Pay no attention to man made climate change folks

[flacaltenn]

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO - UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE

KEY POINTS

• “The climate is changing. Are we part of the reason? Yeah, it is,” says Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
• Veering off the Trump administration message, Perry adds, “I’ll let people debate on who’s the bigger problem here.”
• Perry says that it’s worth developing Zero-Emissions technology and that the Trump administration has made great strides. (abu afak: LOL on that last point. He's gone backwards)

[......]
`

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..

If you can not WITH CERTAINTY predict the temp anomaly in 2100 to better than a 16 to 1 range of values, you have NO reasonable science guidance to structure any kind of monumental interdiction plan.. If the radical adjunct theories of "runaway warming" or "temperature trigger points" are not settled science, than this whole freak show is built on propaganda and hysteria and playing on people's fears....

 

[flacaltenn]

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA

Thanks for the link.

It mentioned reporting, nothing about limits or penalties.

You have a better source to back your claim?

How cap and trade works

Cap and trade works well on REAL pollutants where the damage is easily quantified and costed.. And it can be applied on a smaller regional or continental scale.. But there IS no easy way to implement a GLOBAL cap and trade that assesses "damages' and cost equitably and with certainty for CO2...

 

[abu afak]

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..

If you can not WITH CERTAINTY predict the temp anomaly in 2100 to better than a 16 to 1 range of values, you have NO reasonable science guidance to structure any kind of monumental interdiction plan.. If the radical adjunct theories of "runaway warming" or "temperature trigger points" are not settled science, than this whole freak show is built on propaganda and hysteria and playing on people's fears....

Trump I guess is not important.
Alas he is.
He doesn't even believe GW, much less AGW, nor would he recognize those two abbreviations.
(see above)

And kindly remove all 3 Sabotaging TROLL 'replies' from the usual Pieces of shit who make up this Troll mb.
Namely from here
Humans Interbred with Four Extinct Hominin Species, Research Finds

`
`

 

[flacaltenn]

This is about the future and as such it is predictive

but your interested in me and now and what you predict

others disagree

Don't get that comment at all.. What am I predicting? All I'm doing is ACCEPTING the settled science, and rejecting the extreme marginal theories of how CO2 takes on SUPERPOWERS beyond it's basic physics and chemistry to destroy the planet...

THE FUTURE IS the most important part of this science.. There is NO DOUBT about that.. And NUMBERS matter....

 

[Kilroy2]

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change

Energy Secretary Rick Perry contradicts Trump, says humans do play a role in causing climate change
PUBLISHED 2 HOURS AGO - UPDATED 27 MIN AGO
Matthew J. Belvedere@MATT_BELVEDERE

KEY POINTS

• “The climate is changing. Are we part of the reason? Yeah, it is,” says Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
• Veering off the Trump administration message, Perry adds, “I’ll let people debate on who’s the bigger problem here.”
• Perry says that it’s worth developing Zero-Emissions technology and that the Trump administration has made great strides. (abu afak: LOL on that last point. He's gone backwards)

[......]
`

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..

If you can not WITH CERTAINTY predict the temp anomaly in 2100 to better than a 16 to 1 range of values, you have NO reasonable science guidance to structure any kind of monumental interdiction plan.. If the radical adjunct theories of "runaway warming" or "temperature trigger points" are not settled science, than this whole freak show is built on propaganda and hysteria and playing on people's fears....

I guess you are saying if they can't predict they should quit

That is not how it goes. The first car produce was really bad but today they have gotten better at making cars

Science is trial and error

you correct your errors

There is nothing to fear but fear itself

People need to know before they can make an informed decision.

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA

Thanks for the link.

It mentioned reporting, nothing about limits or penalties.

You have a better source to back your claim?

How cap and trade works

Cap and trade works well on REAL pollutants where the damage is easily quantified and costed.. And it can be applied on a smaller regional or continental scale.. But there IS no easy way to implement a GLOBAL cap and trade that assesses "damages' and cost equitably and with certainty for CO2...

Cap and trade is just a method to lead then to cleaner technology over a period of time

 

[flacaltenn]

Trump I guess is not important.
Alas he is.
He doesn't even believe GW, much less AGW, nor would he recognize those two abbreviations.
(see above)

NO Politician I know of has an even basic scholarship of this topic... THEY CERTAINLY do not matter.. And Trump isn't the ONLY one of them reacting to hype and exaggerations...

