on the table? Answer: There is only one thing that separates Scott Pruitt from the others. Pruitt is the only nominee that can directly take money away from environmental parasites.

The amount of money Pruitt can shortstop is in the tens of billions that goes to parasites EVERY YEAR in an inverted parasite pyramid scheme.


th
https://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.M86da7317afe34514aa920ebaa7b27815o0&pid=Api&w=228&h=181

Money is the important stuff that goes to the wealthy parasites in alternative energy subsidies, to Wall Street, to the education industry and so on. Designer-science is the fluff that everything else stands on.
 
Granny says, "Whada ya mean 'stuff' n' fluff'

... one o' these days alla volcanoes gonna erupt...

... an' melt alla glaciers an' sea ice...

... an' it gonna flood the world...

... an' den there's gonna be a big ol' earthquake...

... an' den we all gonna slide inna ocean...

... an' den we all gonna drown."
 
Really?
Clean water is fluff? You do know that you drink it or other things that are made out of it..Lets see your dumb ass enjoy the water quality of mexico.

Clean air is fluff? You do breath it right?? You don't want to get cancer, right? Lets watch our air quality turn into the quality in China.

Protecting our national treasures is fluff? You don't seem to think future generations deserve to see such. How greedy.

Protecting wild life and animals from extinction is just fluff you scream! Well, you won't realize how retarded your position is until you can't eat as the entire fucking food chain has died out. It's kind of an irony that you're a man of god but wish to destroy his entire creation.

Conservatives are short sighted fools.
 
Really?
Clean water is fluff? You do know that you drink it or other things that are made out of it..Lets see your dumb ass enjoy the water quality of mexico.

Clean air is fluff? You do breath it right?? You don't want to get cancer, right? Lets watch our air quality turn into the quality in China.

Protecting our national treasures is fluff? You don't seem to think future generations deserve to see such. How greedy.

Protecting wild life and animals from extinction is just fluff you scream! Well, you won't realize how retarded your position is until you can't eat as the entire fucking food chain has died out. It's kind of an irony that you're a man of god but wish to destroy his entire creation.

Conservatives are short sighted fools.


s0n.....you're an OCD mental case. Do some research.......fixable with SSRO medications. If the environment was 99.999% pure, you'd still have anxiety. That's a problem. The fact that you cannot comprehend that a vast, vast majority do not concur with you............that's a problem. Its no different than the guy who decides one morning to strip down naked and walk down the middle of main street shaking a banana at people warning of the apocalypse. Its all in the DSM IV-R

Check it out s0n........Im in the field for 30 years. SSRO drugs are miracle relief for folks like you..........takes 4-5 weeks for blood levels to reach therapeutic dose levels. Being obsessed with stoopid stuff is no way to live :up:
 
Science is open ended that is at the heart of why many find it difficult. That further study often conflicts with initial assumptions is the practice and the why of the scientific method. It works - how many today think smoking is good for you. I'm sure you had your polio vaccine. Look only at drugs and the complications they often cause when applied to a larger base of subjects. I don't buy the premise of that opinion piece, data can be reliable even when challenged by special interests. Anyone drink water from polluted streams or love industrial smog? Big money has made America a kind of cesspool of conflicting information, given enough money you could find a so called scientist who proves the earth is flat, but that proves nothing. Agnotology has infected the mind of many and they doubt anything that conflicts with their narrative be it religious or commercial. And please don't tell me the earth revolves around the sun. ;)

'Pew Research Center reports that only 6 percent of scientists identified as Republican and only 9 percent identified as conservatives.'

'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway
'Agnotology, The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance' Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance | Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger
'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' Carl Sagan
'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds' by Charles MacKay

"This anti-vaxx movement has things that I love: star power, science denial, and hipster appeal. Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar mustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella." Stephen Colbert
 
Science is open ended that is at the heart of why many find it difficult. That further study often conflicts with initial assumptions is the practice and the why of the scientific method. It works - how many today think smoking is good for you. I'm sure you had your polio vaccine. Look only at drugs and the complications they often cause when applied to a larger base of subjects. I don't buy the premise of that opinion piece, data can be reliable even when challenged by special interests. Anyone drink water from polluted streams or love industrial smog? Big money has made America a kind of cesspool of conflicting information, given enough money you could find a so called scientist who proves the earth is flat, but that proves nothing. Agnotology has infected the mind of many and they doubt anything that conflicts with their narrative be it religious or commercial. And please don't tell me the earth revolves around the sun. ;)

'Pew Research Center reports that only 6 percent of scientists identified as Republican and only 9 percent identified as conservatives.'

'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway
'Agnotology, The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance' Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance | Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger
'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' Carl Sagan
'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds' by Charles MacKay

"This anti-vaxx movement has things that I love: star power, science denial, and hipster appeal. Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar mustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella." Stephen Colbert



lol.....s0n.......the Republicans hate science campaign failed as spectacularly as the "denier" campaign. Nobody cares.........and the climate change industry is about to take a massive kick to the nutsack.