 

[flacaltenn]

I guess you are saying if they can't predict they should quit

Of course not.. I'm all for an ACTUAL understanding of how the Earth's climate system distributes and stores heat.. We DO NOT have that now.. Too much focus on CO2 to actually IMPROVE the basic models of the thermodynamics of this planet...

But things in that field have "calmed down".. The blustering and shrill pronouncements are rare nowadays.. And a LOT of great work is getting down with less shouting and playing to the media...

 

[Kilroy2]

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..

Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to save lives that is the motivation

 

[Wyatt earp]

She was using hyperbole for effect.

She was lying, to sway the uneducated.

She IS the "uneducated"... Degree from Boston U, not withstanding...
Has no concept of how anything works.. Not EVEN the economy or free markets or t

Instead of bring back coal, train the miners to build wind mills, or install solar panels. Something whereby they're not exposing themselves to black lung disease, and the nation to dangerous emisions.

Wind mills do NOT replace coal plants.. Have you ever LOOKED at the flaky performance of wind power on an hourly or daily basis.. You're believing in unicorns farting glitter....

Here's one of the world's best sited offshore plants... I'll explain the graph to you if don't get it.. If you DO get it, explain to me "what powers the grid" when the entire wind farm is generating near zero or BELOW 20% of it's expected output....

NEED AN ANSWER.....

Here's one from the entire Texas wind grid.. One color is Grid Demand, the other is what wind can provide.. Do you understand how BADLY wind performs?? It is NOT an alternative to anything.. It's merely a curious old tech supplement...

This is a photo taken near where I live. Windmills are everywhere.

Ontario - Canadian Wind Energy Association

Why are we hearing less and less about this marvelous energy source?

How many thousand endangered birds do they kill every year?

14,000 ABANDONED WIND TURBINES LITTER THE UNITED STATES
by The Elephant's Child
July 7, 2013, 7:19 am

The towering symbols of a fading religion, over 14,000 wind turbines, abandoned, rusting, slowly decaying. When it is time to clean up after a failed idea, no green environmentalists are to be found. Wind was free, natural, harnessing Earth’s bounty for the benefit of all mankind, sounded like a good idea. Wind turbines, like solar panels, break down. They produce less energy before they break down than the energy it took to make them. The wind does not blow all the time, or even most of the time. When it is not blowing, they require full-time backup from conventional power plants.

14,000 Abandoned Wind Turbines Litter the United States

###

Monday, March 19, 2012
Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii
By Selected News Articles @ 4:01 PM

Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain's 'wind rush'?
by Tom Leonard, UK Daily Mail March 18, 2012

Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii

A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.

Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it.

In other parts of the U.S., working wind turbines are killing hundreds of thousands of birds and bats each year, but here the wildlife can perch on the motionless steel blades

Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii > Hawaii Free Press

###

Those turbines have very short lives and require constant maintenance. You have 50 of them? You need more labor.. That's why leftists LOVE them.. They are inefficient use of labor.. And it's just not worth paying big bucks to fix the SMALLER older ones.. The new ones are HUGE and loud...

Just the sound wave from one of the large ones will burst a tiny creature like a bat's heart...

We have four hundred of them within 20 miles and no problem.

I hope you get reincarnated as a bird.


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..

Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to save lives that is the motivation

so tell us how we going to do it......... and what will the average temperature be?


14c.... 57f?



seems kind of cold



What is the Earth's Average Temperature? - Universe Today

The average surface temperature on Earth is approximately 14°C; but as already noted, this varies. For instance, the hottest temperature ever recorded on Earth was 70.7°C (159°F), which was taken in the Lut Desert of Iran. These measurements were part of a global temperature survey conducted by scientists at NASA’s Earth Observatory during the summers of 2003 to 2009. For five of the seven years surveyed (2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009) the Lut Desert was the hottest spot on Earth.

 

[Kilroy2]

I guess you are saying if they can't predict they should quit

Of course not.. I'm all for an ACTUAL understanding of how the Earth's climate system distributes and stores heat.. We DO NOT have that now.. Too much focus on CO2 to actually IMPROVE the basic models of the thermodynamics of this planet...

But things in that field have "calmed down".. The blustering and shrill pronouncements are rare nowadays.. And a LOT of great work is getting down with less shouting and playing to the media...

I think that they understand how the system distributes and stores heat.

Again it mans activities that contribute to unbalancing what is arguable a balancing act.

U seem to want to focus on temperature readings but they have been keeping somewhat accurate records since the late 1800's still that is a drop in the bucket 4 the planet Earth

The example of Katrina in Louisiana it shows that man though they could build levees to keep the water away forever. But in the end they couldn't. If someone told them that building those levees would cause a large amount of deaths and billions of dollars, they would have laughed

 

[flacaltenn]

Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to save lives that is the motivation

Why are you LEAPING to "all hands on deck" WITHOUT KNOWING the future magnitude of the problem? Think that's what leaders do???

It could be anywhere from 1 to 6DegC hotter in 2100.. The PLANNING for that range of contingencies is VASTLY different.. And it's REALLY NOT likely the West Antarctic Ice Shelf is gonna totally calve and cause MASSIVE sea level rise... (BTW -- IF it does, it's more likely to be because of the massive volcanic RIFTS recently found under the ice -- so all your CO2 abatement efforts won't STOP IT)....

The projections are GOING DOWN over the past 20 years -- NOT UP... NOBODY DIES if the marginal theories of accelerated warming and "tipping points" don't start showing any warning.. And RIGHT NOW -- there's really been NO "accelerations" of most anything in the past 30 years we've had satellites up to track all the parameters..



And in fact, we MAY be on the edge of major Solar minimum coming up.. The attention on THAT science news is somewhat eclipsing the newer GW papers at the moment....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

IIf you had been willing and able to answer my question (you never do) about what gas is the PRIMARY GHouse gas -- you'd have a chance to understand that Ghouse Gases are NOT SCIENTIFICALLY pollutants...

The MAJOR GHouse gas is simple water vapor.. Humidity and clouds. FAR outweighs the effects of CO2...

Water is NOT a pollutant and neither is CO2.. CO2 comes out of your mouth at concentrations 6 to 10 times HIGHER than the 415ppm in the atmosphere.. Is your BREATHE a toxic or dangerous pollutant in concentrations less than in your lungs??

Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case...

It's STILL not labeled as a pollutant when it's in a lab or on a truck for transport.. ONLY when it comes to misusing science to SKEW around with national energy policy.... Because a judge says so... It's laughable..

You changing the subject and trying to broaden it to other green house effects

misdirection is the rights way

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that
because that what I was talking about. When the it is associated with cars, plants and other things that humans do which involves burning fossil fuels it is a pollutant.

Stop acting dumb and changing the subject. If you have nothing then just say so.

Taking about other green house gases is irrelevant

Global warming caused by human is the topic

You want to talk about thinks that are know

So are you saying that carbon dioxide when caused by human activity when burning fossil fuel is not a pollutant


Yet you turn around and say "Only reason CO2 is now regulated is NOT science.. It's in SPITE of science and the definitions of toxic/dangerous pollutants.. It's because A JUDGE RULED it to be a pollutant because he was favorable to the govt case..."

well to bad because the EPA its a pollutant and yes the by definition it is regulated by the state who declares it a pollutant

if you do not agree then that is your right but arguing about it is irrelevant because it is not your decision

personally I am glad its is not your decision so if you want to be a denier go for it

Carbon dioxide is considered a pollutant and you do know that

Sounds serious!

Who regulates how much we can emit?
What is the penalty for going over that limit?

Link?

Learn About the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) | US EPA

Thanks for the link.

It mentioned reporting, nothing about limits or penalties.

You have a better source to back your claim?

How cap and trade works

The govenment uses a cap permit on greenhouse gas emissions that drive global warming and is a firm limit on pollution set by the government using a carrot and stick approach. A limit is set and don't ask me how it is set and as long as producers are below that limit they get credits and if they go over they are penalized or tax. So they can emit under whatever the cap is but over time the cap is reduced. The idea is to give them time to literally clean up their act. The cost of the caps increase and is another way to encourage them to use cleaner technologies.

Obama never got Cap and Trade passed.
So nothing about limits or penalties then.

Can't be much of a pollutant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The UN is the greatest supporter of global governance.

It was created by Jos. Stalin for exactly that purpose.