The progressives fell all over themselves the last 10 years with these ghey campaigns that never worked. Interest in global warming has never been at this level of laughable!!:deal::deal:
 
Clean water is fluff? You do know that you drink it or other things that are made out of it..Lets see your dumb ass enjoy the water quality of mexico.
To Matthew: In those very few locations where clean drinking water is polluted (as well as most of the areas EPA parasites usurped) should be addressed by prosecutions in traditional criminal courts where the accused get a chance to defend themselves.
Clean air is fluff? You do breath it right?? You don't want to get cancer, right? Lets watch our air quality turn into the quality in China.
To Matthew: If clean air is your concern read this thread AGAIN:

Instead of giving billions to sharpshooters, put tax dollars into scrubber technology if it is about clean air. After all, the EPA was created to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Scott Pruitt Is Pissing Into The Wind
Protecting our national treasures is fluff? You don't seem to think future generations deserve to see such. How greedy.
To Matthew: Exactly what in hell does the EPA have to do with national treasures? Or should I say what in hell does the EPA have to do with land grabs like the latest one?
Protecting wild life and animals from extinction is just fluff you scream! Well, you won't realize how retarded your position is until you can't eat as the entire fucking food chain has died out. It's kind of an irony that you're a man of god but wish to destroy his entire creation.
To Matthew: Species disappear all of the time. Regardless of endangered spices crapola none of it gives the EPA the authority to dictate the use of private property in order to save anything. On the plus side, Scott Pruitt inherits the authority to hit World Wildlife parasites where they live —— in their pocketbooks.

Conservatives are short sighted fools.
To Matthew: You are either a fool or a parasite feeding on environmental tax dollars. It must be the parasite answer because you have to have a vested interest to spout the shit you advocate. Nobody can be dumb enough to believe the things you claim to believe

Parenthetically, not once did I ever hear a talking head tie the word parasites to any of people who profited mightly from the numerous global warming scams, yet it is the parasite philosophy environmental hustlers will defend to the death. On the other hand you can be certain you will hear the word “science” throughout Pruitt’s confirmation hearing.

p.s. I dream about Scott Pruitt referring to designer-science and pseudo-science.
 
The best way to have clean air is to shut down operations that pollute the air. The biggest being coal fired generation plants. Replace them with wind and solar, using grid scale batteries to make those sources 24/7.

However, it is not environmental regulations that are shutting down the coal plants. It is the fact that natural gas, wind, and solar are more economical choices. And will continue to be. Coal is dead, period. And that is a good thing.
 
The German government snowed their people years ago saying renewable energy was far cheaper and more environment friendly than coal. Wind power made huge strides in Germany.......until the folks started to get their electric bills.

To check out what wind power really costs, these articles must be read..............

Solar and Wind Power More Expensive Than Thought -- The Motley Fool

The Real Cost Of Wind Power


Renewable energy advocates always leave out many of the hidden costs...........capacity utilization, transmission costs and overvaluing how long the systems can operate efficiently before needing to be replaced.

Hugely expensive. :coffee::coffee:
 
Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels
Record clean energy investment outpaces gas and coal 2 to 1.
by
Tom Randall
April 6, 2016, 2:00 AM PDT
Wind and solar have grown seemingly unstoppable.

While two years of crashing prices for oil, natural gas, and coal triggered dramatic downsizing in those industries, renewables have been thriving. Clean energy investment broke new records in 2015 and is now seeing twice as much global funding as fossil fuels.

One reason is that renewable energy is becoming ever cheaper to produce. Recent solar and wind auctions in Mexico and Morocco ended with winning bids from companies that promised to produce electricity at the cheapest rate, from any source, anywhere in the world, said Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).

"We're in a low-cost-of-oil environment for the foreseeable future," Liebreich said during his keynote address at the BNEF Summit in New York on Tuesday. "Did that stop renewable energy investment? Not at all."

Here's what's shaping power markets, in six charts from BNEF:

Renewables are beating fossil fuels 2 to 1
360x-1.png


Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

360x-1.jpg


World Energy Hits a Turning Point: Solar That's Cheaper Than Wind

Coal, RIP
 
Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do?
By Mike O’Boyle

For years, debates about how to reduce carbon emissions from electricity generation were framed as trade-offs: What is the cost premium we must pay for generating zero-carbon electricity compared to fossil fuels, and how can we minimize those costs?

Fortunately, the holidays came early this year for renewable energy in investment company Lazard’s annual report on the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) for different electricity-generating technologies — renewables are now the cheapest available sources of electricity. This flips the question of clean versus cost on its head, and in 2017, we’ll be asking how much can we save by accelerating the renewable energy transition?

The story from Lazard’s 10th annual report is clear. Rapid technology cost reductions mean wind and solar are now the cheapest form of generation in many places around the country, without counting federal subsidies like tax credits.