So U believe that the UN was created by Jos. Stalin

The UN was created by the Allies to fight the Axis governments during the war.

Enough said

Educating your brain-dead government school grads is a full time job.


The U.N. charter was authored by a communist, the first U.N. Secretary-general was a communist, and the U.N., from the beginning, was designed to be a Union of World Socialist Republics.


Stalin's spy, Alger Hiss was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done. He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later). At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one.


.... three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy and sent to prison. Only then did people understand why the emblem of the United Nations looked so much like the emblem of the Soviet Union.
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_to_know.htm




"A young American diplomat was the leading force in the designing of the United Nations. He was secretary of the Dumbarten Oaks Conversations from August to October of 1944 where most of the preliminary planning for the U.N. was done.

He was Roosevelt's right-hand man in February of 1945 at Yalta where the postwar boundaries of Europe were drawn (Roosevelt was a dying man at the time. His death came only ten weeks later).

At Yalta it was agreed that the Soviet Union would have three votes (one each for Russia, Ukraine, and Byelorussia) in the U.N. General Assembly, even though the United States had only one. At Yalta much of Europe was placed under the iron heel of communist rule. At Yalta, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin appointed this young diplomatic shining star to be the first Secretary-general of the U.N. for the founding conference held in San Francisco,April/June of 1945.

All of this seemed well and good until three years later. Alger Hiss was exposed as a communist spy...."
What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/un_doesnt_want_you_to_know.htm

Sanity for Superheroes: What The U.N. Doesn't Want You To Know




Declaration of war on the axis nations, Stalin's most bitter enemy,, was a requirement for entry to the UN.

1 January 1942 || The name "United Nations" is coined
The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries.
24 October 1945 || The United Nations officially comes into existence

a. " [Alger Hiss was appointed acting secretary-general of the U.N. founding conference and was involved in staffing the U.N. by selecting people for employment in the world body. “About fifty showed up as permanent employees and a couple of hundred in part-time assignments,” Shelton says of Hiss’s efforts."
“Alger Hiss Day” a Reminder of U.N.’s Anti-Americanism

2. And the reason for Stalin's ultimate victory?

Franklin Roosevelt, who played 'Robin' to Stalin's 'Batman.'
FDR knew of the Terror Famine, the genocide, the repression...designed and perpetrated by 'Uncle Joe,'...yet Roosevelt enveloped Joe Stalin in " the cloak of his popularity..." Time Magazine, December 17, 1934.

Look familiar, you dunce????

 

[Billy_Bob]

Do pay attention.. NO ONE important denies that "Humans play a role in causing climate change" -- not even me... But that is not even one of the most important questions to be asked and answered.. I've explained WHY in the past 10 pages or so..

Humanity role in climate change is the point and if things can be done to save lives that is the motivation

Mans impact is less than 2% of the total temperature rise and can not be discerned from noise in the climatic system. There is no emergency. NONE!

 

[Billy_Bob]

And in fact, we MAY be on the edge of major Solar minimum coming up.. The attention on THAT science news is somewhat eclipsing the newer GW papers at the moment....

Correct;

There are now two camps for all intents and purposes. Those of us who believe that the decrease in energy from the sun and the resulting changes in earths atmosphere will result in 1-2 deg C cooling in the next 60 years and those who believe that AGW will run away despite the energy loss from our sun.

With the ocean heat reserve depleted and the ocean currents going cold globally for about the next 30 years, I'm of the opinion that we are about to cool globally and there is nothing on earth that is going to stop it.

 

[flacaltenn]

I think that they understand how the system distributes and stores heat.

A

Surprisingly no... THey don't have accurate time varying models of how the currents in the atmos and the ocean move heat from equators to the poles and back.. The BASICS are there. But not comprehensive enough to narrow down the "residency times" of heat retained from forcings like the sun or GHouse gases...

And the modeling today lumps the ENTIRE PLANET into just ONE climate zone, when it's WIDELY known that there are MANY climate zones that respond to temperature forcing in enormously different ways..

Even other cyclic natural events like ocean and polar oscillations are not yet predictable or completely understood...

THIS --- is what SHOULD have been worked on for the past 30 years... But instead virtually all the "climate science funding was largely restricted to papers and projects to PROVE that CO2 is the major driver of GW...