What is levelized cost of energy?
Lazard uses the LCOE analysis to identify how much each unit of electricity (measured in megawatt-hours, or MWh) costs to generate over the lifetime of any power plant. LCOE represents every cost component — capital expenditure to build, operations & maintenance, and fuel costs to run — spread out over the total megawatt-hours generated during the power plant’s lifetime.

Because different plants have different operating characteristics and cost components, LCOE allows us to fairly compare different technologies. Think of it as finally being able to evenly compare apples to oranges.

How wind and solar are winning the day
According to Lazard, wind costs have fallen 66 percent since 2009, from $140/MWh to $47/MWh.


1*PdbtiGQgxLTzrXLV2VWb-g.png


Large-scale solar’s cost declines have been even more dramatic, falling 85 percent since 2009 from more than $350/MWh to $55/MWh.

Wind And Solar Are Our Cheapest Electricity Sources — Now What Do We Do? – America’s Power Plan

What the fossil fuel companies do not want you to know. And the grid scale batteries that are now being manufactured and installed as we post will make both 24/7.

And wind and solar continue to decline in price. No new coal plants at all in the US, and declining numbers in China and India. With dirty plants being closed in China as fast as they can install the renewables.
 
Well.........I guess we'll come back in 5-10 years and see where we are at!!:thup: Of course Ray.....you'll be around for like 30 years yet but who knows about me?

But on the China coal plants........they are building them faster than Donald Trump can post a tweet............

From the Greenpeace website >>>

China currently has over 900,000MW of coal-fired capacity, the equivalent of about 1,300 large coal-fired units.

But, due to the country’s slowing power demand growth and rapid expansion of clean energy, demand for power generated from coal has been falling since 2013, rendering roughly 200,000-300,000MW of capacity redundant at 2015 demand levels.

Yet China has another 200,000MW of coal-fired capacity under construction, and a new Greenpeace analysis has identified a further 150,000MW of projects potentially able to enter construction — despite
recent suspensions. :ack-1::ack-1::ack-1::ack-1:





China keeps building coal plants despite new overcapacity policy - Energydesk
 
Last edited:
Science is open ended that is at the heart of why many find it difficult. That further study often conflicts with initial assumptions is the practice and the why of the scientific method. It works - how many today think smoking is good for you. I'm sure you had your polio vaccine. Look only at drugs and the complications they often cause when applied to a larger base of subjects. I don't buy the premise of that opinion piece, data can be reliable even when challenged by special interests. Anyone drink water from polluted streams or love industrial smog? Big money has made America a kind of cesspool of conflicting information, given enough money you could find a so called scientist who proves the earth is flat, but that proves nothing. Agnotology has infected the mind of many and they doubt anything that conflicts with their narrative be it religious or commercial. And please don't tell me the earth revolves around the sun. ;)

'Pew Research Center reports that only 6 percent of scientists identified as Republican and only 9 percent identified as conservatives.'

'Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming' Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway
'Agnotology, The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance' Agnotology: The Making and Unmaking of Ignorance | Edited by Robert N. Proctor and Londa Schiebinger
'The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark' Carl Sagan
'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds' by Charles MacKay

"This anti-vaxx movement has things that I love: star power, science denial, and hipster appeal. Cause Penny-farthings and handlebar mustaches are cool, but nothing is more vintage than dying of Rubella." Stephen Colbert
Too Funny;

You cite left wing oligarchs and their propaganda to prove your point. Papers which have been shown fraud and intentionally deceitful.

Judith Curry PhD just left Georgia Tech after making it an eminent science institution because the college is bowing to political demands and not following science..

“the deeper reasons have to do with my growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists… I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.”
How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide.”


Curry lays out the malfeasance and disregard for the search of the truth and now is no longer a part of the lie..

Dr. Judith Curry chooses integrity over the state of climate science
 
What "left wing oligarchs"? What studies? When and how were they shown to be fraud and deceit?

And where is Curry going? From what I read, she has abandoned her involvement in science.

And science is better for it.
 
Last edited:
What "left wing oligarchs"? What studies? When and how were they shown to be fraud and deceit?

And where is Curry going?

To a climate forecasting "business".

Not sure if it's real, though. They never say who their customers are, or show any examples of successful forecasts. It looks suspiciously like a front company, used to funnel oil company money to a few compliant scientists.
 
lol...........these people still are not getting the level of losing!!:deal:

Hey I remember back in the 70's, the "Moonies" truly believed the whole world was latching onto their fuckedupedness.:gay:
 
Reality check: Legates published in a peer reviewed journal and his work is 100% dogshit. The work your link (a James Taylor article in Forbes) examines is a vague discussion by Lefsrud and Myers - both well known oil industry hacks - of surveys restricting themselves to people working in the oil business. Neither Lefsrud not the surveyed group are climate scientists and all have a professional cause to oppose the work of the IPCC.

For a more objective examination, try these:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia
 

Forum List

Back
Top